Edward C (es)
I'm going to give Looper a four out of five. I think that Looper is a great piece of original material taking an old concept such as time-travel and making it something very dramatic again. When it gets to exciting sequences it can get slow but then start booming in a fast-paced motion which I really enjoyed when it was on. The camera shots in this film are great. He forms a friendship with the Looper Joe and believes he's there to protect him and his mother. Espically SID I really wanted to know more about him and maybe about his father. Another thing that was hard to get into was character, not that it lacked character development but the only that I could get into was Emily Blunt's character Sarah and her son SID(the future Rainmaker). But once it starts booming and the plot starts running it's course it becomes a fun and eventful film. Thank goodness because the pacing was kind of actually no not kind of but really freaking awful in the first 30 minutes. When I first saw the trailer in 2012 I thought looked good but I never saw it. ) He meets a woman named by Emily Blunt and from there things start to escalate. But once he meets his future self(played by Bruce Willis) he's told by Bruce Willis Looper that he's here to kill the rainmaker(the new crime boss from the future cutting off all Looper's. Where the Looper is sent their future self to kill. The actual film is about a Looper(men who are hired by future Mafia to kill men with a bag over their head)who gets the one thing all Looper's dread the Loop cut. But maybe someday someone make a film of what i'm talking about, where chicks loop their tounges. Anyway Looper sounds like a female lead film, now that I think about it, come on you know it does and it would be a comedy. , Cody Wood, Adam Boyer, Jeff Chase, Ritchie Montgomery, David Jensen, Kamden Beauchamp, Josh Perry, David Joseph Martinez, Wayne Dehart, Ian Patrick, Craig Johnson, Robert Harvey, and Sylvia JefferiesWritten&Directed By: Rian JohnsonReviewHUNTED BY YOUR FUTURE, HAUNTED BY YOUR PASTMan it's been a long time since I've seen a Bruce Willis action movie, I think. Looper(2012)Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt, Paul Dano, Noah Segan, Piper Perabo, Jeff Daniels, Pierce Gagnon, XU Qing, Tracie Thomas, Frank Brennan, Garret Dillahunt, Nick Gomez, Mark Hester, Jon Eyez, Kevin Sitwell, Thirl Haston, James Landry Hbert, Kenneth Brown Jr
Liam C (nl)
Blood Work', which is a great title as well, was a very enjoyable film. I'd say I agree with metacritic and IMDb because I did enjoy this film quite a bit and I seemed to have gone against what I usually do and not write a lot for an Eastwood film that he stars in, but it was going to happen at some point. 4 on imdb and it has 53% here and 40% for audience, even if sometimes that can be a terrible indication because 'Miami Vice', for example, was well received on metacritic and I really did not like that. 7 for audience as well as a 6. This film is also another example of how reviews can be different depending on where you go, at the moment it has 64/100 on metacritic and a 6. However, it is funny to read that they make reference to this film in future books. And when I read, before the film, that the main character's heart had something to do with catching a serial killer, I thought that this film would deal with the supernatural in one way. I have heard that the book was different though, which is strange when I have also read that the person behind it all was much different and even though I have heard the book does have some very 'out there' moments, it seems odd that they changed it. Clint Eastwood does typically great work in front of and behind the camera and it is just a very watchable film. Despite what I have said, I did enjoy this film quite a bit; it was smart, different, and interesting. . . There was also a rather odd romantic scene, while thankfully not on screen very long just because long sex scenes are boring in general, it was odd to see that character kiss McCaleb's scar. I also couldn't understand a few lines because the audio was strange, it focused on the dialogue in the background so we could pay attention to it but in turn making the dialogue we should have heard, too quiet. There was an odd bit where McCaleb pushes someone on the street because of who he thinks it is by his shoes and the proceeds to shoot a gun, it made sense for the plot but like I said with the shotgun thing before, despite what he is doing, surely he would have some repercussions for that. I also thought, from one piece of dialogue that the people in the footage getting shot in the shop were having an affair of some kind, but that goes on to be explained very well. Also, right after this scene they go and do something else entirely; wouldn't you put out an APB for a seriously damaged car? There was also a point where we see McCaleb writing numbers down in a notepad and I thought that was because the time on the video skipped, but it is brought back in, in a smart way. He should have hidden that gun and walked up on that car before doing anything, he'd have more of a chance of capturing that person, then. There also some other odd parts, despite the character's history, if someone saw him out in the open with a shotgun, surely he would be arrested right there and then? It isn't like he had a badge. Although, some could call that an excuse and I thought it was a phone number the very first time we see it. True, he had been out of the game for a long time but when a child points out the mystery behind the code, you do start to wonder; however, it is a very small detail that most adults would over look because of the fact that they would be looking really deeply into it to find some a huge hidden meaning. While I said earlier that the pace was good, after revealing whodunit, it does seem like some of the film was just stretched out to reach a passable running time because it is hard to believe someone of his stature