Loopers, a Movie Review by Michael L. Johnson

-->

Official Site

http://www.loopermovie.com/

Loopers, a Movie Review by Michael L. Johnson

Okay, this week, I needed a change, a switch. Getting out of my normal movie going neighborhood was the goal. Annapolis ended up being the destination and a theater called “Bow Tie Cinemas” was the desination. I have to say that this theater is pricier than most of my normal cinematic haunts (primarily the Regal theater in Silver Spring), but it is nice. No complaints. You pay for what you get. The film that caught my dollar bills this was director Rian Johnson's Loopers.

The synopsis of the movie is this: In the not too distant future, time travel will be invented, but it will be illegal and only available on the black market. When the mob wants to get rid of someone, they will send their target 30 years into the past, where a "looper" (professional killer) who works for the mob is waiting to kill them. And in the future, all of this time travel related killing works well except when assassins do not kill their future selves (which is called "closing the loop"). Confused? You should be.

The Good: Loopers is very entertaining. The cast (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Emily Blunt, Bruce Willis, Piper Perabo, Jeff Daniels) is strong. In particular, the bookending of Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon-Levett as older/younger versions of the same person/protagonist (“Joe”) is appealing—weird, but appealing. Rian Johnson does a wonderful job of making us like both Joe's and respect the motivations of both characters (or it would be better to say both versions of the same character). The opposing agendas of the duel-protagonist create an interesting set of ethical quandaries. It is billed as a futuristic action thriller, and I must say, it doesn't disappoint on that front. Loopers has some great special effects and engaging action, as the protagonist passionately chases “himself” down throughout the film for elimination, so as not to incur the wrath of his bosses. Also, without a doubt, the end of the film is unexpected and fresh.

The Bad: In sections, it seems violent, simply for the sake of violence. Also, the logic of the film with regard to time travel, and the space time continuum, makes no sense. Admittedly, I am not an expert in this area. Everything I know about time travel in movies pretty much comes from the movies. I dare say that most of what most people know about time travel in movies follows this same knowledge example. We may not know quantum physics, but we know the Star Trek “Prime Directive.” And that Prime Directive, as it pertained to James T. Kirk, and his associates, was not to screw up the past when they visited it. Of course, the reason that such a directive is important is that if you mess up the past, it messes up the future in galaxy-sized ways. Loopers messes with the past and the future in galaxy-sized ways. Gene Roddenberry is spinning in his grave.

In a recent interview, Rian Johnson, stated that he chose not to educate his audience about the particulars and the technical details involved with time travel in this film. He chose, instead, to rely on any existing knowledge gleaned by his audience from viewing a number of prior film and television offerings with time travel as their themes (Star Trek, Back to the Future, Time Cop, etc.). Given that, it should be no surprise to viewers that they might be confused by Loopers’ apparent disregard of the time space continuum, placing future and present versions of the same individuals side by side in the same plane.  Shouldn’t physical contact of present and future versions of the same character cause some kind of cosmic disturbance, some kind of sonic boom or something?

Another aspect of the film that seemed a bit odd is that, although this story is set in the year 2044, and time travel has been invented, gun technology has not advanced a lot. Even more curious is the fact that the protagonist tooled around in a Mazda Miata. It will take more than the passage of 30, or even 130 years, to make a Mazda Miata cool. Trust me on that.

The Most Important Question: Is it a good movie?

Yes. I won't be coy. It's not great, but the surprises at the end of the film make it worth the watch—at a matinée. On a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 is best, this picture is a 3. I would have given it a 3.5, but there was that Mazda Miata thing.

--MLJ

Winning Matters, a Third Presidential Debate Review by Michael L. Johnson

Winning Matters, a Third Presidential Debate Review

by Michael L. Johnson

The series of presidential debates that just ended were each like rounds in a title fight. In the final installment of that political prize fight for the most powerful job in the world, President Obama won handily against challenger, Governor Mitt Romney. His strategy was clear: attack. That battle plan served him well in the second debate, and it served him even better in the third. President Obama scored decisively when he talked about Romney's foreign policy flip flops. He also performed well when he pointed out that Romney had simply been copying his positions, and posturing as if they were his own. Romney looked stunned most of the night, though he tried to cover it with smiles. That is kind of like what fighters do when they know they have been hit with a good punch. To the extent to which Governor Romney was able to push the flow of the debate in the direction of domestic issues, he was effective. I'll give him that. However, those instances were few.

It is interesting to note that some people are saying that President Obama's victory doesn't matter in the long run of the presidential battle. I doubt if they'd be saying that if Romney had won this last debate.  One headline I saw in Yahoo News proclaimed, “Obama Wins Third Debate but Romney Wins Debate Season.”1 Another headline, from an article by Brett O' Donnell, stated that “...Obama Wins Third Debate, but Romney Wins Debate War.”2 With all due respect to those honorable folks, that's bullshit. You don't win a heavy weight title fight if you lose most of the rounds—political or otherwise. In terms of the debate: Romney lost, President Obama won, America loves a winner.  Roll credits.

