Category Archives: Emily Blunt

Movie Review: Looper

Director Rian Johnson is exactly what movies need. Perhaps the best way to break Hollywood out of cliche land is to play into the most typical of genre conventions and then turn them completely on their heads.

“Looper” must be the work of someone who doesn’t finish until every little detail is drawn out, and every possible subplot comes full circle. There’s a lot to get through and a lot to sort out, but the fact that the ending pulls it off in an unpredictable way makes it work all the better.


“Looper” might be the first rurban (rural and urban) futuristic dystopia I’ve seen on film. It is not set in New York, Los Angeles, or Washington, but rather an unnamed metropolis and its outskirts in Kansas. It also occupies many different times in the future. Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a Looper. In the future, time travel is discovered and very illegal. The mob sends people from the future into the past and it is the job of the Looper to kill them and dispose of the body. Basically, the Looper stands in the field and waits for the body to be zapped to them.

However, there’s a twist to being a Looper: your job doesn’t last long. Because of how illegal time travel is in the future, a Looper must kill their own future self at some point. After doing this, they get a big payday and get to live happily off of it for 30 years until they are kidnapped and brought back into the past. This process is called “closing the loop.” I’m always a sucker for creative wordplay.

I like films which hinge their character’s personalities on their careers, and only a certain kind of person is fit to be a Looper. A Looper must act on the fly, never hesitate, and be prepared to die. You can see this in how Joe shoots every person that is zapped to him without even thinking. However, when his future self (Bruce Willis) is zapped to him, he hesitates. It doesn’t feel like one of those inexplicable movie moments when you wonder “why would he hesitate now?”. On the contrary, it feels very human, as if no one can know what death is like until they actually face it.

Yet, despite an expiration date, Loopers never lose their free will. One Looper (Paul Dano) lets his older self go. Meanwhile, young Joe has no control over the reckless and unruly older Joe; his future self escapes into Young Joe’s present.

While hunting down future Joe and attempting to close his own loop, many other loops are opened, and historical events are altered. “Looper” establishes from the very beginning that time travel is possible and because of that, it never tries to explain it. A story that tries to explain time travel can have difficulty working. Time travel involves many disciplines (philosophy, physics, etc.) that I have only limited knowledge of. Watching a film explain it is like being in a complicated lecture with a professor who won’t explain his notes. “Looper” is not about how time travel came about, but rather what potential consequences it can have.

Keep that in mind when you see “Looper.” Some of the time-altering sequences threw me off guard at first, but just keep in mind that the most accomplished part of the film is that it assumes that the audience is smart enough to at least try and figure it out on its own.

Now that you know that there’s more to “Looper” than untangling mysteries, you can appreciate the immense detail put into this world. I believe this is in part what will make it so memorable. Even the guns that the Loopers use (blunderbusses) are instrumental to the story. In this future, China is the new world leader. This splicing in of timeliness made some people in the audience chuckle, but it made me think of “Blade Runner” creating a future that was heavily influenced by Japan, which was world leader at the time. Like “Blade Runner,” “Looper” can be seen as a reflection not just of how we feel the future will be, but how we feel the present is.

Of course, much has been said about Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s physical transformation into a younger Bruce Willis. This is a great feat for the makeup department. However, Gordon-Levitt pulls it off by actually morphing himself into Willis. Apparently, he only watched recent movies that Willis starred in to prepare for the role. That way, he could understand what Willis would become, as opposed to only who he used to be.

It is kind of an amazing to see two actors play the exact same person sitting in a room together. Watching old and young Joe trying to piece memories together past and present over steak and eggs in a diner is hands-down one of my favorite scenes of any film this year. It is so well directed and written that it ends up being intriguing and even funny all at once.

Then, Johnson makes an unusual choice for a film like this. Instead of speeding it up and constantly raising the stakes and the action, he slows it down. Joe still needs to clear his name. He seeks the notorious gangster and boss of all Loopers, who is named The Rainmaker, as a young boy, and attempts to kill him. Joe leaves the city and heads out to the country, where he finds the young boy living on a farm with his very protective mother (a nearly unrecognizable Emily Blunt). This section of the film might not be the most breathlessly exciting, but it is where it gains its emotional weight. At its heart, “Looper” is the story of what kind of person it takes to make the world a better place.

Rian Johnson seems like one of those filmmakers who is so well versed in cinema. At times, the characters of “Looper” communicate as if they are in a film noir, a convention Johnson also used in “Brick.” Then, it even becomes supernatural (in a way that I will not spoil). The violence in it is not glorified, but it is certainly stylized. Part of the sick, twisted fun of being a filmmaker is discovering all of the different angles you can use to show someone getting shot in the chest.

The most gloriously cinematic part of “Looper” is that pretty much everything that is brought into play at one part of the story is brought back again later on. “Looper” is a meta story because just as Joe must close his own loop, the film must payoff all of its plants and in effect, close its own loops. “Looper” takes place in the year 2044 and shows a world of hovering cars, nearly microscopic cell phones, and drugs in the form of eye drops. “Looper” is not suggesting that time travel will necessarily be discovered by the year 2044, but what it does suggest is that greed and selfishness can lead to an endless cycle of misery. And eyedrops aren’t enough to cure it.

