Posts Tagged ‘joseph gordon-levitt


Clueless British Commentary For Baseball

Red SoxSo yeah, as you may have noticed, I decided to take a long weekend break on the site as well as a long weekend break in real life, so there’s been a distinct lack of Tigery goodness in our lives.

Good news is I’m back with more internet inanity, starting with this pretty damn hilarious video of a major league baseball game being commentated by a British chap.

Then, as we progress through the week I’m thinking of dropping a sick iPad game review into the mix, a review of a Scottish band I got the scoop on and who knows? Maybe even a Friday playlist when we get there.



Joseph Gordon-Levitt all the way!

Happy Tuesday boys and girls Winking smile



Movie Review: Looper

looper“Oh dear,” said J-Rab as she read the title of this blog post.

“Oh dear,” I agreed because that’s really the best way to sum up how we both felt after watching writer / director Rian Johnson’s third movie, the terminally flawed, futuristic sci-fi romp Looper.

Which is sad because I really, really wanted to love this movie.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt (the film’s protagonist, Joe) is fast becoming one of my favourite actors and even though Bruce Willis (future-Joe) can only play three different characters, he plays those characters so fucking well that I’ll pretty much watch anything he’s in.

I was also intrigued by Rian Johnson’s indie debut, Brick, which was one of the films that first put Gordon-Levitt on the map as a serious actor.



Throw in a plotline that involves criminal organisations who send the people they want killed back in time to be taken out by specialised assassins called “Loopers” and you’ve got a sure-fire winner right?

Kind of…

My main issue with Looper is that when the plotline is held up to any kind of scrutiny it collapses in on itself so spectacularly that basically nothing in the movie makes any sense whatsoever.



Simply put, time travel movies either subscribe to the premise that their are a multitude of futures that can exist parallel to one another or there is a singular timeline where actions in the past directly influence actions in the future.

The problem at the core of Looper is that it would have you believe in the singular timeline theory, which makes the whole movie a giant paradox.

Simply put, [MASSIVE SPOILER ALERT AHEAD, SKIP THIS PARAGRAPH IF YOU HAVEN’T SEEN THE MOVIE AND STILL WANT TO] the premise of the film is that Bruce Willis (old Joe) ironically “creates” the Rainmaker when he goes into the past to find and kill him. This of course makes no sense whatsoever because in old Joe’s original timeline he closes his own loop, so who created the Rainmaker?



But gigantic plot flaws and glaring paradoxes are pretty much par for the course when it comes to time travel movies so putting those aside, how does the movie hold up otherwise?

To be fair, Gordon-Levitt does an admirable job of portraying a younger Bruce Willis and there are times when his Bruce-Willisness is so spot on it’s scary.

BUT, I found the prosthetics they put on his face to make him look more Bruce-Willisish as clumsy and distracting as the very term “Bruce-Willisish”.

At best, he looks like the love-child of the two actors. At worst, he looks like a ventriloquist doll I see in nightmares sometimes.



As for the man himself, it’s hard to tell if he’s acting or just being Bruce Willis. Either way, his performance was pretty standard Willis fare – nothing we haven’t seen before or won’t see again.

The film’s third act, most of which takes place on an old farm house owned by Sara Rollins (Emily Blunt) where she lives with her five year old son Cid (Pierce Gagnon) was by far the best part of the film for me and the surprise performances by Blunt and especially Gagnon were one of this film’s saving graces.



Maybe you will be able to overlook the gigantic paradoxes, multitude of plot holes, Gordon-Levitt’s creepy make-up and the flaccid, goofball performances of Jeff Daniels (Joe’s boss), Paul Dano (Joe’s irritating-as-fuck friend) and Noah Segan (Joe’s comically incompetent arch-nemesis), in which case you’ll probably enjoy the film, but yeah.

That’s a lot of maybes.

Final Verdict: 6/10



Movie Review: The Dark Knight Rises

the-dark-knight-rises-new-featuretteJ-Rab and I hit up the Dark Knight Rises premier last night courtesy of Nokia, who used the opportunity to officially launch the Lumia 900, and wow, what a brilliant movie.

Because I realise most of you haven’t seen it yet, I’m going to try and keep this as vague as possible in terms of the actual plot.

Co-writer and director Christopher Nolan is nothing if not a master of genius plot twists and the last thing I want to do is give his art away so don’t worry, this review is spoiler-alert free.

For starters, and I think this goes without saying, don’t go into The Dark Knight Rises expecting a movie that is anything like its predecessor.

Co-writer / director Christopher Nolan has wisely chosen a totally new direction for DKR that explores a fresh side of the Batman legend and makes it impossible to say DKR is better or worse than The Dark Knight.



DKR takes place eight years after The Dark Knight during which time Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) has successfully managed to clean up Gotham’s streets by passing an act in commemoration of Harvey Dent that puts an end to organised crime in the city.

Eccentric billionaire Bruce Wayne has all but disappeared off the face of the earth, as has the Batman who, having taken the fall for Harvey Dent’s murder, is widely regarded by Gotham as a monster that the city is better off without.

Enter ruthless mercenary Bane (Tom Hardy), who amasses an army of equally ruthless and unquestioningly loyal soldiers and followers in the sewers of Gotham City.

With the help of Selina Kyle, aka Catwoman (Anne Hathaway), Bane begins systematically dismantling the structures of power that run Gotham City and the ensuing chaos makes The Joker’s efforts to destabilise Gotham look like a child’s attempt to sculpt Michelangelo’s David with edible play dough.



Much like Batman Begins, Christian Bale is in the driving seat once again this time around because where the late Heath Ledger’s Joker was psychotic, unstable and loveable, Bane is methodical, stone-faced and detestable, so there’s no one to steal Bale’s thunder.

His portrayal of Batman is like nothing seen in the previous films and he brings a vulnerability to the character that emphasises the fact that under the suit is just a man, like any other, and that all that sets him apart from the rest of us is his unfailing belief in an ideal for which he is willing to fight to the death for.

Nolan is, as always, masterful in his careful construction of his plot and characters. It’s like watching someone set up an entire football stadium of dominos, each one perfectly placed so that at the right time, all he has to do is nudge one of them ever so slightly and the entire lot come crashing down in a breath-taking moment of utter chaos.



The Dark Knight Rises is the most fitting conclusion to Nolan’s Batman trilogy that any fan or casual movie-goer could ask for.

There is hardly one character, whether it’s Hathaway’s silky Catwoman, Michael Cain’s endearing, scene-stealing Alfred or Joseph Gordan-Levitt’s unflinchingly courageous patrol officer John Blake, that doesn’t light up the screen with every line of carefully weighed and scripted dialogue.

Sure, the characters might not land the one-liners with the panache of a film like the Avengers, but this is not a happy-go-lucky Marvel outing. This is DC, it’s dark, it’s broody and from the first scene right through to the end it had my heart pounding like a Slipknot drum solo in my chest.

Chances are you were going to see this movie whether I wrote this review or not, so I realise that writing this review is almost superfluous, but The Dark Knight Rises is deserving of the best praise a critic can give and I feel it’s my duty to add my voice to that already deafening chorous.

Watch this film. You won’t be disappointed.

Final Verdict: 9/10