October 20, 2012

Movie: Sinister (2012)

Filed under: Hollywood Movies — Tags: , , , — krishnafromtoronto @ 2:02 pm

Usually I am pretty much in agreement with the popularity of the movies or books, and one with the crowd as you would say. Not for me the contrarian views or ‘swimming against the tide’. I am pretty happy to go with the tide.

Which is why, I am now surprised to find myself against the majority opinion in a couple of movies lately.

In the review of Hotel Transylvania, I found myself thinking that it was one of the most hilarious movies of recent times, when the majority opinion was unimpressed. Here, the reverse is true. Everyone says that the movie is creepy, sinister (yes! I know it is the title), and scary. I found it not so great.

Why, you ask? First, I found that the whole premise a bit repetitive and boring. The story is about a crime author- Ellison Oswalt played by Ethan Hawke with of course big glasses because he is a writer –  who exposes injustices in previous crimes and the police sloppiness and therefore has turned the entire police department against him already. After a great hit like Kentucky Blood (Hmm an unoriginal title) he has not had a hit in many years and is desparate. He occupies the house where a crime occured, without telling his family that he had done so. So far, original and interesting.

Then it goes into an infinite loop and banalities. He stumbles across a box full of films (Super 8 – Remember those? Of course you don’t!) and watches each episode, which is basically the same movie again and again. A family having fun and enjoying, then suddenly, with no explanation at all, the family being tied up and murdered in different, gruesome ways. The movie is not gory, the gruesomeness implied but not explicit, and therefore in good taste. But the pattern is the same.

This is lazy investigation, right? It is handed to him on a platter. When he investigates further, he finds that in each case there is a sinister, demonic looking presence that exists – subtly, at the corner or just passing by, which is seen only when it is digitized in an Apple computer (what else?) and slowed down or zoomed in or whatever. This journalist also has graphic artist skills – go figure – and can do it all in his home. With the entire village (or at least the police force) against him, whom is he going to ask?

Then it gets even more bizarre and weird. In each case, a child is missing. The incidents have one more thing in common, a symbol that appears in each case. (How else is a lazy writer supposed to figure out what is going on?) The symbol is easily explained by the learned professor Jonas. “Oh that is a pagan demon called Bughuul, and it lives within these images and can come to life by just anyone viewing these images. Too bad.

Combined with inexplicable  occurrences like projector coming on by itself in the middle of the night, the children drawing murals on the wall depicting exactly what he saw in the films,  it spooks the writer completely. So what do we do? Irrespective of the fact that it is murder evidence, he burns it!

And when it reappears with “extended cut” versions, he is even more spooked. Especially since he has moved away from the house and back to his earlier house.

Now, do you stop watching, knowing all you know? Of course not. Put it on and watch the extended endings. It simply reveals who the murderers were, and makes no sense, but by this time, with a series of unexplained stuff, you hardly notice that it is nonsense. 

The wife (Tracy, played by Juliet Rylance)  is absurd. She says “Have you again got us staying near a murder location like you have done many times before? Wait, don’t tell me. I am better off not knowing!”  What? First, he has moved again to a two horse town to investigate a mystery. Where do you think you were going? And ‘wait, don’t tell me?’. Then why did you ask in an upset tone?

Later when she finds out that she is in the same house “Ellison! What were you thinking?”

The good parts? It has its spooky moments, and yes, Ethan Hawke does a very good job of acting the part. The scenes with the Deputy So-And -So are funny.

But there is so much that is total nonsense or brain dead that I can honestly give this movie only a 3/10


— Krishna


Book: Cain His Brother by Anne Perry

Filed under: Books — Tags: , , , , — krishnafromtoronto @ 1:29 pm

This is another one of William Monk Adventures by Anne Perry. We have reviewed other Anne Perry Books  in this forum. Find these, if you are interested, using the Anne Perry Tag in this post.

This book has her usual Victorian setting. Here Monk, Hester Latterley and Rathbone figure in the understated triangle of affections, as usual. The story this time begins when Monk is hired by Genevieve Stonefield to find the whereabouts of Angus Stonefield, her brilliant businessman husband, a caring father of his children and as unlike his twin brother Caleb Stonefield as he is alike in appearance, the needle of suspicion points strongly towards Caleb. His wife suspects as much and his uncle, Mr Milo Ravenbrook, also suspects him chiefly as well.

Monk’s investigations reveal Angus to be totally devoted to Caleb, going over to meet him in spite of danger to himself and sometimes personal injuries, as seen when he returns from these meetings.

