Movie: Looper, Time-Travelling Never Gets Old

The rave reviews and high ratings given to Looper on Rotten Tomatoes caught my interest yesterday, so I set out last night to catch the midnight show with my wife, of course.

I was not disappointed.

I find Looper to be a very engaging movie with very interesting backstory. It would certainly appeal to anyone who is even remotely fascinated by the idea of time travelling. Looper is set in a time where a group of contract-killers called Loopers kill people sent to them from the future by highly organized criminal organisations. However, since the activity was highly illegal, the future mobs would ultimately tie all loose ends and the Loopers would eventually have to kill their future selves the same way they kill their catch.

But of course, somebody always didn't.

To really appreciate Looper you need to get some common time-travelling theories and concepts especially the grandfather paradox, and how the future is not set in stone ala Marvel's Days of Future Past or Robert Zemeckis' Back to the Future trilogy. The ideas behind Looper are hardly original; think of it as a cross between 12 Monkeys and Terminator series (oh, by the way, Bruce Willis was in 12 Monkeys too, and remembering that made me feel really ancient), even the storyline sometimes were predictable. However Looper provided just the right dose of mystery, drama, action, violence and some pretty unexpected turns ala M. Night Shyamalan's signature this-is-why-THAT-happened-earlier moments to deserve the high ratings and rave reviews.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt played a very convincing young Bruce Willis. He even pulled off Bruce Willis' trademark smirk rather successfully. Emily Blunt reminded me of a younger, sweeter, prettier Uma Thurman.

Bruce Willis was... well, Bruce Willis.

If I have to judge the movie based on my wife's reaction then I would give it a 3/5 since she did fell asleep at some points. My own rating would be a solid 4.5/5. Watch it to believe it.

But seriously, time travelling never gets old (haha get it? Never gets old... I'm so freaking funny I should kill my future self Looper-style).

Facebook: You Can't Choose Your Family

I spent some time yesterday cleaning up my Facebook friends list. If you are planning to do so, believe me when I say doing it from Android app is much faster than the website. You still need to do it one-by-one though.

I cleared exactly 132 names. You would think that the number consists of complete strangers and creepers but no, I actually removed most of my family members except my parents and siblings, because

a) I seem to get creepier as I get older and that is ruining my Aunty's-good-boy image
b) I find photos of cleavages of my own flesh and blood disturbing
c) I am left-wing, everyone else seems to be right-wing so it's best to avoid unhealthy arguments
d) I simply find a select few annoying (cut the crap, everybody has somebody they can't get along with; the show-off, the loudmouth, the asshole, the goody-two-shoes, the snake, the back-stab, the gossip, the smart-ass, the preacher, etc...)

Anyway there is already a Facebook group for my family members (at least my dad's side) that should be used for family-only updates. I find that to be a good compromise.

I consider this the first step towards a future when I will no longer keep a Facebook account.

For the rest still in my friends list, well, that could mean that I actually like you, need you for whatever devious means, or I still hope to have sex with you someday.

Or maybe I just care enough to tolerate your idiosyncrasies.

Hey, it's just freaking Facebook!

Movie: The Amazing Spider-Man 2012... Was Amazing!

Spider-Man has been and will always be my favourite mythology. I had 'known' him since I was 10. I watched how Marvel groomed him into greatness, and then within a decade almost destroyed his legacy with senseless, idiotic decisions in the course of his storylines. I was among fans who ultimately left Marvel in the late 90s as we watched them torture his life, took away his wife and daughter, killed Ben Reilly and at some point of time, Aunt May. 

I had therefore set pretty high expectations watching 2012 Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man last night. Comparisons against 2002 Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man were inevitable, and ultimately a long time fan like myself would also compare versus canon.

So, dislikes first.

I disliked how parts of the storyline felt a bit rushed. Peter Parker got his spider-powers way too easily with very little pain, and I felt things developed too fast between Gwen and Peter. But hey, of course I get how it is not easy to cramp 50 years of back-story into a 136-minutes movie.

That's it.

A lot of this movie I liked, and liked a darn lot more than the original 2002 franchise. For starters, Gwen Stacy had more depth in her character than just being a screaming damsel-in-distress that was Kirsten Dunst's Mary-Jane Watson. Emma Stone played her as an intelligent, independent love interest and that for me is a big turn on. Of course, in the comics Gwen Stacy would ultimately DIE (too late for spoiler alert? Come on, this has been in public domain for 50 years for God's sake! lol) by the hands of the Green Goblin so I would hate to watch that should it be the storyline of the second instalment.

Sally Field had been my favourite Hollywood 'mom'-figure ever since she played in Brothers & Sisters. She was a perfect choice for Aunt May. She felt like a genuinely affectionate aunt. On the contrary, Rosemary Harris felt more like a doting grandmother.

The mechanical web-shooters were simply awesome. Aside from being canon, Andrew Garfield's way of shooting webs also was more 'real'; he actually 'knit' strands of webbing to create cobwebs in his fights. Tobey's, if Spider-Man is at all real, would have to drink tonnes of fluid everyday to replace his bio-webbing.

I am neutral towards the choice of the Lizard as the primary antagonist and the actor who played him.

Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man also felt a lot more humane. I think that side of Peter Parker was greatly emphasized in the scene where he saved the kid on Williamsburg Bridge.

The action sequences were a lot more fluid and felt less like elaborate computer animations. In fact the entire movie also felt a lot more... scientifically plausible, darker, and had less of the comic book feel. I do think Christopher Nolan did a better job with Batman, though I can't possibly imagine how anyone could have topped that.

Stan Lee's cameo was comical as usual though only a fan would truly understand this.

The most AMAZING thing was that my wife actually stayed awake throughout the entire 136-minutes.

So there, my movie review of  the Amazing Spider-Man 2012. It was a blast, and I definitely will be watching it again and again and again and again. It goes without saying that I can't wait for the second instalment. Just saying.

The Amazing Spider-Man will turn 50 this August.

With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility. Of course.