|Page 17 of 65:||               |
|Index||648 reviews in total|
How do I react to LOOPER? Did I like it? Was it Original? Was it worth
the time? Hopefully by then end of this I may be able to provide valid
explanations to justify my answers.
LOOPER: is definitely one of the better movies of Bruce Willis in the year 2012. It also indisputably is the year of Joseph Gordon - Levitt. With 3 great movies this year and with good performances in every single one of them, Levitt's consistency can be considered "one to look forward to".
To answer the first question, I began to grow to like the movie with time. Director Rian Johnson treads smartly with his tactical approach in cinematography. The grainy filming of the future draws an ambiance to the entire movie that the future is dark, corrupted and a broken place where life as we know it, simply is more sephia-hue than colorful. One too many movies have been shot and digitally mastered as such that it did not feel original. However the concepts behind the screen play is quite original (please note I mentioned quite original and "not" original) that they dismiss each other off.
Now did I like it? Yes I did. The slightest indication of innovation needs recognition since it's the efforts of such that someday may bring forth another Spielberg or Scorsese. LOOPER isn't a Bruce Willis movie that one may anticipate. Bruce Willis is a great pick for the cast considering the monetary aspect. It is tough not to appreciate his work. Gordon-Levitt is the star but I found it hard to believe since the hardest work done on him is his facial prosthetics whilst the screenplay barely scratches the surface of the characters growth. He comes with a gun and goes with a gun and in between he is just an unhappy soul simply said. One character to look out is the child star Pierce Agnon. He does justice to his role. He is sweet and sinister that does not make it hard to believe the future of his own character. If there was no Pierce Agnon I am not sure I would have liked it at all.
So is LOOPER original? Maybe! Is it a great Sci-fi Movie? No it isn't (I would hardly pass it as sci-fi). It is watchable and it's good but not great. The concept of time travel has not been explored much in Hollywood and it may be considered an untapped source for entertainment. However the originality takes a spear to heart and drops hard since Rian Johnson take one too many shortcuts. Is it the lack of experience or the shallow script? It's a combination of both it seems. The director pays attention to all the touch points of a great movie. He sets the tone, he is good with filming, sound editing is decent, visuals are acceptable and realistic, and however each of the touch points is whiplashed upon and not driven deep enough. There is lack of premise for each concept. The entire concept of LOOPER is to travel back in time to stop the Rain Maker. The damage the rainmaker does isn't elaborated enough. He kills people smartly. So does every villain in every movie? So do you think it's original?
Loopers are hired assassins from the year 2044. Joe (Gordon-Levitt) is one of these assassins that stands in a field looking at his antique pocket time piece (in 2044) waiting for his employer to send his assignment through time from 2074 so he can shoot him. Apparently bodies are tagged in 2074 so they cannot be killed without drawing attention of the law. So they are sent back 30 years in time to be shot at and disposed off. These Loopers from time to time find themselves shooting their future selves (There you go a bit of Christopher Nolan for you right there!). Suddenly Joe (Gordon) finds his older self (Willis) at his own gun point and thus LOOPER unfolds.
I have just one last question. If you had the ability to send someone through time to be killed and if you need to pay an assassin to do it, why not save the money and send them back in time to when the dinosaurs ruled the earth? Too easy? #sigh#
TITLE: LOOPER DIRECTED BY: RIAN JOHNSON STARRING: BRUCE WILLIS, Joseph GORDON-LEVITT, PIERCE GAGNON AND EMILY BLUNT. RATED: R RATING: 05/10 RUNTIME: 119 MINUTES
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.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Wow, SLOW DOWN HERE, PEOPLE! 8.1? you guys REALLY think this is worthy
of that high of a rating? Don't get me wrong. It's not a terrible movie
and it certainly is better than most of the crap littering cinemas
nowadays but there's no way this could be rated 8.1, with a straight
Now I enjoyed the movie. I won't lie. It was fun to watch and it has an interesting premise. However, that doesn't stop it from being crap. As fun as it is to watch, it's very poorly written. Having done a bit of research on the director, Johnson made a previous film, Brick, which has a cult status. I can ultimately see this movie having the same fate, and it's very ambitious. And in a way, it deserves a cult status. That doesn't stop the film from being insanely flawed though.
WARNING: TONS OF RANTING
1. If the future is THAT poor, how are they suddenly rich again in the further future? Their currency is silver bars, do they just suddenly make counterfeit bars or do they hire some company to make silver? This isn't really thought out well and just seems like an excuse to find some way of explaining how the characters get paid
2. Do they need to use just the blunderbusses? Can't they use their own weapons? The bodies are disposed of immediately in some inferno anyways. And if the shells are left behind, well, there's ways of using untraceable bullets. Blunderbusses aren't that conspicuous of weapons anyways, there seems to be no reason for it at all.
3. Huge plot hole- Time travel isn't legal, neither is the job of looping. At one point in the film, the protagonist goes so far as to explain in detail why it isn't legal too. But then, when he can't kill his own character, the cops are suddenly looking for him too because he couldn't close his own loop.
4. At one point in the film, we get some ridiculous plot about the "Rainmaker", which goes nowhere and exists only so that Bruce Willis can kill some little kid.
5. Why oh WHY did they have to turn the movie into a ripoff of X-Men at the end? With how the kid can eviscerate people with his mind alone... They never give an explanation except for some silly story about the kid accidentally killing his grandma.
6. That really stupid cliché of "I'm all bitter because they took the love of my life!" people actually laughed out loud at the cinema because of that that subplot. In fact, how they managed to have Bruce Willis say that with a straight face is mind-blowing.
7. The kid is strong enough to control 3 people at the end? But they say somewhere in the movie that HIS POWER HASN'T FULLY DEVELOPED YET!!!!!!
8. That whole ending with how he shoots himself to prevent the future self from wreaking havoc, total copout. Couldn't he have just shot his future self so he could have lived with the pretty girl and gone to France? I do like downer endings but it seemed like here they were building up all this tension between the two then suddenly got lazy and killed him off for no good reason.
Okay, so the film realistically would be a 7/10 from me. However, I'm giving it a 4/10 because people seem to be hopelessly jumping on the 10/10 bandwagon, and they seem to be oblivious to the poor writing. I'd recommend it, but by god, this site really needs to help keep things in perspective.
|Page 17 of 65:||               |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||Newsgroup reviews||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|