With Angus missing, Gienvieve is struggling to stay independent of Mr Ravenbrook and without the body to prove Angus dead, she may have to go live with Milo Ravenbrook. His wife Enid Ravenbrook is known to Hester and Lady Callandra as she is helping out
typhoid victims in the slums of England, and almost succumbs to the disease herself.

In the meanwhile, Monk meets the very beautiful and charming Drusilla Wyndham, and she seems to take a personal interest in his case, and more amazingly, in him. Monk is charmed and flattered and finds every excuse to meet and spend time with her. But when she suddenly frames him for assault and almost ruins his entire career, he is shocked and puzzled, as he can find almost no reason why she should do this. It takes all of Hester’s ingenuity to rescue him from this pickle.

In the meanwhile, Monk almost catches up with Caleb once, and before he infuriatingly escapes from the grasp of not just Monk but a whole assorted posse of policemen. But in a brief moment where they were face to face, Caleb admits that he has destroyed Angus and taunts Monk with the statement that he will never find the body of Angus to prove it. Here is an admission from the perpetrator himself, but there is no way to use it in court, even if they managed to catch Caleb.
The story unfolds with the usual personal issues of Monk and Hester and the unfolding surprises of the case Monk is investigating.

The story is told well, and is enjoyable. The minor twists and surprises exist here and some of them take you completely off guard, which is why Anne’s books are popular.

However, the main plot is hackneyed and I for one could guess the major twist about halfway through the book. In addition, unlike other Anne books, all the strands do not come well together, for instance the piece about Druscilla, though interesting, does not gel with the rest of the story.

And yet, the book is good, the tension is retained, especially in the courtroom scenes, and the denouement, though known in advance, is satisfying.

I would give it a 5/10

— Krishna

October 18, 2012

Book: The Ground Beneath Her Feet by Salman Rushdie

Filed under: Books — Tags: , , , — krishnafromtoronto @ 12:14 am

This is an interesting book and this is an interesting author. I had given a wide berth so far to his books, since I heard that in the context of his infamous Satanic Verses and the controversy it stirred, that ‘It is a boring book, but only made famous due to the reaction from the conservative Islamic world’. Finally, I decided to sample this book, and to my surprise and delight, found him to be a very interesting author, at least in this book.

This book itself deals with the lives of three people. Vina Apsara is a part Indian, part American girl who rose to superstardom as a rock and roll diva in her life. She was a part of the band called VTO, whose other pillar is the other person in the trio – Ormus Cama, a Parsi boy who made good in music too, and was the brain and organizational genius behind the band. The third in the trio  is an internationally accomplished photographer, also from Bombay, the narrator of the story, Umeed Merchant.

All of them grew up in Bombay – now Mumbai. The story is peopled with really interesting group of characters. The story starts out unbelievably well, being told with verve and humour, but sags a bit in the middle, before once again taking off to that rarified level of sustaining your interest and also capturing your imagination, towards the end of the book.

Take Ormus Cama for example. He is the son of Sir Darius Xerxes Cama, a learned man with a degree from Oxford. (Xerxes? Really?) He is a lawyer in Bombay and when he retires, gets into analysis of Greek and Indian mythology with an equally enthusiastic
British friend, Lord Methwold. His wife Spenta is a lady interested in collectibles, and is a home maker interested in Social Work. The eldest son Cyrus Cama is the most brilliant of all, but when he completes his studies, goes wild and gets into a Serial killing spree, landing himself in jail. His brother Ormus, was a musical genius, who had sworn off music due to a childhood incident. Ormus was a twin, but his twin brother, Gayomart, dies young. Ormus sees Gayomart in dreams, who tells him about music (Western Music, that is) that is as yet unpublished. The last child of the Cama household is Ardiviraf (“Virus”) Cama, who is half witted.

Sir Darius is an Anglophile, who longs for all things England and English.

When Darius’s secret (that his Oxford degree is fake) is known, he loses all esteem and loses his friendship with Sir Methwold. When Darius is killed by being smothered by a pillow (the standard modus operandi of Cyrus in his serial killing days) people suspect him of remote operating the feeble mind of Virus to execute the deed.

Spenta Cama goes to England to marry Sir Methwold, becomes Lady Methwold, (ironically fulfilling Darius Cama’s dream of living in England) and spends the rest of her life there, looking after Virus.

Vina was born to an American mother and the no-good Shetty, an Indian father. The father abandons the family and the mother brings in a parade of men, ignores Vina; the men are cruel to her too. When she rebels, she is sent to a relative in India, Piloo Dhoodhwala (a real and plausible Parsi name, by the way), who also ill treats her. She runs away and seeks refuge in the Merchant house.