Time Travel Confusion Scale: More than “Back to the Future,” but less than “Lost”

Also, forgot to mention this in my review: Jeff Daniels gives a fantastic performance as the surprisingly zen crime boss. He is currently having the career comeback that I never knew he deserved. 

Movie Review: Your Sister’s Sister

“Your Sister’s Sister” opens with an unusual eulogy. Jack’s (Mark Duplass) brother Tom died one year earlier, and friends and family gather to honor him. But Jack isn’t satisfied with all of the kind words, as Tom was a jerk who acted kind to get ahead. And for that, Jack respects him. This is mainly what “Your Sister’s Sister” is: a lot of people talking about what they think is wrong about conventional wisdom. And if you can tell from this first scene that you won’t like this, then you can get out.

In “Your Sister’s Sister,” the characters talk. And they talk. And then they talk some more. It is the very definition of Mumblecore. However, Mumblecore is a terrible name. The characters aren’t mumbling and bumbling about nothing, they are actually having deeply thought out, entirely realistic conversations.

Duplass, in his second great performance of the summer (the other being “Safety Not Guaranteed,” also set in the Evergreen State), plays lovable jerk Jack. As goes the indie movie formula (in which all characters in any film are in some kind of rut), Jack is in a rut. He’s mentally unstable and not financially secure. Understanding his unease, his platonic best friend, Iris (Emily Blunt), suggests he ride his red bike out to her parents’ isolated vacation house and do some soul searching. But alone time isn’t going to work for him. When he shows up, Iris’s sister, Hannah (Rosemarie DeWitt) is already there. Naturally, Jack is a little too awkward to just ring the doorbell, and naturally Hannah is going to freak out about a random stranger looking at her through the window.

According to common film knowledge, no platonic friendship between a man and a woman can exist without a little sexual tension. But we’ll get to that after Jack and Hannah drown their sorrows in a bottle of tequila. Hannah is a lesbian and just went through a bad breakup, but that doesn’t stop her from sleeping with Jack.

Things get awkward when Iris shows up for a surprise visit.

While watching “Your Sister’s Sister,” I wasn’t always sure if I was actually watching a film; more often, it felt like a play. Other times, it just felt like snippets of real life. Besides the opening and a few scenes in the woods, the whole story essentially takes place in one location. There couldn’t have been a more intimate, and often uncomfortable, way to get to know these characters. In such a short span of time, we learn more than we probably have any right to know. We learn about all of their insecurities, including Iris’s weakness for guys with skinny jeans, as well as her love for Jack. But if you were looking for something worse than that, Hannah is a vegan. As the film will show, anyone who is on a strict diet of dried up bananas needs to eat a dollop of butter every once in a while.

“Your Sister’s Sister” director Lynn Shelton that also scripted the film, though the dialogue was mostly improvised. Shelton’s last film was the Sundance hit “Humpday.” That was another film about a platonic friendship gone too far. Shelton’s films stand out because she takes odd relationships and makes them normal. She lets the characters be honest and be themselves, and she does that by staying as far away from them as possible. “Your Sister’s Sister” is 90 minutes of conversation, and it ends up being profound because it is so realistic. It never sounds like a bunch of actors reading off lines from a script, but rather like friends and family who have known each other far longer than we have known them.

At times, Shelton takes on qualities of Woody Allen. There are many still, long takes, which last minutes at a time. If something is going well, then it will not be disturbed. Part of the watchability is also in part to the chemistry between the actors. Blunt is allowed to shine here and show subtle humor and a kindness in her demeanor even when some of her actions may seem selfish. DeWitt and Duplass (who I sometimes like more as an actor than a director) hit it off instantaneously because they both seem open and willing to do anything in their work. Each character has some sort of secret shared with another character, and all three of them serve as puzzle pieces in a web of unexposed truths. Even with all of the talking, “Your Sister’s Sister” is actually about something.

“Your Sister’s Sister” is a funny film because Lynn Shelton is an effortlessly funny storyteller. However, she is never trying to be. The humor comes out at very small, very brief moments, and it all depends on how you can relate to it. In a scene in which Jack and Iris sleep in the same bed, they find each other waking up to the other’s feet in their face. I personally happen to find this idea very funny, and the fact that they eventually laugh it off and shrug it off is so perfectly in character for the two of them.

I will not give anything away, because I very much hope you go to see this film, but all I will say is that it ends on a note that will intrigue some and anger many others. At first, I felt unsatisfied. But then, I realized it had to end that way. There is no way this story could end with any audience member feeling totally satisfied by knowing everything. In an interview, Duplass, describing his approach to filmmaking, described his love of documentaries and that they often capture the best moments unintentionally and with the worst quality. He says he applies that to narrative films and in a way, Lynn Shelton puts that ideology to good use. In one way, the entire film is saying that there are certain details in life that are better left unknown. Therefore, the viewer too can remain partially in the dark.

Even though the characters talk so much, they come to realize that there is still so much unsaid. As one of the more inventive love triangles I have seen, I could listen to the characters of “Your Sister’s Sister” talk all day.

Don’t trust this poster, which makes it look like a bland Lifetime movie.