In what was the shortest press op of my journalistic career, Terry Crews portrayed Idiocracy President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho in a Funny or Die conference call that, like most political media events, was about nothing, because Idiocracy creator Mike Judge, who was also supposed to be present, did not make it. After declaring that he was the “motherfuckin’ president of the motherfuckin’ United States” and had “shit to do,” Crews/Camacho explained that he had traveled to the present after ripping a hole in the space-time continuum during a cage match with the “Grand Poobah of Europe.” In other words, “some Einstein shit. Crews/Camacho explained that “I see a whole lot of stuff that I don’t like.” Among the things that bothered him: All of the political candidates, he declared, “is bullshit.” According to “Camacho’s world, politics is a pimp-ho game” and “Voters ain’t nothing but ho’s.” In other words, “If you tell people what they really need to hear, they ain’t gonna vote for you. You got to smooth talk these voters.” Crews/Camacho also noted that he had come to the present to “save white people” because “white flight had reached new levels” in the future. “White people it’s okay to come back out,” he said. The press conference was over after three questions, the cleverest one asked by a press-conference participant who asked Camacho to reveal who wins Tuesday’s presidential election (given that Camacho is from the future). “I understand your Jedi Mind Tricks, motherfucker,” replied the pretend president, who refused to answer the question on the grounds that it could affect the future, and “I might not get elected.” If you didn’t get enough, Camacho is also doing a live Q&A via Funny or Die’s Twitter account tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. Pacific Time. Follow Frank DiGiacomo on Twitter. Follow Movieline on Twitter.
Seeing these pictures of Rachel Nichols at the Alex Cross premiere reminded me that I haven’t seen Rachel in forever. Where’s she been? I’m missed that rack girl! Either way, I’m glad to see it’s back — I mean, she’s back and looking good. And I hope we see more of Rachel in the future. Specifically, the area between her shoulders and her stomach. » view all 19 photos Related Articles: Rachel Nichols Pictures Rachel Nichols Is G.I. Boobs Rachel Nichols Knows Her Way Around A Pair Of Leggings Rihanna Dons The Latex Again Photos: PacificCoastNews , FameFlynet
Ever since Jennifer Love Hewitt broke her wrist , I’m guessing it’s been a little harder for her to dress herself. That’s the only reason to explain the parachute pants , right? I wonder who Jennifer’s talking to here. Probably MC Hammer, to thank him for lending her this outfit. But if she needs a hand in the future, Jennifer can just call me instead. I’d be happy to help her get into even the most complicated lingerie. Related Articles: Jennifer Love Hewitt Needs An Extra Hand Jennifer Love Hewitt’s Weight Loss Secret: Get Ridiculed Jennifer Love Hewitt Nude In Playboy? No Chance Who’s The Real Bitch? Photos: FameFlynet
Obama supporters come for Stacey Dash after she calls the GOP candidate ‘the only choice for your future.’ By Rob Markman Stacey Dash Photo: Dr. Billy Ingram/ WireImage
I keep holding onto the Jessica Alba dream because I am dated, out of the loop, I don’t leave my house and I don’t pay attention to the new Jessica Albas, the up and comers, the future….but after seeing her deflated mom tits in a bra, I figure it’s time to say goodbye to yesterday… Alba’s an old lady, a mom, and even if she bends over in the rain wearing a black bra, all for the paparazzi to say “look at me, I’m still here and stylish, relevant and hot”…..I think it’s time to catalog her in the box in the basement of our minds as a teen dream we used to jerk off to and eagerly await hard nipple pics of….in a time that is long gone. She’s done, or at least I’m done with her, but here’s one more run of Jessica Alba for the believers. TO SEE THE REST OF THE PICS FOLLOW THIS LINK
Georgia Salpa is the fucking future…I have no idea who she is but I want to write love songs to her….about our undying love…our real love…about wanting to know what love is and I want her to show me…she’s the kind of girl I could spend the rest of my life staring at while she sleeps in bed next to me…the mother of my children who I hate cuz they are mooches who stole my freedom…but who I tolerate cuz they let me stick with her…Georgia Salpa is my soul mate…she just doesn’t know it yet….she’s so classy.