Merchants, father and mother of Umeed, grow up to be educated, and are ruined by ill advised investment into Art Deco buildings in Bombay when that has become already out of fashion.

Both Ormus and Umeed love Veena, Ormus winning her heart. When she disappears following a family quarrel, Ormus is devastated.

Later, their lives intertwine, Ormus becoming a great singer, Vina too becoming one, and reunited through a band many years later. Umeed, riding on his popularity of exposing Dudh Piloowala’s swindles, wins international recognition. All of them settle down in New York.

The story ends when all characters except Umeed die, and when Umeed finds a new life and love in the form of Mira, another great singer.

The story is told with humour and poise. The English is excellent, almost poetic at places. But be warned. The man can be very explicit in his sexual descriptions. The accents of Philoo Dhoodhwala are hilarious, as is his description of Yul Singh and his entourage of Singhs (Will Singh, Limo Singh etc)

Also funny is the description of the fake Indian accent blond character.

The story of Ormus and Vina’s enforced fouteen year old celibacy oath is interesting.

The character of Vina is explosive and slightly unconvincing.

The book is a good read, if you can stand some explicit sexual descriptions, and deserves a 7/10

— Krishna

October 16, 2012

Movie: Hotel Transylvania (2012)

Filed under: Hollywood Movies — Tags: , , , , — krishnafromtoronto @ 8:38 pm

Another 3D animated movie. In fact, this movie was a bit unexpected for me. Usually I go to movies with big expectations raised by the reviews and sometimes come back disappointed. Bridge to Terabithia is a good example of this. But mostly I am easy to please 🙂 and come away happy. This movie was the one that I went reluctantly to, discouraged by the drubbing it received in the reviews that I read and I was very pleasantly surprised.

I do not know what the critics found wrong but I went to see a movie that was pure entertainment (as in funny, given the trailers, which were good) and I got my entertainment in spades.

Even the twist that monsters are afraid of humans has been done many times. (For instance, in ParaNorman, reviewed earlier here) but this movie takes it a step further. Having lost his wife (vampire of course) in a fire, with little baby Mavis (Selena Gomez) in hand, Dracula (Adam Sandler), lovingly called Dracs by the rest of the monsters decides that he wants a safe haven from humans.  He builds Hotel Transylvania, where no human can reach and is happy to bring her up there, with annual visits allowed to all monsters for a fear-free get together.

When Mavis reaches the tender age of 118, she wants to go see humans, and Dracs stages a scary human village that convinces, to his utter glee, Mavis that humans are indeed dangerous and she is better off staying forever away from them, in the impregnable hotel. But she misses company of her own age, and the parties there are soooo boring.

When a human, a young boy called Jonathan (Andy Samberg)  enters the castle mistaking it to be a Halloween party costume monsters, the fun really begins. Dracs dresses him up in a “costume” too, to hide his true nature but when Mavis and Jonathan seem to fall for each other, the carefully built plans of Dracs threatens to come apart at the seams.

The movie is hilarious, the characters are really lively and funny, and the animation and the dialog are top class. What is not to like?

If you are going for pure entertainment, you will get it here.

Purely judging from that angle, I will give it a 8/10


— Krishna

October 14, 2012

Tamil Movie: Aadukalam (2011)

Filed under: Tamil Movies — Tags: , , , — krishnafromtoronto @ 4:57 pm

This movie was definitely a surprise. Dhanush seems to be the Tamil world’s Joseph Gordon-Levitt, landing very interesting roles and doing well, and the fact that no one expected him to do so well is an additional pleasant surprise. In his early career he has done different, and interesting, roles and it looks like he will go far in the Tamil movie world. He got his push in the movies by his pedigree, you can argue, being the son of a big Tamil director (Kasturi Raja, who introduced him in the first movie) and brother of another (Selvaraghavan). On top of that, he is the son in law of the Superstar Rajnikanth. Talk about clout!

But all this can only take you to the front of the camera and what you do there determines how far you go from there. Dhanush seems to have grabbed the opportunity with both hands and seems to be doing well, choosing pictures that are interesting and different. Aadukalam is an example of this as well.  He did so well that he received the National film best actor award.

