Marvel Cinematic Universe - Phase One Review & Phase Two Preview

The Avengers. A "World's Mightiest Heroes" type deal.

After rewatching The Avengers on Blu-ray, and reaffirming my affection for it, I considered doing a proper Avengers review after missing out on the chance to do so after seeing it in May, but I decided the review would be outdated and pointless, so rather, I decided to go over all six Marvel Cinematic Universe - Phase One films, before we begin Phase Two with Iron Man 3 and Thor: The Dark World next year. I will begin with an overview of all six, then delve into individual mini-reviews for each of them, right after this photo of the Son of Coul...

Son of Coul sayeth... "So that's what it does".

In general, I feel that the idea for a continuous movie universe starring Marvel characters, on paper, sounds completely insane. It's crazy ambitious, difficult to capture tonally, and potentially disastrous from a financial standpoint if executed poorly. Yet, once Marvel Studios grabbed on to the rights to some of their best characters, they didn't let them go, and managed to craft one tonally consistent universe across six films that, while occasionally hiccuping from an individual movie standpoint, comes together quite nicely in the grand scheme of things. I really believe that Kenneth Branagh's high-flying fantasy epic Thor occurs in the same universe as Joe Johnston's almost grounded and gritty The First Avenger. So, without further ado, onto the individual films.

JON FAVREAU WAS ABLE TO BUILD THIS IN A CAVE!!
WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!!!!

It would have been extremely hard to make this universe work without a strong, convincing, and most importantly, fun standalone start, and director Jon Favreau's 2008 film Iron Man delivered that in spades. I'd argue that, after Batman Begins, it's one of the first truly well-executed examples of a modern superhero origin story on film. It gives us a rich, narcissistic, and war profiteering, yet somehow still lovable, protagonist in Tony Stark, and it sets him on the path of becoming a guy who tries to help change the world. Favreau's direction is surprisingly strong, despite this being his first film on such a high scale, with excellent execution of the comedy, drama, action, and especially the special effects, with the Iron Man suit shining in a way the Transformers of Michael Bay's films never could. The script he's given (written by the scribes behind Children of Men and Punisher: War Zone) is also shockingly complete, despite being a cherry-picked hybrid of two different writing teams. In particular, the first act is outstanding. Stark's capture, team-up with scientist Yinsen, and subsequent escape in his first prototypical suit feels grim and real, despite all the goofy arc-reactor robot suit comic-booky technology surrounding it. Considering that it is the very first thing we see of this universe, it's almost off-putting how much darker it seems by contrast from the rest of the films, or even the second and third acts. Luckily, they manage to keep a feel of continuity by bringing back the terrorist organization, the Ten Rings (hints for Iron Man 3, methinks?), later on as Iron Man's first opponents, and then tie them in to his first real nemesis, Stark's business partner Obadiah Stane, AKA the Iron Monger. Of course, this film would have been far lesser without the magnetic appeal of Robert Downey Jr. His casting is one of the best examples of superhero casting ever, right up there with Chris Reeve (and Chris Hemsworth, but we'll get to him later), and his lovable scamp is arguably, nay definitely, the main reason why it works. Jeff Bridges makes for a strong and imposing antagonist, and Gwyneth Paltrow nails Pepper Potts. Sam Jackson's first brief appearance as Nick Fury was also good for a fist pump, as well as Clark Gregg's scene-stealing first turn as the aformentioned S. H. I. E. L. D. agent Phil Coulson.  I was less than impressed with Terrence Howard, though (probably why he was recast), and Ramin Djawadi's score is generic at best (they should just have used a hard rock soundtrack instead). It also has a somewhat shaky and slightly anticlimactic third act. But yeah, very strong and enjoyable film. Until a few months ago, the best in the MCU.

Iron Man gets an 8.5 out of 10.

Can you say "least important film in the series"?

