Looper is the type
of high concept, wanna-be bitchin’ but ultimately flawed sci-fi film that I’ve
seen all too often.
In the film, men called loopers are hired in the present
(which is 2044, Kansas) to kill people sent back in time. Joe (Joseph
Gordon-Levitt) is what appears to be a common looper. His mob boss gives him a
time, he goes to a field, waits for a body to appear out of thin air, pulls the
trigger, disposes of the body, drinks with his buddies, does drugs, sleeps with
his stripper of choice. Wake up. Repeat.
What works. A great deal. Looper is written and directed by Rian Johnson, that very rare director
who is A.) American, B.) A sci-fi filmmaker C.) A guy who actually has
something new to say. The man has talent, which was evident in his gloriously
stylistic debut, Brick (but,
admittedly, not as clear in his follow up, The
Brothers Bloom). At any rate, his Looper
has a sincere, fresh vision. It’s a groovy idea mixed with thrilling action,
believable special effects, and enough subtle humor to amuse but not overstate.
What doesn’t work. A quote: “I don't want to talk about time
travel because if we start talking about it then we're going to be here all day
talking about it, making diagrams with straws.”
This quote, which Willis’ character says to Gordon-Levitt
midway through the picture, perfectly sums up everything I don’t like about the
film. If you’re going to make a movie about time travel, then make a fuckin’
movie about time travel. Don’t give half ass explanations to things you know
are going to be confusing via a single line of amusing dialogue. Lines like
that (and another one that Young Joe’s boss, played by Jeff Daniels, utters
early) are simply lazy. Johnson is hoping that by addressing the complexities
of time travel with throwaway lines like those, we’ll forgive the film of its indiscretions.
Maybe some people can, but stuff like that lingers in my head and all but ruins
the rest of the film for me.
So, in short, if you’re willing to meet Looper (at least) half way, then I imagine you’ll enjoy yourself. I’ve
purposefully skirted around much of the plot, because the film is good enough to not be spoiled in a
review. That says something. In my mind, Looper
isn’t quite as good of a film I suspect Johnson and Co. want it to be, but it’s
a worthy addition to a unique, American voice. B-
I gave it a little lower rating, but I mostly agree with you here. Looper does skirt around the complexities of time travel, but many other sub-plots (telekinesis, sweet kids with evil powers, etc.) muddle up the movie.
ReplyDeleteYeah, couldn't agree more. As I was watching it, I kept wondering, Really? All of this? Is it all that necessary?
DeleteYou guys, Looper isn't about time-travel.
DeleteAnd I get that, the same way I've always said Raging Bull isn't about boxing and There Will Be Blood isn't about oil. But at least Raging Bull accurately depicted boxing, and TWBB accurately depicted a turn of the century oilman. Ya dig? That's all I was getting at, homie.
DeleteI liked this a little bit more than you, but yes it's merely very good not great. The central premise is a tad hard to buy that this is really the only way to get rid of bodies in the future. But once it gets going I think there are great moments of tension and action. The performances are all great from the leads to the minor characters, especially from the young TK kid. Yeah, from the dinner scene it's obvious they're not going to really try to examine the paradoxes presented. Like if they did torture Dano's character in that way there is no way his circumstances would lead him to being sent back in time. But Sci-Fi action is rarely done even competently (Hello "In Time"), so I liked it if nothing more than that fact.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything you said here. I enjoyed all of the performances. I thought Emily Blunt's southern accent was impeccable, and actually better than Gordon-Levitt's, Jeff Daniels', Bruce Willis, and virtually every other American in the film. So that's cool haha.
DeleteBut yeah, competency is something that this flick didn't really have, and that was just distracting for me. Oh well!
Great review without spoiling it man. I sure gave a lot more of it away in mine.
ReplyDeleteI liked it a little better than you did, but not much, as I'd give it a weak B. Honestly, this is one I won't remember at the end of the year. I even preferred In Time to this.
That's a perfect way to put it: you'll enjoy it while you're in it, but come end of the year, it won't be around in your mind. Just, blah.
Deleteouch. ell ,i agree that the director stepped out and tried something new and it was a good achievement. and, while i agree that the film has a few flaws, i did think it at least committed to the time travel aspect.
ReplyDeleteThat's cool. Johnson definitely has a unique voice, so I will give him credit for flexing something new, but man, this one just did not do it for me fully.
DeleteThere is not a single time travel movie that can explain the time travel process consistently. Every movie that tried this ultimately failed - every time travel movie or book has gigantic plot holes and contradictions. This one too (e.g. the body manipulations). Not even trying to explain it with philosophy or technobabble and failing in the process is a way to go. They are honest in the diner, breaking the fourth wall: Accept that you are watching a time travel movie and have fun. You know the basic premises, but thinking it over in detail will yield nothing, so don't even try.