The story is about Pettaikkaran (played ably by VIS Jayabalan), who is the undefeated champion of cock fights in a village in Madurai district. Rathnasamy (played by Nareyn), a cop, tries to dethrone him for several years but cannot. He gets desperate and even resorts to kidnapping Pettaikkaran’s cocks to use in the next competition. Ayub (played by Periyakaruppu Devar) is a friend and confidante of Pettaikkaran and Karuppu (Dhanush) is an assistant who considers him as an elder brother.

The story really begins when Rathnasamy goes into unethical behaviour, importing cocks from another town and resorting to the use of drugs and poison to win the all important tournament where the loser (between him and Pettaikaran) will lose their hair forever and have to go bald. (I think it includes moustache too, which is, for South Indian film folks, like losing a limb).

Karuppu, against the advise of Pettaikaran, decides to use his personal trained cock in his mentor’s name. Since that had once run away, Pettaikaran is adamant that it will lose. But when it ends up winning, and Pettaikkaran is relieved that by “fluke” it has won and he got off without having to shave his head! In desperation, Rathnasamy offers Karuppu Rs 2000 for a rematch – same cockerel by Karuppu and a fresh one from the opponent. Karuppu agrees and puts Pettaikkaran in jeopardy again. When he wins again, Karuppu is convinced against his will to go up again, this time for two lakhs of rupees, which will set him up for life. He does not know that the opponent now has a fresh and fully loaded cockerel (drugs, poison) and it looks like the end of honour and hair for Pettaikkaran.

The story is interesting and follows predictable Tamil film formulaic path. But it suddenly diverges when, after, as you expect, our hero triumphs yet again. The rest of the story is very interesting and you feel really sorry for the gullible Karuppu who keeps trusting the wrong person again and again, even after the loss of his mom, his good name and nearly the girl he loves.

The parallel (and essential in the Tamil movie world) romantic track is interesting too. Karuppu falls for the fair Irene, an Anglo Indian girl (Taapsee Pannu) who of course refuses to look at a guy at the bottom of the economic heap, who does not understand English or is not cultured enough. When he thinks she loves him it is touching to see his reaction, until he realizes that it is his own misunderstanding.

In the time honoured film style, she does fall for him.

The ending is very unique and gels well with the rest of the story. I guess though the film makers could not completely get away from some immutable formula laid down in Tamil film industry, they made a movie that is different, logical and interesting.

A very good movie and therefore deserves a 8/10


— Krishna



Book: Velocity by Dean Koontz

Filed under: Books — Tags: , , , — krishnafromtoronto @ 4:03 pm

We have reviewed many other Dean Koontz books before. Of late, he has been of varying quality, some good and some not good. Which category does this book belong to?

When I was about to finish this book, my reaction was ‘Gosh, here we go again!’.  As I said elsewhere, Dean seems to have lost the ability to tell great stories consistently. Some of his recent books are undeniably good but some of his  current books seem to fall flat when it comes to endings.

The narrative gift is al there. Even there, he seems to have turned preachy a bit and trivial. For instance, even in this book there is that repetitive advice on what constitutes a good life and who is a good soul that reads like watching a government documentary in a totalitarian country that jars on the nerves. He has given up (thank god) the surfer lingo after the series starting from Seize the Night.

Again, familiar themes resurface: taking care of a person who is completely disabled or in a coma or unaware of the surroundings and not doing it as a duty but out of love – how many times have we seen it in these books. (Thankfully he does not have a Golden Retriever with whom the hero shares a special bond and love – I am not against pets or anything but if ALL these themes are in every one of his books, you do get the feeling that you are reading the same book over and over again!)

The story starts well, if you ignore the preachy tone prevalent throughout the book. Billy has a wife Barbara, who is in a coma as an invalid, and whom he loves very much. (My rant in the beginning refers to this). One day, he gets a note with a macabre choice, stuck to the windshield of his car. Choose out of the two – the killer describes the choices – whom he would like killed. If he makes no choice or goes to the police, the killer will choose the victim. When he ignores it, he actually realizes that someone is getting killed. The killer then interferes with him, leaving a note inside his house on the fridge, asking him if he is ready for his first pain.

The situation escalates. He initially is sure it is Steve Zillis, the playful, but good for nothing bartender who relieves him (yes, he is an aspiring writer who works in a bar) at the end of his shift, but the person you suspect in these kinds of books can almost always be written off, can he not?

In the meanwhile, a shady element called Ralph Cottle comes to see him to take his threat seriously. He, Ralph, is badly rattled as, apparently, this killer is a vicious one who promised to peel the face off of Ralph if he did not get the note taken seriously by Billy, and showed a face that he had preserved in Formaldehyde as proof.