The Good (President Obama): He was poised and confident as he attacked Romney on his political position shifts. His illustrations of his successes in office were triumphs. Again, Obama thinks well on his feet and he certainly appeared the most presidential of the two opponents (perhaps because he is).
The Bad: He was, arguably, a bit patronizing to Romney.

The Good (Governor Romney): He wore a nice tie and can memorize talking points.
The Bad: He stumbled, and was awkward in his rhetorical assaults. He was much too subdued in his attacks on President Obama to be effective. He also agreed with President Obama to such an extent that it made you wonder why he was challenging him.

The Rating (1 to 5 where 5 is best):
President Obama: 4
Governor Romney: 1.5

--MLJ

The Rope-a-dope of Romney, a Second Presidential Debate Review by Michael L. Johnson

The Rope-a-dope of Romney, a Second Presidential Debate Review
by Michael L. Johnson

For those who may not know, to “Rope-a-dope” someone means “to take everything your opponent can throw and then send them canvas diving.” The term was inspired by the outstanding fighting strategy Muhammad Ali used against the then world heavyweight champion, George Foreman. President Obama's performance in last night's debate was almost the political equivalent of a Ali coming off the ropes and winning against the great George Foreman, back in the day. It was just that good.

Although Governor Romney is not as strong politically as Foreman was as a pugilist, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt as a giant-like challenger, given his performance in the first debate (and also given the racism that supports him in his corner). One thing I am sure of is that last night's debate felt a hell of a lot like a professional prize fight. Honestly, at times, I thought the two political adversaries were going to come to blows. Fortunately, that didn't happen (even though that would have made for some damn good television).

Early on, what was clear in this second debate was that President Obama came to fight, and fight he did. He looked ready from the opening bell of questions. In this second meeting, Romney didn't have a chance. In my review of the first debate, I made the point that “performance” matters, more than facts do, in presidential debates. I maintain my position, but I must add a qualifier: if knowledge of facts is a part of the performance, then facts do matter. To say that Romney's performance with regard to knowledge of facts was weak would be an understatement. At one point in the debate, the moderator, CNN's Candy Crowley, had to correct Governor Romney over facts he got wrong related to the Libya embassy attacks. He got caught, very publicly, in a lie (or at the very least, in an embarrassing ignorance). That's kind of like a referee in a prize fight giving a warning for a low blow.

In this second debate, President Obama needed no such warnings in the context of his political boxing. He came out swinging and swinging on target. Success and failure in presidential debates always comes down to who looks more “presidential.” Obama won handily in this department. In fact, in response to a question about who should or shouldn't be blamed for possible security issues related to the terrorist attacks in Libya, he actually said the words, “I am the president...they [Hillary Clinton and others in charge of U.S. International security] work for me!” He stood up, showed backbone and took responsibility for any security problems that may exist (vowing to rectify them). That's what men do. They stand up and battle back when challenged. You can't get much more emphatically presidential than that. It seemed like Romney took a few steps back from Obama after he made that passionate declaration, almost like he got hit. Simply put, President Obama tore Governor Romney a new asshole in the second debate. That said, President Obama needs to keep on swinging his intellectual combinations. The fight for the presidency is far from over.

The good (President Obama): He stood up, went toe to toe with facts, exuded strength, and looked like what you would expect of the leader of the free world. He thinks well on his feet.
The Bad: He went a too long on several questions, which made it appear as if the rules of the debate did not matter.

The good (Governor Romney): He made it a good fight.
The Bad: He was still lying his ass off, and he went woefully off-track on several questions (the stuff that SNL parodies are made for). His gaffes on foreign policy issues could not be hidden. He also went too long on several questions.

The Rating (1 to 5 where 5 is best):

President Obama: 4
Governor Romney: 2

--MLJ

Won't Back Down, a Review by Michael L. Johnson

Won't Back Down

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1870529/


It was good to get into a movie theater today. Been a while. What can I tell you? Life is real.  Anyway, it was raining freight trains when I ducked into he Regal Majestic 20 in silver Spring this afternoon to catch the latest Daniel Barnz movie, Won't Back Down. I like this theater because it has stadium seating, decent hot dogs and decent chips. I also liked that I was totally alone when I saw this film. Viola Davis (The Help, Antwone Fisher) drew me into big screen seats this week. Nobody cries like Viola Davis.