Miley Cyrus may not be the future…her time may be done…her lesbian haircut may be a little too 15 year old girl at the mall trying to be hard and full of angst….all bi sexual hipster gone mainstream shit….but I’d sure be into K-Feding her and her muppet face…it’d be a life I’d be willing to live…spending her Disney Money like I was her parents….but it’ll never happen so I’ll just stare at pics of her doing menial errands…cuz that shit is porn to me…it’s the basis of all my public masturbation… TO SEE THE REST OF THE PICS FOLLOW THIS LINK
If time travel is ever to be invented, wouldn’t we already have had evidence of it? The question is enough to give grammarians seizures, let alone filmmakers. As Jeff Daniels’s world-weary time-traveling crime lord says in Rian Johnson ‘s Looper , “this time travel shit fries your brain like an egg.” And the film, out this Friday, is far from the most brain-frying cinematic treatment of time travel. To help make sense of a genre riddled with paradoxes, I contacted Tim Maudlin, philosophy professor at NYU, who has written extensively on time travel, and quickly rattled off my preconceptions on the matter.* According to Maudlin, there are two types of time-travel narratives in fiction. The most common, which he calls “inconsistent time-travel stories,” are about a traveler who goes back in time and changes the course of events, à la Marty McFly. To Maudlin, movies of this type— Looper included—“literally make no sense.” If the character goes back in time, then there would never have been a past without him. In “consistent” time-travel stories, however, the time traveler was always a part of the events he affected (e.g. Twelve Monkeys, or Robert Heinlein’s classic mindfuck of a short story, — All You Zombies—, in which the main character is both his own mother and father). These are Moebius strip narratives. There is no first time around or second time around. There is just one past that contains the traveler. Stories of this type, Maudlin says, “are more like clever crossword puzzles, where all the various threads fit together in a satisfactory way. They appeal to the logician rather than the sentimentalist.” With that distinction in mind, we can determine just how logical Looper and the other nine best time-travel movies are. (Another paradox: the more logical the treatment of time travel, the more it makes your brain hurt.) Looper (2012)[ Spoiler warning! ] Plot: Joe, a young gun-for-hire, must kill his future self or be killed, but Bruce Willis, naturally, has another outcome in mind. Consistent? No. We see a whole timeline in which Young Joe kills Old Joe, then lives out the rest of his life before coming up with a plan to stop Young Joe from killing the now Old Joe. If he succeeds, he would never have been able to live the life he lived theretofore. And the ending raises an even bigger paradox. Back to the Future (1985) Plot: Marty McFly, a kid with a mad-scientist friend and a loser dad, travels from 1985 to 1955 in a souped-up DeLorean, fools around with his hot teenage mom, inspires his dad to grow a pair and knock Biff the bully out, then returns to 1985. Consistent? No. If Marty goes back in time, then there would never have been a version of the past without him. The other thing is, for Marty to still be born after his disruption of his parents’ courtship, his mom and pop need to time the moment of fertilization to the microsecond. But that’s more a question of probability (and staying power) than logic. Back to the Future II (1989) Plot: Marty travels to the future, buys a sports almanac, which falls in the hands of elder Biff, who travels to 1955, and gives it to his younger self, thus helping Biff become a sports-gambling gazillionaire, and transforming Hill Valley into a seedy dystopia. Marty goes back to 1955 to destroy the almanac, without interfering with his previous time-traveling exploits from the first movie. Consistent? No. In the words of Doc Brown, writers Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale weren’t “thinking fourth dimensionally.” Narratively, it’s fantastic. Logically, it’s all over the place, where multiple timelines coexist and alternate. Back to the Future III (1990) Plot: After reading that Doc, who traveled to 1885, died in a duel against Biff’s gunslinging ancestor, Marty finds the DeLorean Doc had hidden away and goes back to save him. Consistent: Of course not. As with the first two, the multiple timelines are irreconcilable paradoxes. Plus, as several obsessive geek sites have pointed out, when Marty finds the DeLorean and goes back to 1885 with it, there should by all logic be two DeLoreans in 1885. The Terminator (1984) Plot: In a last-ditch effort to win the future war against mankind, Skynet’s intelligent machines send the Terminator back to 1984 to kill Sarah Connor and prevent her from giving birth to John Connor, who would grow up to lead the successful human-led Resistance. But the Resistance sends Kyle Reese back to protect Sarah. Overstepping his duties, he impregnates her, and she gives birth to… John Connor! Consistent? Yes. It’s circular, chicken-or-egg logic, but it holds together.