Our second experience in Marvel's greater movie universe, a month after the release of Iron Man, was, rather than another origin story, a reboot, bringing the big green guy, the Hulk, into the Avengers fold, with director Louis Leterrier's 2008 film The Incredible Hulk. Now I'm going to say this up front: I think that Ang Lee's 2003 Hulk is a remarkably underrated film. It was slow, yes, and it did fail to cater to audience expectations for a Hulk movie, but still, it managed to take a goofy comic book story about a big green angry guy and give it a magnanimousness of almost Shakespearean proportions. It had a really solid cast (Eric Bana was a very interesting choice for Bruce Banner), and some interesting directorial choices from Lee, but in terms of Marvel's greater plans for the future, it wouldn't amount to much. So, Leterrier and Edward Norton were brought in to deliver a picture that would give audiences what they expect, and for the most part, they succeeded. The Incredible Hulk is a well-made, flashy, action-packed, and generally well-acted movie, that sidesteps the origin story of the Hulk in favor of simply cutting to the aftermath with him on the run. Banner as a fugitive immediately distances it from Iron Man, and Norton does an adequate (if blunt) job of getting across the character's plight and inner anger. Leterrier's direction is competent, with some good set pieces, including an excellent climactic battle between the Hulk and Tim Roth's Abomination in Harlem. However, Zak Penn's script (uncredited rewrite by Norton) and Leterrier's previous directorial experience also holds them back. The main problem with The Incredible Hulk is how rote and mindless it is. It's solid entertainment, yes, but nothing else. In this regard, it's stylistically reminiscent of a straightforward Jason Statham action flick (like Leterrier's two Transporter movies), just with big CGI monsters in the climax and some decent actors (Norton and Roth are good, William Hurt is probably the standout as General Ross, Liv Tyler is OK not great as the love interest, etc.). Also, in the grand scheme of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it's pretty inconsequential. All of the other heroes that come into play in The Avengers had at least one film within two years of the release. The Hulk had a four-year gap, and the fact that the role was recast didn't help either. The Incredible Hulk is an OK movie, but if you have to skip one MCU film, make it this one.

The Incredible Hulk gets a 6.25 out of 10.

Why does Rhodey look so different....?

Iron Man 2, despite Jackson and Downey showing up in the last 2 films as connective tissue, is where the Marvel Cinematic Universe really started to get off the ground. Released in 2010, two years after the other films, it reunited original Iron Man director Favreau with Downey, while replacing Howard with Don Cheadle as Rhodey, who becomes War Machine this time around. It also introduces Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow (a big player in The Avengers), and fills the role of the villain with Mickey Rourke as Ivan Vanko, a version of the comic book character Whiplash, as well as Sam Rockwell as a secondary antagonist as Stark's business rival Justin Hammer. As I said above, Iron Man 2 feels more like a concrete step toward The Avengers than its predecessors, and while that works in the grand scheme of things, I think it also hurts the movie individually. While the movie starts off well enough, feeling like a clear continuation of its predecessor visually and plot-wise, its need to tie in with the greater universe leads to a LONG second act, where not much of consequence happens other than Stark having a drunken Iron Man fistfight with Rhodey in his first outing as War Machine, who conveniently is an expert with it, despite us never seeing him use it before. Then, it wastes its time puttering around with Nick Fury and Black Widow in a donut shop. Then, it wastes its time with a scene involving Tony and Pepper arguing over his stupid antics. Then, it FINALLY gets back to the plot just in time for the third act, which is mostly satisfying until Vanko shows up and is dispatched far too quickly, before ending with a cliffhanger for Thor. Oh, and did I mention that Tony was dying for most of the film? No? Well, that's because other than being a MacGuffin, it doesn't really matter all that much. Justin Theroux's script had a few too many holes for my taste, which may or may not be because of studio interference (Rumor has it that's why Favreau withdrew from Iron Man 3). Luckily, Downey, Cheadle, Rourke, Jackson, Rockwell, Paltrow, and Johansson (despite her character being woefully underused and underdeveloped) bail the film out in its weakest moments with strong acting, along with some good comedic moments from Favreau as Happy Hogan. John Debney's score is an improvement as well, and I hope they keep him around for the next one. Iron Man 2 works better if you think of it as a piece of a larger puzzle, but as a standalone movie and sequel, it falters.

Iron Man 2 gets a 6.5 out of 10.

My worries were so petty... and tiny.