Billy cannot trust the police either, because of his past and the brutal and selfish nature of the police officer. When he realizes that clues have been left in his apartment and elsewhere which connect every one of the victims of the killer’s escalating violence linking them to him, he knows that the killer has a devious masterplan to completely destroy his sanity and his peace of mind. The police, with or without a little prompting, will ultimately realize that Billy is connected too all the murders!

The book is interesting, racy, and narrated well. When the conclusion comes, you sit up and say, ‘What? This is a last minute conclusion again! The same deux ex
machina ending!”. But luckily, through a double twist, Dean manages to salvage some of the interest you had lost up to that point.

From the point of view of the good storytelling, and the double twist at the end, this is not as bad as his usual books. I think it deserves a 6/10

— Krishna

October 6, 2012

Book: The Twice Born by Pauline Gedge

Filed under: Books — Tags: , , , — krishnafromtoronto @ 1:27 pm

Pauline Gedge continues what she does best: Writing stories set in Ancient Egypt and based on some historical events. This, though she does not say it here, is the
start of a King’s Man Trilogy. She has written an excellent trilogy before, the Lord of the Two Lands.  The first two books are The Hippopotamus Marsh and The Oasis, both of which have been reviewed here earlier. This has the makings of an equally good set of books.

I find that, starting  from Scroll of Saqqara ( also reviewed earlier here) Pauline has introduced elements of the supernatural in her stories, not strictly sticking to the historical events as she did in many novels at the beginning, but it takes nothing away from the readability of the books. (You may remember that Wilbur Smith strayed into that territory a lot with his Ancient Egype Series featuring Taita, the slave.).

This story features Huy, the son of Hapu, who is a humble farmer. The son is bright, adored by Itu, her mother and has Ishat, the daughter of the house servant as a childhood friend.

Seeing his brilliance, his rich uncle Ker agrees to fund his studies in Iunu, the great temple on the great city. He reluctantly is sent by his family. He meets Thothmes, who also is a small kid of five years like him, and becomes his friend.

Sennet, a bully, gives Huy trouble and to escape him, Huy once runs blindly and reaches the shade of the Ishat tree, forbidden for any but the priests to see. He is punished fiercely by the High Priest, who wonders if Huy was meant to see it.

The next encounter with Sennet knocks him senseless and confirmed as dead by the doctors. When the Sem priests take him to the place where they are about to remove his organs and embalm him, he wakes up, frightening everyone and earning the sobriquet ‘The Twice Born’. He finds that he is now endowed with the power to predict the future, as revealed to him by Anubis when he was in the Twilight World between life and death.

Thothmes is the son of the rich governer, Nakht, who treats Huy like his own son, until he realizes that Huy has fallen in love with his daughter Anuket, when he rejects him.

In bitterness and anger, Huy rejects the gift of the Gods. He resents the weight put on him by the Gods without even asking his consent and tries to escape his responsibility by moving back to Hent-Hurib after his studies, hoping to fade into obscurity as a nameless scribe in a small temple there.

But the Gods had other plans for him….

A lovely narration, with the authentic sounding descriptions of the life in Ancient Egypt and the easy flow of the story keeps you reading. This one is as good as most of her books, and keeps the interest until the end.

I would give it a 7/10

— Krishna

October 5, 2012

Movie: Fifty Fifty or 50/50 (2011)

Filed under: Hollywood Movies — Tags: , , , , — krishnafromtoronto @ 9:06 pm

A nice movie regarding an average Joe called Adam Learner (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt) who goes to a doctor to check his back out (he had back pain for a few days) and learns that he has cancer. His whole world goes upside down. His friend Kyle (Seth Rogen) tries to cheer him up. This movie follows his adventures.

The story is told with sensitivity and humour but without much melodrama or slushy sentimentality. Adam’s reactions are totally credible: when told of his cancer, he first blanks out all the words from the doctor after the word ‘cancer’. His incredulous reaction is “But I don’t even smoke!”. His mom’s reaction on hearing it is also totally credible.

The friend is a happy go lucky fellow who tries to cheer him up. “Don’t worry, many celebrities have had cancer” reels off names including Patrick Swayze. Adam stops him by asking “Isn’t he dead?”

Kyle gets a brilliant idea that this cancer is a chick magnet and they should “use it” to get girls.

At the same time Adam’s struggles to come to terms with the fact that his life may soon end is also told very well. He researches and finds out that the chances of survival after a cancer is fifty percent. (Hence the title of the movie) He also finds that if the cancer metastasizes, the chances drop to less than 10%. He rants to his psychologist Katie (Anna Kendrick)  as to ‘what is the use of all this? So that you can tell your family how you helped your third patient and feel good about yourself?”

