You may have noticed that we don't have ratings associated with any of our reviews and were probably wondering - why is it we don't have any stars, smiley faces, points or grades assessed to these movies and things we're critiquing? Well, we have an answer to your burning question - at least this one anyway. We here at Raving Reviews do not believe in ratings. Why, you ask? You sure do ask a lot of questions, ok, here's our list as to why we don't believe in ratings:
Ratings are subjective, art is subjective, subjectivity is subjective. (we're very objective in making these claims)
"That's 1 star out of 4 you miserable little punk "- oh the memories we can never erase...
Because we were rated in playgrounds as children and are emotionally scarred now.
Because we don't believe in IQs and ratings are a lot like IQs.
Our IQ is none of your business, not that they're small - 'cause they're not - really
Because it's all political and we hate politics. (well, sometimes)
Because we don't know more than you do and you don't more than us and this is a Democracy damn it ! (guess we do like politics after all).
Because low ratings might cause otherwise nice people to starve or high ratings might allow jerky people to get rich just because they're good directors or actors, etc. (we're sure that some of Hollywood's worst films were created by its nicest residents).
What if we had ratings in the Louvre? Would you give the Mona Lisa a 2.3 out 5 - or worse?
This is what would happen if the Louvre had ratings.
We believe in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of Motion Pictures; "When you measure a movie, you become part of that movie's marketing campaign."
If you're not sure about this, join the club
Because not everything is about logic you green-blooded, pointy-eared bastard!
I need a stress pill
Because we don't believe in standardized assessments and making everyone think the same way. We're not robots, we're human beings dammit! (refer to photo above).
Because we reserve the right to change our minds and those pesky ratings might pin us down.
Because it's hard to rate geniuses and even harder to rate morons.
We hope that answers all of your questions, we've got a survey for you to fill out now.
Copyright 2012 - Raving Reviews™ - All Rights Reserved
It had all of the elements of possible science fiction classic; Bruce Willis, time travel, Philip K. Dick and yet somehow this movie failed to achieve its desired paradox. But before we delve into the movie itself we must describe the strange dimension we were transported to when our local theater decided to sell beer and wine at the concession stand. Never before (at least not since the days when people used to sneak in their own refreshments to drive-ins) were we exposed to interactive cinema like this.
Let's all go to the Lobby - and get plowed
So, during the film, there were these two guys behind us - we knew they had been drinking because at several points during the movie they discussed whether or not to go back out and buy more wine. They decided to engage in an interactive dialog between themselves and the movie. The first comments ranged from - "I can't follow this, what's happening here" and quickly degenerated into - "Oh my god this is the worst movie ever - what the hell is going on - how could anyone understand this - it's impossible." This went for nearly the entire film.
Now we could spend a lot of time dissecting the movie, but why bother, we'll never remember it as well we will as the theater dialog about it. Let's do a quick overview on Looper anyway:
The near-future looks really depressing
The distant-future looks worse
Bruce Willis and Robin really don't look much alike
Bruce Willis with long stringy dark hair is just not something you want to see (5 seconds onscreen was 4 seconds too long)
That little kid really needed a time-out (no time travel puns intended)
There was lots of gratuitous violence towards the end - but where were the laser guns ???!!!!
I'm not working for Batman one minute longer!
Anyway, enough of that, what we really need to address is time travel and paradoxes. This is what seemed to be troubling our intoxicated fellow movie-goers. The basic premise is this; if you change something in the present it effects not just the future but any future travelers who happen to be visiting your own temporal neighborhood. Now just to be clear for all you doubters out there - time travel is in fact possible - we all do it every day - only it's one way - forward. This movie assumes that there is a device which looks like a cross between an iron lung and a vacuum cleaner that can somehow send people back in time (the other way). To help better understand how this might be possible we've brought together the world's two foremost experts on time travel and physics, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking...
Time Travel is simple, don't believe us, just ask Einstein and Hawking
So, now it's all perfectly clear now right? Still don't get it. We'll this isn't a science blog, but we will provide a checklist to determine whether or not you should attempt to watch complex, alternate reality and time travel movies.
The Sci-Fi IQ Test:
Jean Luc Picard is the guy who directed The Fifth Element. (T or F)
If you go back in time and kill your grandfather the only thing you miss out on is Christmas presents. (T or F)
In the show Sliders, there was an alternate Universe where the Bengals actually made it to the Superbowl and won! (T or F)
In the original planet of the Apes, the three guys and 1 girl were supposed to repopulate the human race (T o F) and BTW who came up with the math on that?
In the Matrix, it was the Machines who scorched the sky or was that the Terminator series?
How many levels of dream reality (Inception) can you sink into without getting lost?
Does all of this seem too complicated, perhaps you should just head to the concession stand and get liquored up.
The Raving Reviews Blog is dedicated to the convergence of popular and critical review of the motion picture art - that and taking a sometimes irreverent view of popular culture.