If there was ever a point in the Marvel Cinematic Universe where it would be most liable to screw up, it would have been Thor. Kenneth Branagh's gravitas-loaded fantasy was the point where Marvel Studios stopped attempting to strictly adhere to comic-book realism, to take things outside the realm of science and into the realm (ahem) of the alien and supernatural. In the hands of a unaware filmmaker, the film could have crashed and burned, and due to its very close plot proximity to The Avengers, it could have sunk the universe along with it. Luckily, Branagh knows how to blend comedy, action, and otherworldly epicness, and thus, Thor was my biggest surprise of 2011, a movie that I went into with low expectations but ended up enjoying quite a bit. It effortlessly ties into the greater universe in a way that Iron Man 2 tripped and stumbled to do by comparison, while establishing a fascinating universe all its own, that of the Nine Realms. We only see the Norse-heaven Asgard and the icy Jotunheim here, but in the sequels, we're promised to see more (and judging from the title Thor: The Dark World, we're going to see some pretty nasty ones next year). It's a compelling addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe that greatly expands it, taking it beyond the technological warfare and gamma radiation squabbles of the first three films, and bringing it up to a purely cosmic level. And somehow, it gets more introspective and intimate at the same time, through Thor's personal journey to humility on Earth. As I said above, Hemsworth is purely perfect casting for Thor, capturing the hero's charisma, swagger, arrogance, and ultimate inherent goodness. And his casting as the hero is only matched by Tom Hiddleston as the jealous adopted brother, Loki. Loki is arguably one of the best-working characters in the whole MCU (right up there with Iron Man; there's a reason why their one shared one-on-one scene in The Avengers works so spectacularly), and Hiddleston brilliantly conveys the character's trickery, treachery, and hunger for power. Anthony Hopkins is also well-cast as Odin, Thor's father, as is Stellan Skarsgard as Dr. Selvig (another Avengers tissue character). Coulson also returns in a significant supporting role, and Clark Gregg is just as much of a pleasure this time around, as is Jackson's return as Fury in the post-credits scene, and a surprise cameo by Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye. Natalie Portman is... superfluous at best, just miscast as an astrophysicist and unnecessary. Jaimie Alexander could have been Thor's love interest (did I mention that Ray Stevenson is delightful as Volstagg?). Thor serves as the direct lead-in to The Avengers, and succeeds as that and as a standalone, thanks mainly to Branagh and Hemsworth, even if the second act on Earth drops the cosmic meter a bit.

Thor gets an 7.75 out of 10.

I didn't know the Human Torch used a shield.

The last film in the MCU released before The Avengers, Captain America: The First Avenger, directed by Jurassic Park III and The Rocketeer helmer Joe Johnston, from a script from Narnia writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, starring former Fantastic Four actor Chris Evans as the Cap. In general, The First Avenger, out of all the films in the MCU, is the one I'm the most conflicted about. Unlike Thor, where my expectations were fairly tempered, the trailers and marketing for this one had given me rather high expectations. I went into this expecting a superhero origin on par with Iron Man, and instead, I got a pitch-perfect first act, and two good but flawed latter acts, with a climax and a villain that were rather disappointing. I also thought that we really didn't get to see enough of Captain America in costume, strutting his stuff and using his shield. We got two action sequences in costume total, along with one montage of him taking down Nazis. The rest of the film focused around skinny, sickly Steve Rogers being transformed into a powered up supersoldier, followed by said supersoldier transitioning into the iconic superhero, peppered with a love story and a plot bringing the main MacGuffin of the entire Phase One, the Tesseract (Cosmic Cube), center stage, along with Cap's archnemesis, Johann Schimdt, the Red Skull, head of HYDRA, a renegade subdivision within Nazi Germany now striving for a higher purpose. The main problem is that after little Rogers powers up, the movie has nowhere to go, forcing Johnston to focus on the time period and war effort, getting off the main focus of the movie. I also didn't think Evans was exactly perfect casting; don't get me wrong, he's good, but he's definitely the least suitable of his co-stars in The Avengers. I was also left slightly wanting with Hugo Weaving, as I felt he was perfect for the Red Skull, only to spend the whole film obsessing over his broken German accent. Hayley Atwell and Tommy Lee Jones were very good, though, as was Dominic Cooper as a young Howard Stark, setting up the Cap/Iron Man dynamic a generation early. Sebastian Stan was barely in the movie as Bucky Barnes, but something tells me (probably the title of the sequel, The Winter Soldier) that he'll be back. Alan Silvestri delivers a suitable, if unmemorable theme, and Shelly Johnson's shadowy cinematography suits the period nature. The First Avenger is a good movie, probably the middle movie among the first five setup flicks, but I left the theater feeling like it could have been so much more.

Captain America: The First Avenger gets a 7 out of 10.