The Good: The casting and the acting was excellent. There is a deep bench of acting talent in this film. Viola Davis and Maggie Gyllenhaal (who play the main crusading characters, Jamie Gallagher and Nona Alberts), are compelling. Davis, in particular has an on screen intensity that shines in any role she plays. The supporting cast is also excellent: Rosie Perez and Bill Nunn (Do the Right Thing), Oscar Isaac, Holly Hunter, Ving Rhames, Lance Reddick and Kevin Jiggetts (The Wire), Emily Alyn Lind and Dante Brown, just to name a few. If this film has any dynamism, blame it on gifts of all of those folks.  Won't Back Down is directed by Daniel Barnz and co-writen by Barnz and Brin Hill. In this story, two strong mothers, one a teacher, one a parent work together to right the wrongs of their children's failing Pittsburgh city school. The revelation that inner city schools in America are, almost entirely, awful is a fact I am happy to see made plain on the big screen. Also, the desperation that many poof folks feel in dealing with that fact is captured fairly well in this movie.

The Bad: For a “feel good” movie, it takes a long a long time to make you feel good. It's very slow. Also, the title of the movie, Won't Back Down, sucks. It sounds like the title of an old Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, or Sylvester Stallone movie where everybody has shotguns. What sucks more is all that the filmmakers got wrong about the demographics of the struggling inner city school depicted in the movie. I couldn't help but wonder where all of the white kids came from.

The schools that are in the worst shape in our country are mostly black schools, especially in our urban areas. And the issues that give those schools, and black children, the most difficulty have to do with racism and poverty. That is as much true in Pittsburgh as it is in Washington, D.C., or Chicago. Won't Back Down backs away from saying this. Although the movie says that it is “Based on Actual Events” (which means “pretty lie” in film-speak), those actual events seem like they have been doctored up a whole hell of a lot for the sake of political correctness (or the political agenda of the filmmaker). The school depicted in the movie is a United Nations of young folks, diversified to the extreme. I say again, most of the schools that are failing in Pittsburgh are predominantly African-American in their make-up.

There is also a lot of union bashing in this movie. The “good” parents and teachers--those who really have the best interest of the kids at heart:  Gyllenhaal as Jamie Gallagher and Davis as Nona Alberts, are presented as almost saintly protagonists. The Pittsburgh Teacher's Union, in turn, is cast as the heartless, money grubbing, low school performance enabler. To say that such a depiction of reality is stupid would be an insult to stupid people. For example, the teacher's strike in Chicago just recently and if it wasn't for the CTU raising their voices, many folks all over the world would not have known about the ills (mostly black and brown and poor) children face in the Windy City. Thank God for teachers unions, wherever they may be. When you talk about the poor performance of schools in big cities in America and you don't talk about how race and class issues factor in to that discussion, you haven't said much. In this way, Won't Back Down doesn't say much (other than sentimentality, predictability, cliché'). You know that the characters played by Gyllenhaal and Davis are going to succeed from the beginning of the film. No surprises to speak of.

Lastly, for just once, I would like to see a movie where poor black and struggling black people save themselves, without the aid of a great white hero (or heroine) to get the job done. While I know that all people of all colors help all people of all colors, Hollywood is wearing blinders.

The most important question: Is it a Good Movie:

It was the type of movie I should have waited to see on television and saved my 11 dollars. In light of all that has happened in Chicago this year with teachers passionately fighting to help students, I had hoped for a better film. Won't Back Down is a disappointment on that tip, despite its very talented cast. On a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 is king, this picture is a 1.5, and I'm being generous.

--MLJ

The First Presidential Debate, a Review by Michael L. Johnson

The First Presidential Debate, a Review by Michael L. Johnson

I don't know what I was looking for in this first Presidential debate. Maybe I was looking to see President Obama rip Mitt Romney a new asshole, but that wasn't what I saw last night. Governor Romney, who was once unpopular with Republican voters, because he is a Mormon, attacked and attacked Obama and came off sounding truly Presidential. Obama tried to make a couple of points, but with his record on the table (the good and the bad), he had no place to hide.  Romney’s advantage is that he hasn't done anything (at least on a presidential scale).  He can hide behind promises.

Romney talked about jobs, the economy and how he would turn this country around.  I think that it's funny, because when the country was last in Republican control, America was in economic turmoil. Does anybody remember the two wars Republicans got us in, Wall Street payouts, and the auto industry meltdown? Does anybody remember a little follow name Bush, “George W.,” along with his henchmen, who were in charge of the country for eight long years? I wonder where he’s holding up.  Is the Republican Party hiding him like he's Jesse James? Bush started a war looking for Osama Bin Laden and ended up in Afghanistan and also ended up blowing up Iraq. That investment of resources put America on the brink of economic disaster. I remember.

Last night, President Obama tried to talk about health care and other programs to help the economy, but he wasn’t effective. Romney’s response was always, “look at your record.”  Again, Obama was simply not successful. At times, it seemed like his mind was someplace else. What also seemed clear is that he needs to be reminded that facts do not matter in a presidential debate.  What matters is the performance.

The good (President Obama): He has other chances to debate.

The Bad: He seemed preoccupied, perhaps surprised by Romney’s attacks and not as sharp as he usually is.  

The good (Governor Romney): He looked presidential.

The Bad: He was lying his ass off.

The Rating (1 to 5 where 5 is best):

President Obama: 2

Governor Romney: 4

--MLJ