couldn't figure everything out. At one point McCaleb says something about how the smallest detail can make a case all the more easier to solve and while that line is said casually in dialogue, it really does set up that moment where they solve the issue of the code number. When he mentions his name I did think it was 'noon' from how he said it, but of course it couldn't be, but at least he spells it out so McCaleb could get it right, even though he states he knows how to spell it. It also seemed kind of weird to have the person behind it all show that number of his before it was really needed. Never turn your back on a man with a gun and later on when he turns around and shoots that flag quickly because of his reaction, while he probably has those reflexes because of his line of work, best not to waste bullets, especially in the situation he was in. So, what? If McCaleb did not know what was going on would he go and free those other two? And if he did they would just tell McCaleb what was going on anyway. I also don't understand their way of thinking; they told McCaleb that two characters went home but soon after it is revealed that McCaleb knows what is going on so then the person behind it all reveals they actually kidnapped those two. Also, after that point, that character just becomes a crazy lunatic which doesn't make sense with the script, up until that point they had been hiding it perfectly and seemed like an ordinary person, so the moment they are revealed they just switch on the crazy? However, I've seen that done many times before and I guess when you don't have to hide it you would just be open about it, there is no reason not to. I saw that character with an earring at one point and while not the one that the supposed suspect is supposed to have; it flickered in the sunlight at one point and seemingly drew attention to itself, although I'm sure that was a coincidence. However, I guess I shouldn't really hold that against the film just because it clicked for me like that, although, I have heard that it was very obvious anyway, so maybe that is a problem in general. I don't sit around predicting films because what would be the point of that? However, sometimes things just click when you watch a film and this was one of those times; I don't know, there was just something about the way they were introduced that really spelled it out to me. Also, we see McCaleb ignore the drink his friend got and then later on that friend would drink a beer whilst babysitting? The only thing I didn't really like was the reveal of whodunit and the reason for that is because I knew the second that character came on screen that they did it. The film also has a couple of great one liners in there as well, of course here's one before the big bad is killed but one of which had McCaleb being called a cowboy, which caused a smile. I also found that the film had its funny moments, mostly thanks to Paul Rodriguez, who reminded of me Vince Vaughn for some reason; I found the amount of attention given to the doughnuts to be oddly humours, while Arrango says they don't need them and yet eats them anyway. I feel like they only cast Angelica Hudson because she was a big name in a relatively small role to make it seem less odd to the other big actor in a small role that eventually goes on to be the one behind it all. The cast was well chosen and very good but I did notice how big actors were chosen for the smaller roles and given where the plot goes, it makes sense. The pace was fast and I was very interested in what happened, mostly because of the three stories being told at once and the attention to detail our characters get, the family that requested the help in particular are good, especially Raymond. I also noticed how the camera seemed to zoom in on McCaleb's face when he first appears, which seemed funny. I thought the film was well told and very intriguing, the film had a very good introduction with good music and, like I have noticed in other films directed by Eastwood, starring him, they seem to circle back on themselves with how they start and end, with the opening and closing shots, also with the same music. However, it is in their as a red herring and perhaps that character was blackmailed by the actual person behind it all. I thought they would say no to that worker being there but he was, however, I feel like that supposed suspect at the factory was odd, would an innocent person really attack McCaleb, force his way to see his badge, break a window and run off? Perhaps I missed something but it also felt like that character was pointless after they exited the film, in a way that really wouldn't make much sense for them to run away if they were innocent either. There were a few things that seemed a little odd, like, it did seem kind of odd for someone to just grab McCaleb at the ATM, would someone really do that? But they even make that fit into the plot. Even if McCaleb had caught up with that person at the start we wouldn't have a story. There were a few things in the plot that happened that I felt to be really coincidental, like, the fact that the specific heart that McCaleb needed just so happened to be available when he needed it, or the fact that a criminal would wait around and watch from a car or on foot as investigators look at their crime, and while that is a clich of many cop-based stories, this film actually explains those and makes it fit into its plot in a realistic way. This film gave our main character a real reason to care and actually want to go back and solve this case, the person behind it all was unique also because of his reasoning behind what he did and overall I really did appreciate the amount of creativity that was put into this film, regardless of what reviews say. One of the things that makes this quite unlike the rest is that our main character is actually given a real reason to go back into the line of duty as opposed to just being goaded back in because he's, 'one of the best'