They're dangerous. And the whole world knows it. EVERY world knows it.

And finally, after four years of prep, five films, and the hiring of cult legend Joss Whedon, The Avengers arrived. And despite every possibility for it to suck, for every chance that it would buckle under the weight of having to balance multiple superheroes at the same time, it totally and nearly completely pulled it off. Don't get me wrong, The Avengers ain't perfect; its second act and 140-minute runtime can be a little long in the tooth, and it doesn't really seem to be sure which of its characters is the strongest (Iron Man is a little too much of a match for Thor and Loki). But still, it's quite possibly the best movie of its kind, a big-budget effects-heavy blockbuster that stays focused firmly rooted on its characters, while keeping a lighthearted, funny, and optimistic tone. In this regard, it reminds me very much of Star Wars. And much like the space opera, it dominated the box office, becoming the highest grosser of the year and the highest grossing movie ever made not directed by James Cameron. And I can safely give most of the credit to Whedon. As writer and director, Whedon delivers his breakout movie here, the one that will definitely bring his popularity to the mainstream. He clearly loves and understands the characters, and gives them each their due, even Hawkeye (despite being brainwashed half the movie). Downey, Evans, Hemsworth, Johansson, Jackson, Gregg, and Renner all bring their A-game here, and none of them can steal scenes because they all collectively own them. Hiddleston becomes a far greater antagonist here, and he makes the most of it, taking Loki's megalomania to new heights, and becoming the threat, mixed with the coming Chitauri invasion for the Tesseract, that requires the Avengers to assemble. However, the big winner here, and the performance that will most be remembered (in spite of getting arguably the least screen time) is Mark Ruffalo, taking over as Bruce Banner. The character is used to far greater effectiveness here than he ever was alone, painting Banner as a man constantly on edge, and if his guard is brought down, he falls into the green-filled rage. So much is conveyed just by how much Banner refers to the Hulk always as merely "the Other Guy". And the Hulk himself is a brilliant mixture of feral power, great mocap action, and quite a few laughs. All of these characters shouldn't be in the same state, let alone the same team, between Iron Man's narcissism, Cap's no-nonsense leadership, Thor's godly arrogance, and the Hulk's potent rage, and that's exactly what makes them such a powerful force when brought together. And the 45-minute third act battle for New York, where they all come together against the virtually insurmountable threat, is truly a wondrous sight, where Fury's plan for the Avengers finally comes to fruition. The underlying theme of the film is the return of heroism into a world that believes heroes are dead. As the late, great Phil Coulson says "we could use a little old-fashioned". It's not the best film of the year, but it may very well be the most entertaining on a purely fun level.

The Avengers gets a 9.25 out of 10. It's by far the best film in Phase One.

My guess is we will see what it means to court death itself.

So now, the question becomes, where do we go from here? And the mid-credits scene of The Avengers does hold some hints, as the mysterious Chitauri referred to only as "The Other" (played by Whedon regular Alexis Denisof), the one who dealt with Loki, discusses the Avengers' threat with the Special Guest Villain surprise, Thanos, wielder of the Infinity Gauntlet and one of Marvel's deadliest villains. Considering that Whedon is indeed returning to write and direct The Avengers 2 (coming in May 2015), it's almost definite that we'll be seeing him at some point. Phase Two begins with Iron Man 3 next year, directed by Kiss Kiss Bang Bang director Shane Black, with Downey returning (for possibly the last time??) as Tony Stark, with Ben Kingsley as the villain, Iron Man's archenemy the Mandarin. The word is good so far from here, so we'll see in May. Then there is The Dark World, which is currently being directed by Game of Thrones helmer Alan Taylor, reuniting most of the cast of Thor, along with Christopher Eccleston as the new villain, Dark Elves leader Malekith the Accursed. Asgard sounds like it'll be grittier and less shiny this time, so color me interested. The Winter Soldier is still in pre-production, but will be directed by former Community executive producers and brother Joe and Anthony Russo. I love that show, so I'm also interested to see what they'll do transitioning from a sitcom environment to an action movie. Evans will be back as Cap, and apparently Johansson will return there as well, but not much on this one yet, other than that it's coming out in spring 2014. Then there's the wild card, the one that could basically turn out amazing or awful, and that's Guardians of the Galaxy, which will be written and directed by James Gunn of Slither and Super fame. Gunn is a good fit for the material, and the idea makes Thor look tame (there's a goddamn ANTHROPOMORPHIC ALIEN RACCOON), but if pulled off, the MCU will get even more cosmic than it already is. I'm really interested for this one, but it's still almost two years away. As for Ant-Man, to be directed by Shaun of the Dead's Edgar Wright, that may or may not happen in Phase Two. Another Hulk movie may or may not happen in Phase Two as well. And then there's this mysterious S. H. I. E. L. D. TV series, which will be put into development by Whedon, to watch out for in the next couple of years. And finally, Phase Two will presumably come to a close with Avengers 2, which will probably set the stage for Phase Three as well. This universe could go on for years and years, and if it continues to put out movies at this high a level, we may have a reliable source for good summer blockbusters for years to come.