Missing mothers, lost wives, abusive and indifferent father substitutes — Looper may be a movie powered by time travel, but its emotional fuel is abandonment. The new film from Brick director Rian Johnson is a clever, clever contraption about trading in your future to feed your present, and the lost boys and regretful men who willingly embrace such a bargain already believe they have nothing to live for or look forward to. Thirty years of kicking around with a lot of cash in your pocket looks like a pretty good bargain when you’re gazing down at it from in front of all that time, but when those last few days are running out, you might not be so ready to go. Looper may not have the bell-ringing resonance of Chris Marker’s La Jetée , one of its touchstones, but it’s a jaunty match-up of genre and character drama that’s far smarter and more finely wrought than almost anything else in the multiplexes. The film’s set a few decades in the future, where technology’s a little better and life in general is worse, at least in the Kansas metropolis in which Joe ( Joseph Gordon-Levitt ) lives. Looper ‘s setting of a midlevel Midwestern city and the ragged, lived-in feeling of its 2044 are a pleasingly off-kilter approach to its sci-fi premise. We don’t know what the government’s like in this year, or what the larger world’s become because it’s not so important to Joe, a young man who’s building up cash reserves and easing his off-hours with drugs until he’s free to move to France. Joe’s a looper, a job he explains with a matter-of-fact lack of curiosity: when time travel is invented a few years from his present, it’s instantly outlawed and used only by organized crime for assassinations. Murders will have become so hard to hide that it’s easier to send targets back to Joe’s era, where they can be neatly offed and disposed of by eager young men like our hero, guys who have accepted their own disposability. Joe’s self-interest is central to both the film’s premise and the way it avoids most of the tougher theoretical questions about time travel, paradoxes, how the technology works and whether people are using it for more ambitious purposes. He doesn’t care. He started out on the streets, and looping has provided him with a nice apartment and enough money to get high and to buy time with his favorite working girl Suzie (Piper Perabo). Like the town in which he lives, Joe’s nowhere near the top of the food chain, and has no interest in climbing. He’s just waiting on his big payout that will come once he closes his loop by killing off his future self — part of the devil’s bargain that all loopers make. Looper is built around our buying Bruce Willis as Joe’s future self, a feat that rests more on a wry impersonation by a prosthetics-aided (and very good) Gordon-Levitt than on the older actor. When the tougher and more world-weary Old Joe is sent back in time to die, he arrives with a mission in mind, but his younger self has no desire to hear it. The scenes in which the two Joes confront each other at a diner are among the film’s best. Youth and experience are unable to relate — even though they’re technically the same person — because their priorities are completely different. It’s an amusing and dishearteningly well-articulated take on how useless it would be to be able to offer your younger self advice when your younger self isn’t ready to hear it. While it’s no looper contract, we do trade in our future for present enjoyment in small ways all the time (by, for instance, taking up smoking or by spending money instead of saving it). Looper offers an even-handed look at both perspectives, even as it sends Old Joe off to make a terrible exchange on behalf of the future and follows younger Joe as he goes on the run and ends up taking shelter on a farm on which a woman named Sara (Emily Blunt) lives with her young son Cid (Pierce Gagnon). After a stylishly noir first half that’s simultaneously futuristic and retro — “20th-century affectation,” Joe’s boss Abe (Jeff Daniels) sneers at his employee’s preference for ties — Looper becomes more thoughtful and a little more jumbled in its second section, as it slows down for Joe to find some human connection for the first time in his adult life. With touches of The Terminator , the aforementioned Marker film and the inspired-by-it 12 Monkeys , a classic episode of The Twilight Zone and more, Looper is aware of its sci-fi legacy, but manages plenty of unique touches all its own. The depiction of Kansas is one, combining future tech and a farming lifestyle unchanged by the advance in time. A sequence in which Joe’s colleague Seth (Paul Dano) meets an unfortunate fate is innovative in its horror. But despite the fleet-footed flash of its storytelling, what’s most impressive about Johnson’s movie is its dark-edged faith in people being able to change despite the path on which they’ve been set. If all we’ll ever be is a product of the circumstances in which we grew up, then time travel’s almost unnecessary — the future’s predetermined. It’s choosing something new that may be as clear a sign as we ever get of a soul. Follow Alison Willmore on Twitter. Follow Movieline on Twitter.