ReplyDeleteI liked that scene and the honesty. But it should have appeared in one form or another much earlier, maybe even in the trailer.
This is not a movie about time travels. It uses time travels as plot device, not more.
Really? You didn't think this was a movie about time travel? Hmm, that's interesting. That's the only thing I thought it was about.
DeleteThe time travels are just for the setting. Of course they are important and driving the plot, but the movie is not about the mechanics of time travel or the problems they create (like e.g. "Back to the Future" - which of course also failed if one thinks about the logic for a moment). The conflict is about personal responsibility and choices, more like "The Prestige" which is not about magic tricks (I don't want to spoil but if you know it you certainly see the connection). The sentence you quote is directed at the audience, not at Joe. It basically says: "Forget about all this pseudo-scientific blabla you get in other time travel movies. It never works, it is silly every time, so we will not even try it. Just take it as given that time travel is possible and the time line is not fixed. You have seen enough time travel movies to get the basic idea."
DeleteSo if this quote sums up what you don't like about the movie then it is obvious that you have to be disappointed of the movie.
The only somehow "working" time travel movies are those where there is no connection between the different time lines (e.g. "The Time Machine"). But that is just a cheap work around; basically the protagonist could have traveled to a different place instead of a different time with no plot changes.
I am not saying that those movies don't work as movies - a lot of them do and are fun.
I got you man. You definitely make a solid, convincing argument, which is always cool to hear. I am curious though... did you like the movie? If forced, what grade do you think you'd give it?
DeleteI didn't say this earlier, but thanks a lot for reading and commenting, I really do appreciate it.
It was ok, I enjoyed it. But some of the bigger plot holes annoyed me even while watching. Why do the loopers have to kill themselves? And stop "working" after they killed themselves? This is too obvious only a setting to produce story problems, nothing else. The body modifications as direction sign (and torture) have their obvious temporal problems also, even with Joe's pledge to forget about temporal problems. And the second "magic", the telekinesis, wasn't very well integrated, but needed for Cid's mutation (of the mutation). There were some lengths, it seemed pretentious sometimes.
DeleteIt is a quite entertaining sci-fi movie, I would recommend it to fans of the genre as entertainment. But except for the one quote there is not much to be remembered of it. I liked JGL's performance.
I try to avoid single grades.
I thought Cid was sending loopers back to save his mother. And they had to stop working as kind of a compensation - hey, you know 30 years from now you will be shot and killed, but have some money and enjoy your retirement.
DeleteI meant: Why do they have to kill their own future self? Just let another looper kill him. Forcing them to kill their future self has to produce trouble.
DeleteCid ends the whole looper program ("closing the loops") to save his mother.
The 30 years of retirement are just a little long for me, the mob is not known for its generous social benefits normally. Of course it could be that you don't get people for that job with a shorter or even none retirement time (which I would doubt; it is the money that motivates, not the free time alone; but I would accept for the movie). But as you don't know when your "loop closes" (which is said in the movie) you don't know how much money you will make or for how long. Could be after the first kill. With this uncertainty the deal does not seem to appealing to me. But that is a minor point, I am completely accepting this deal for the movie.
Yeah, I get everything you both are saying. Bottom line, for me anyway, is that I enjoyed this flick while I watched it, and won't be talking or thinking about it a month from now.
DeleteGood review Alex. The emotional-involvement with these characters just wasn't there for me, but the excitement and intrigue I had with everything else was and that's all that mattered to me. I loved Brick, and I have to say that Brick is a little bit better than this flick.
ReplyDeleteYup, I agree, Brick is definitely better than this. Cool stuff going on here, but no lasting impact for me. Thanks for reading Dan!
DeleteI thought the first 30 minutes were cool. It was fresh, different, and interesting. They were obviously setting up a lot of rules, but at least it was with a voice over as the Loopers go about their day.
ReplyDeleteAnd then it spent the rest of the movie screwing about Bumfuck Nowhere, Midwest USA with a bunch of characters I didn't care about, reminding me of better movies like The Terminator, Akira, and 12 Monkeys. The last 1/3rd or so with the WHAT A TWIST ending/supernatural stuff...if you would have told me M. Night directed this, I wouldn't have batted an eye. It was right in his wheelhouse.
Yep. This comment perfectly sums up why Looper didn't do it for me. Bitchin' concept, with a failed, lazy execution. I suppose I enjoyed it while I was in the moment (for the most part, anyway), but I will have all but forgotten about it in a month or so.
DeleteThanks for reading/commenting man!
I'm looking forward to this movie as a "fun" flick -- I don't need for it to be thought provoking.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think you will definitely enjoy yourself if that's all you want to get out of it!
DeleteB- is a good grade, I want to see it soon (I had my doubts for a while, I'm not really into sci-fi)
ReplyDeleteYeah, B- from me means good not great. Simple enough. Hope you dig it!