Release dates for Phase Two:
Iron Man 3 opens May 3.
Thor: The Dark World opens November 8, 2013.
Captain America: The Winter Soldier opens April 4, 2014.
Guardians of the Galaxy opens August 1, 2014.
Ant-Man may or may not open in 2014 or 2015.
The Avengers 2 opens May 1, 2015.

"THAT MAN IS PLAYING GALAGA! He thought we wouldn't notice, but we did."

Looper Review

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is Bruce Willis. Does this mean that the kid from Brick eventually becomes Butch Coolidge?

Rian Johnson is one of the more intriguing under-the-rader filmmakers working today. Not only did he direct a smart and Hammett-esque mystery masquerading as a high school movie in Brick, but he also directed two of the best-crafted Breaking Bad episodes in "Fly" and "Fifty-One". After years of working with lesser known actors and being relegated to low budgets (though I haven't seen The Brothers Bloom, which had Rachel Weisz, Adrien Brody and Mark Ruffalo and was made for $20 million), he gets a shot at the big time with the new time travel flick Looper, starring his Brick star Joseph Gordon-Levitt (coming off his awesome supporting turn in The Dark Knight Rises), Bruce Willis (surprised to see him here, after years of C-grade actioners and self-parody), and Emily Blunt (fresh off a comedic turn in The Five-Year Engagement), along with There Will Be Blood's Paul Dano, The Last House on the Left's Garret Dillahunt, and The Newsroom's Jeff Daniels. All of these actors had nothing but praises for Johnson's work here, with Blunt going as far as calling it the best movie she's ever done, and that trailer really did a good job of sucking me in. Then again, there are plenty of ways to screw up time travel in screenwriting, and the idea of Gordon-Levitt playing a young version of Willis sounded strange at best on paper. So, my verdict on Looper comes after this image of Gordon-Levitt striking a Walt Kowalski pose:

Bang. Bang. 2044 Eye drop drugs. Sex with 2044 hookers. Repeat.

