|Page 17 of 64:||               |
|Index||631 reviews in total|
I had high hopes and expectations for this movie, because everyone kept
saying how nice it is, and given the fairly good rating it has gotten
here on IMDb. So it with was a certain level of anticipation that I sat
down to watch "Looper".
I will say that the storyline is indeed original and interesting. There are some really nice touches to the movie and the story does progress quite nicely. Well, at least right up until the super telekinetic child was introduced and you saw his powers. Then the movie just totally fell to the floor for me and took a turn for the worse. At this point I was ready to turn off the movie, because it became a joke onto itself. However, I did manage to sit through it to the very end.
What impressed me about "Looper" was the concept behind the plot and storyline. It was a really nice twist on time travel, and the story was actually really nicely executed. And also the performances of both Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon-Levitt was quite good. And I must admit that I was pleasantly surprised to see Jeff Daniels in a role such as the one he had in "Looper", it was really out of his usual league, but he did a great job with his role.
Also the way that had altered Joseph Gordon-Levitt's face was impressive, though I didn't really see much resemblance between his face and the face of Bruce Willis. But still, it was a nice touch to the movie, and it did take a little while getting used to seeing Joseph Gordon-Levitt that way.
The reason for my mediocre rating of the movie is pure and simple; because of the telekinetic child. That totally blew the movie to pieces for me and left me laughing at what the movie turned into. The movie could have been so much more had director, Rian Johnson, not opted for that approach on the storyline.
"Looper" is still worth watching though, because of the interesting storyline and because of the great performances to be seen in the movie.
Looper had a good potential story wise. The script seemed interesting,
but ultimately the movie is disappointing, riddled with incoherences,
the most shocking one being the end of the movie itself.
The first half is too speedy and kind of muddled, therefore pretty hard to follow and understand all the the whys and wherefores. On the other hand, the second part is weirdly slow and the film loses all its intensity, especially once Young Joe meets Sara.
The direction is below average, the lighting being pretty bad with a lot of halos and a few very dark scenes. JGL is barely recognizable with all the makeup and Rian Johnson certainly didn't need to be that drastic to make them look alike.
It was really, really awful, and I can't for the life of me understand
why it's so highly rated. Nothing made sense. Nothing was thought
through. Plot holes everywhere, story couldn't make up its mind about
what it wanted to be, the future world was incredibly poorly realised
and practically not even visible apart from insignificant, out-of-place
elements such as hoverbikes and tiny, transparent cellphones.
The worst of it all, however, is the complete idiocy of how time travel worked. Apparently in the future you can't dispose of bodies, so you have to send them back 30 years (yeah, 30 - not back before the beginning of human civilization or anything, which would have been easier) to be killed and disposed of by someone there. Why send them back alive instead of killing them there and just sending the body back? We aren't told, so we're forced to suspend even more of our disbelief and assume you can't KILL anyone in the future, despite that not being what we're told. But then why are people in the future threatening each other with guns? What are they going to do if the target doesn't comply? Not to mention that later in the film they DO in fact shoot someone in the future, completely ruining the already terrible plot device that you can't kill there.
Why is everyone using civil war era firearms prone to jamming, when there are plenty of high tech weapons around in both eras? Must be some sort of honour or fashion thing among the loopers, right? Nope, Old Joe has no problem grabbing a couple of P90's at one point, which he of course drops after a few seconds of use, to go back to his trusty six shooter that already failed him once.
Oh, and without spoiling the story: If someone is coming to kill you and those you love, and you know that person can't track you but just knows where you are now, what do you do? If you answered "leave that place", you are smarter than any of the characters in this film.
|Slight spoiler|: The entire premise of the film is that character X is evil and must be stopped, because X is killing off the loopers. But the loopers are murderers - yet not a single person wonders if X may be doing a good thing by getting rid of them. No, we're supposed to accept it as obvious that someone getting rid of hired killers is evil.
These are just what I can remember off the top of my head, but not ten minutes went by during the film where my palm didn't come into contact with my forehead over some stupid, pointless or completely self-refuting brain fart. I've never seen anything pretending to be intelligent fail so hard at it.
The movie was just nonsense. It contradicted itself from scene to scene
and was not very cleverly constructed at all.
But the worst thing about this movie for me is that I did not get the make-up on Gordon-Levitt. I, as we all are, am capable of coming to grips with the fact he is playing a young Willis, without attempting to make him look like him. I did not get to the point in Superman where Clark shows up in Metropolis and said "No way, that's not Superman. I saw him in an earlier scene, he's a different man. That can't be him." No, my brain had enough about it to cope with different actors playing different aged versions of the character. So the make-up is odd, and I actually found it took up more of my thoughts than the action/story itself.
The movie lacks anything that sets it apart. That makes it special. That makes it interesting. Generic attempt at an action movie, with ill-thought out Sci-Fi elements added as a plot driver, and poorly in my opinion.
Going into this movie, remind yourself of one thing
"Time travel will
never make sense." There. Now you can enjoy Looper.
Looper is about a futuristic assassin called Well, a Looper In this case, his name is Joseph Gordon Levitt, or affectionately named, Joe. Joe gets people sent from the future, to the present, where he kills them on the spot. One day, his future-self, Bruce Willis, shows up. He's all like, "whaaaat?" *Insert movie-long chase scene here*
It's a really fun sci-fi flick that plays with different themes, and different ideas of morality. Can the end result justify a person's actions, regardless of how dark they may be? Things like that At the end of the movie, I almost felt like it was lesson in thematics, and I think it was very successful. It's a little more serious than I envisioned, like Lawless, a little more gritty than expected.
Looper is a big fat 8/10.
I had high expectations on the movie being a big fan of sci-fi genre. It started pretty well setting expectations high, then follows a series of mediocre actor's play, copy-paste from other movies - Terminator/Signs style and such (missing the originality). The movie lacks charm and feels like multiple pieces put together - dialogs feel to be taken from elsewhere (other movies), character's act in a extremely foreseeable way, like you know what they are going to say or do. There are movies with lower quality of play and direction so this one i would put as mediocre. I personally wondered whether to stop it and watch something else couple of times. If you have no special demand for quality, fun and original movie that would bring you pleasure from watching - you can try to watch this one.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Looper garners a richly deserved "dumb and a half" rating with this
reviewer. Now viewers get that time travel is not possible, never will
be, as proved by the fact that the present isn't already overpopulated
with temporal tourists from the future. We're ready to set aside belief
on this point in exchange for a decent, believable storyline: the first
rule of verisimilitude. Unfortunately in this loopy story we are
supposed to believe that it's impossible to kill someone in the future
so organized crime sends its trash back to the present for disposal and
incineration by hired guns called 'loopers.' So we viewers are supposed
to buy into the idea that the bad-asses of the future are daft on top
of nasty. Wouldn't they just hire a single guy to keep the fires
burning and time-zap their chosen victims directly into the fire? Or
dispense with that expense and ferry the intended directly into the
fiery maw of a fusion reactor? Since they seem able to direct location
as well as instance with their illegal chicken-wire-lined time machine
couldn't they then just ship undesirables off into the earth's core,
outer space or a studio session of the Ellen show?
Now let's deal with the syrupy implication that our hero's final act saves the dopey telekinetic kid from a life of crime, allowing him to turn his special powers towards the betterment of humanity. Come on, with a little self-control, this kid's powers are tailor-made for evil and destruction. The best he can hope for by going over to the bright side is for a life of picking up litter wholesale, maybe popping the odd litterbug's head for sport and punitive measure once in a while. That's it. While his powers are awesome, they have little value outside of the underworld.
If you value your time set your own time-machine on bypass for this stinker.
In the future, it is 2074 and Time Travel has been invented, but is
also illegal. The MOB (the Mob will always be around) uses it anyway to
send someone they want whacked back 30-years where a Looper, an
assassin who closes the loop and shoots him and disposes of the body.
Young Joe (Gorden-Levitt) is a Looper and because Time Travel is as
complicated as it is, a now Older Joe (same guy) (Bruce Willis) comes
back from 2074. Now Young Joe sees himself as Older Joe and he needs to
whack Older Joe. What to do? What to do? But, Older Joe escapes and has
an agenda and that is to find and kill the Rainmaker, who will abolish
This was quite enjoyable. Here is the best way to view Time Travel and enjoy the show. Remember when you dreamed, everything in the dream made sense? In a conscious state, of course, these things would not, could not make sense. But treat Time Travel as a dream where everything makes sense and you will be fine. Anyway, I hope the explanation above gives you a good reference for what you are about to see.
The entire cast performed well. The stunts and CGI were outstanding. Notables included Emily Blunt as the single mother, Paul Dano as a Gatman (okay a Looper), and Jeff Daniels as Abe, Young Joe's boss. A special shout-out is made for Jeff Daniels, with or without the beard, as he is good as bad guy, someone part of the Mob or a questionable politician. Take your pick.
One more shout-out and that is for Cid (Pierce Gagnon), the child of Sara (Emily Blunt) who acted well beyond his years. Kudos.
All in all very clever and quite enjoyable. (8/10)
Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: Yes, show girls passing backstage. Drug use: Yes. Language: Yes. But not overdone.
The premise for this film was interesting, but unfortunately, it was
yet another example of lazy sci-fi writing, where the opportunity to
consider the implications of the initial concepts are soon thrown aside
in favor of some fairly dull action sequences.
SPOILER - In the end, some kid with superpowers ( Damon character from the Omen) defeats the combined talents Bruce Willis (doing his Pulp Fiction hit-man character) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt ( doing his Bruce Willis from Pulp Fiction character), because Gordon-Levitt's character finally realizes the writer didn't have enough imagination to find a plot device which would end the story in a satisfactory manner, so he just blows his own brains out. It was great acting, because by that point in the film,I was really starting to feel the same way.
Loopers are professional killers who in the year 2044 eliminate
assorted people presumably other criminals - sent from the future.
Because the future is a place where they invented time travel, but made
it illegal. Also, the future is a place where it is almost impossible
to dispose of a body although when we see it done, it does not seem
such a big deal
Anyway, given this bizarre premises we are also
explained that loopers are so called because after an indeterminate
number of years in the profession, they must close the loop by killing
their older self, shipped back from 30 years in the future.
At this stage, whatever effort one made to suspend disbelief comes crashing down. Since they already know that in 30 years they will be executed (by themselves), why these loopers do not try to eliminate the mob king who is systematically ordering their executions? Why do they accept passively to be shipped back to the past with a sack over their head? If this is a serious logical flaw (and there are many others, pointed out by several reviewers), worse is to come, in the shape of a TK obnoxious child, who derails completely the script into an additional dimension of implausibility.
So far we were dealing with ruthless criminals who have no problem shooting, torturing and burning bodies, but suddenly women and children are off-limits. This "honour among thieves" is a well-beloved cliché in mainstream movies, but it is an absurd illusion. In real life, cold-blooded killers kill anybody - women and children included - because they are unsympathetic to all human beings, not just to other adult males. Selective lack of empathy is absurd and so is this movie. Finally, we have the delusional notion that "love can cure anything". Unfortunately, there are no reported cases of paranoid-schizophrenic cured by mummy's love....
One cannot expect much logic in a movie about time travel, but even low expectations are too high for this mess. The only partial saving grace is Joseph Gordon-Levitt who plays convincingly a despicable character.
|Page 17 of 64:||               |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||Newsgroup reviews||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|