DeleteAlex, I can see your point about the time travel and not explaining it, but that didn't bother me. I felt like a movie with this much plot would collapse if they spent too much time trying to establish the rules. I think Johnson doesn't care about how the time travel actually works. He's using it to set up the drama between the two Joes, plus the question about whether it's worth it to lose yourself to try and save the future. There's so much to think about from the story, and I know there are flaws, but there's plenty to like that made it work completely for me.
ReplyDeleteThat's cool. This one definitely seems to be a love it or be indifferent about it kind of flick. Didn't fully work for me, but it's all good. Full of visionary, new ideas, which I completely respect.
DeleteWhile I was also quite disappointed, I did really enjoy it (B+) and have been keen to see it again. Slightly worried that I'll like it less though as the plot holes will probably open up on second watch whereas the first time round I was happy to skim over most of the ones you mentioned in your review!
ReplyDeleteIt's currently #16 for me for the year, so I assume it will make my top 30 or so but nothing special, just an average-decent sci fi.
I do wonder if I'd get more enjoyment out of it a second time. Maybe the first half, but once the farm tale kicked in... I might have to duck out haha.
DeleteSounds like a plan, I also didn't really enjoy that act!
DeleteI think a perfectly logical movie about time travel and loops doesn't exist. there is always this paradox that if you change something now it will affect the past. In a movie that complex dissecting it and figuring out all the loops can drive a person insane, so I actually really liked how they didn't dwell in that in the film and wasted no time. if someone wants to dig deeper he can do that after the movie, as we are given plenty of examples in the film how doing something to young version changes the older one. Really loved this movie, I've been thinking about it non stop for two days and my brain is slowly frying like an egg :)
ReplyDeleteI think your first sentence is absolutely correct, and that is something I certainly can't hold against Looper. I guess I'm just tired of seeing time travel movies that have no idea how to explain time travel.
DeleteMan, I bet if you really tried to dissect this flick, it would DEFINITELY fry your brain haha
We agree. I thought there were too many ideas, and the film lost its focus.
ReplyDeleteI bought into the time travel, hell even the telekinesis, but then the kid came along. Found the first half fascinating, but watching JGL sit around on a farm was not so much. A good film, but certainly not a great film.
Yes! Really glad we agree on this one. Good, not great...moving on!
DeleteNice review, though I dug the flick more than you did. Sati said it right -- you just can't explain time travel logically. It's not possible because it doesn't exist. Every possible explanation is just dead wrong. So keeping the time travel element in the background while focusing on the human element of the story was smart thing to do (Back to the Future did the same thing).
ReplyDeleteYeah, I completely agree with all of that. So, if I do focus on the human element in Looper, I'd still give it the same grade. Good not great.
DeleteThe film worked for me despite my problems with the time travel logic but I can get how it would be annoying that they're just trying to sweep it under the rug. I've heard a lot of people say "Don't focus on the time travel," but I think that's a little cheap.
ReplyDeleteI've only seen Brick and The Brothers Bloom once. I don't think I cared much for Bloom the first go round but I find myself wanting to watch it again. Rian is one to watch.
What's your favorite time travel movie?
Yeah, I completely agree with this comment. I do think the "don't focus on the travel" argument is a weak one. But oh well.
DeleteRian is DEFINITELY one to watch. A man with a unique vision.
Favorite time travel movie... Terminator 2.
Birthday double feature last night meant I finally got to see it and whilst we seemed to get the same level of enjoyment out of it my issues are not with the time travel aspect (aside from it being so unimportant to the actual plot that it may as well have been cut completely) but with the entire second half of the movie being an unnecessary and jarring plot change. What started off as a very good sci-fi noir turned in to something else entirely and relied on a woman who is not a very good actor (especially when compared to the rest of the cast) being a mother to a kid that would make Jodelle Ferland look a bit normal.
ReplyDeleteHa shit, that was hilarious. To be honest, by the time the movie landed at the farm, I was pretty much taken out of it. The time travel aspect (and the film's complete, laughable fear of dealing directly with it) made this one forgettable for me. I see that I gave it a B-... fair enough, I guess.
DeleteThis film was okay. That's it. That quote works for me 'cause in general time travel is a very inconsistent and the film showed self-awareness about that. In the film how it is possible to not have a leg and walk a street. This film implies that. But at the end Bruce Willis disappear. That should had happened through out the film as well. It's stupid. But the social commentary is fantastic. I love that so much. And the acting is good too. I love Bruce Willis when is good. B- from me as well.
ReplyDelete(I saw once a review that made me understand what really was wrong with the film. I'd recommend it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a0Oi4gFIro)
I remember watching that video as well. It helped explain some things, but yeah, it's still a B- movie to me as well.
Delete