In general, I thought Looper was superb. By the time I was sitting in the theater, my anticipation for the movie had risen to quite high expectations, and I watched, almost shocked, as Looper met virtually every one of them. The movie works on multiple levels; as a dystopian sci-fi story, as a time travel movie, as a small-town drama about a former criminal protecting a mother and her child from threatening forces, as a violent crime flick, as an examination of oneself, and as a rollicking good time of an action movie. Looper represent Johnson's unshackled vision, freed from budget constraints and other technical issues, and it delivers quite well indeed. Time travel movies often suffer from very conventional logic problems, such as "what happens if you meet your future/past self?" or "what happens if someone from another time period is allowed to run amok? How will this effect the course of events as we know them?" or "Are there adverse side effects to time travel?" What I love about Looper in particular is how it prefers to simply acknowledge these conventions and simply sidestep them through character conversation. That's probably why the scene between the two Joes in the middle of the film in the diner works so well, as it basically tells the audience "there will always be logic problems in time travel stories, no matter what we do, so just get past them and enjoy the damn movie!" In fact, that's basically how Looper as a whole works. Despite being set 30 years in the future in an unspecified crime-ridden city in Kansas, there isn't a whole lot of world-building here. Young Joe gives us a narration explaining how the time travel and looper system works for the crime syndicate, and then we're basically thrust into the world. It introduces you to its universe in the manner of Blade Runner or Inception, where it simply presents how its world works to you in midstream, and never looks back. We're meant to infer many smaller details of the film, such as the eye drop drugs that Young Joe is addicted to that are barely referenced other than visually until midway through the movie. Johnson doesn't waste time explaining every damn thing in the movie, instead introducing us to much of the world through the visuals, and it works. For this reason, one of the most fascinating sequences of the film is (at least for me) when Old Seth gets robbed of his fingers and limbs while attempting to escape through them getting cut off of Young Seth's body. It's chilling, darkly funny, and ably showcases the movie's time travel mechanics, without having to speak a damn word about them. But yeah, from a scriptwriting and technical standpoint, Looper is damn near perfect. Its gripping narrative loses a bit of steam in its last act, where it trades in its time travel story for creepy Damien Omen kid telekinetic hijinks, but even those sequences are effective, just less thematically relevant to the movie. And even in those areas, Old Joe's presence keeps the themes firmly anchored. It doesn't hurt that these well-drawn characters are brought to life so well by their actors. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is having a banner year here. After big steps toward breaking out into the mainstream in Johnson's Brick, (500) Days of Summer, Inception, and 50/50, his presence in The Dark Knight Rises, Premium Rush, and Looper this year basically solidifies him as a leading man. And Looper may be his most impressive performance yet, as it pulls him so far away from his other roles (where he usually played an earnest good guy type as seen in Rises and Summer or a slick sharp type as seen in Inception or Brick), and puts him in the shoes of a highly unsympathetic hitman drug addict who unwaveringly kills his targets for money and drugs. Young Joe is a seriously fucked up individual, and the film (and Old Joe) make no attempts to hide this. Much has been discussed about Gordon-Levitt's makeup job as well, to pull him closer to the appearance of Willis. In the hands of a lesser actor, it would have come across as a cheap, poorly executed gimmick, but Gordon-Levitt, with his growling Willis voice and his made-up dimpled face, somehow pulls it off. I actually buy him as a young Bruce Willis, and it's only helped by the montage where we are shown Young Joe's aging into Old Joe, which is so good that the transition from a haired Gordon-Levitt to a slightly balding to fully bald Willis actually feels organic. Willis also does great work here, awakening from his long sleep in self-parody (And yes, Live Free or Die Hard and RED count as self-parody. The last Willis role I can get behind as original or compelling would be his part in Robert Rodriguez's Sin City seven years ago) with his two roles this year, one here and the other in Wes Anderson's Moonrise Kingdom, and he believably resurrects his action persona in Old Joe while also crafting a compelling, morally conflicted character. He wants to save his future wife from her murder at the hands of the goons of the mysterious Rainmaker, but knows that in order to do so, he'll possibly have to kill innocent people and even children, and the moral hell he goes through here is conveyed quite well. He also serves as a good example of a cleaned up version of Joe, freed from drug abuse and the reprehensible looper job through the love of his wife. But see, Young Joe goes through this much earlier, through his protection of Sara and her young son Cid, who may or may not be the Rainmaker that Old Joe is searching for. Emily Blunt is also great too, coming off as believably tough and hardened while clearly deeply loving and wanting to protect her son, in spite of his mistrust for her. Cid is also portrayed as oddly insightful and believably creepy, too, with some scenes directed by Johnson portraying him (as I stated above) almost like he's a demonic Damien-type kid, only saved by the love of his mother. The supporting cast is also outstanding, with Paul Dano portraying Seth's desperation over closing his loop well, and Garret Dillahunt coming off as cool and dangerous as Gat Man Jesse. Among the supporting cast, though, my favorite performance by far comes from Jeff Daniels as crime boss Abe, who comes off as cynical about the incoming future and acts almost resigned about his responsibility of managing the loopers. His sardonic sense of humor serves as ideal comic relief, and his mentor relationship with Young Joe shines through in the scene they share together. Nathan Johnson's score is serviceable but not invasive so as to not overtake the story, Steve Yedlin's cinematography is sharp but simultaneously dirty and grimy to portray the rather dilapidated nature of this future, and Bob Ducsay's editing beautifully puts together Johnson's story. Five months ago, I never would have predicted that I would pick Looper as the best science fiction film of the year (my pick then would have been Prometheus), and even the second-best film of the year I've seen up to this point (I can't put it above Rises). Yet, in early October, here I am. Looper comes very highly recommended for fans of Johnson, time travel, Gordon-Levitt, Willis, or basically anybody who likes to have a good time at the movies.

Looper gets a 9.5 out of 10.

The Blunderbuss may be my favorite movie gun ever.