He befriends two other old men who are undergoing cancer treatment and their first reaction is “But you are so young!”44

The story telling is intelligent and natural; the end is logical and near perfect (in terms of his disease not the romantic ending).

The story has enough humour and natural feel to it that it is endearing. The reactions of the friend and the mother, and how Adam discovers that they both care in their own way is very touching.

The father seems to be the only artificial character. If there is a grouse I have about the movie, it is that the father is shown as a complete idiot, not just a man who has Alzheimer’s disease. (Unless I am totally mistaken about how that presents itself)

It is not the seat of the pants thriller that you see in Hollywood but very enjoyable, touching, very sensitive and sympathetic portrayal of a young man coming to terms with discovering that he has a serious illness. But told without cloying or maudlin sentimental mush.

Well done, and deserves a 7/10

— Krishna



October 4, 2012

Movie: Looper (2012)

Filed under: Hollywood Movies — Tags: , , , , — krishnafromtoronto @ 11:20 pm

A very interesting movie. First, I am amazed at the meteoric rise of Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s career. From the beginnings in the Third Rock From the Sun, he has gone places and gets amazing roles one after the other, especilly in 2010-12. First, he got Inception role, then Fifty Fifty. He followed it up with Batman – The Dark Knight Rises and then now, with Looper. Good for him.

In Looper, we watch the opening scene, which first makes no sense at all. A man in a very lonely field, with just a cloth spread before him and a gun in hand. He consults an old fashioned watch (interesting, given this is the future, and in real life our current watches will perhaps be old fashioned) and is practicing French. At a specific time, he fires the gun and at the exact moment, a bound man with a bag over his head appears just in the right place to take the bullet and die. Appears out of nowhere, too. 

All of it is explained quickly, except the French part, so that you get a clue on what happens. The French bit is explained much later. By now, you perhaps know that it is a time travel story and in the new time travel in the cinema/ TV fashion, we go through some loops of time travel, visiting the same place in many iterations. We are also told, in the fashion of many movies from The Butterfly Effect to many Futurama episodes, that it is possible to transform the past and therefore the future, if you choose to.

But the movie is, at least in my opinion, several levels above the usual time travel fare, and is like Inception in its layered complexity and sophistication. It is indeed a thinking person’s time travel story and has a lot of humour built into it as well, which goes very well with the story.

The search for the mysterious RainMaker reminds one of the Terminator, in the relentless search to find and remove the enemy before he becomes very powerful, but again, it is a very different treatment and ending.

The story revolves around Joe Simmons, who is a Looper. The year is 2034. Time travel has not been invented yet but will be soon. (This is a clever ploy to explain why the characters in the story itself, like Joe, cannot travel to the future or the past but why they can meet people who can do so! I think it is ingenious). But in the future, bodies are not easy to dispose off, so they send people who want to be ‘erased’ back to the past, at a specific place, specific time, so that they can be killed and efficiently disposed off here. They are Loopers. All goes well until one Looper, Seth, recognizes that the person sent back to him is his own future self, and knows that if he kills himself, he has precisely forty years to die! (Now why was he not sent to another Looper? I do not know. This is where you can poke some holes in a story that otherwise remarkably holds together). He was meant to be killed and would have been, since he is bound and his head is hidden, but he sings a song that only he himself could have known in the past and thereby reveals that it is he. When Seth hesitates to kill, in effect, himself, he runs away and he runs to Joe for protection. He is caught regardless and how the future self is made to come to his own killers is interestingly told!

Before he dies, though, he says that there is a new power in the future, an evil man called RainMaker, who is intent on “closing all the Loopers” or in effect, sending all Loopers back to be killed. When Joe realizes that his own Looper is back (the young Looper is Joseph Gordon Levitt and the older one is Bruce Willis), the story takes an interesting turn.

The scenes are spectacular, and some of the scenes are very gripping. The themes are slowly brought in – for example, telekinetic mutation that causes some to be able to float a coin – and tied into the story beautifully.

The kid Cid is remarkable in its cuteness and the stubborn self.

Bruce Willis is credible but looks very old, which was a bit of a shock after seeing him in many movies as a different man.

To tell more would spoil the story and the time travel loops are a bit cinematic but the storytelling, the weaving together of the strands and even the (surprise?) ending are all very good.

For the pure entertainment value, I would give it a 8/10

— Krishna

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: