Looper

In prehistoric times, when I was a boy reading Anderson's "Annals of the Time Patrol," I wondered how difficult it is to write (or shoot) sci-fi with time travel themes and not fall into the trap of a time paradox that has the ability to turn the story into an absurd farce. However, the problem of a time paradox is not what makes Looper unbearable in my eyes. Johnson's film is a typical summer blockbuster, which doesn't worry about illogical slip-ups in the script or rushed and bizarre relationship building. It offers potentially interesting themes, but it processes them or barely touches on them in a superficial way. The directing is routine and so is Bruce Willis' performance, which functions as a worn-out template for action heroes. Twelve Monkeys once proved that it is possible to create a smart, cultivated, and entertaining genre film about such a difficult-to-grasp phenomenon as time travel. In comparison to Gilliam's film, Looper is quite a bit worse. Overall impression: 40%. (02/05/2022)

Bruce Willis is able to time travel much better that this (hello 12 Monkeys). Looper is another one of those new sci-fi films (Moon, Source Code, In Time...) where it's nice to see that they can get by without a huge budget and that they can raise the hopes of genre lovers that they'll be original and fresh... But that's the end of it. In this case I liked the initial idea, the technical execution and both actors (Joseph Gordon-Levitt handled the role of Bruce Willis quite well, he wasn't even very ridiculous), but the rest wasn't worth much. Continually stupid and illogical, the clichéd passage on the farm makes me want to kill someone, and worst of all was the ending, in which - SPOILER - the hero died, but his inner voice kept on talking. (02/25/2013)

With Looper, Rain Johnson was successful where Duncan Jones, with Source Code, and Andrew Niccol with, In Time, failed: making, on a low budget, an original and ambitious sci-fi movie that is also fun, smart and without major gaps of logic. Some people may not agree with the last observation (judging by the fairly numerous negative comments), but I believe Looper avoids those time travelling illogical paradoxes actually because it never explains exactly how time travel works in its universe. Source Code tries to explain it, but it doesn’t make much sense. Looper just waves its hand at that, saying that “it’s a complicated mess”, and doesn’t bother with explaining anything. I liked that. (Spoiler) But I hear those cries. If Willis, coming from the future, killed the kid’s mum, he would turn him into the dangerous villain that made Willis come back from the future, and that doesn’t make sense, because in the reality to which Willis returns, nothing like that happened. Yeah, yeah, I see the joy of those smartasses that finally found one gap in logic, and to show it off, they say that Looper is bullshit. But this film doesn’t work with such direct causality. The course of events in the climax, which result in the kid’s becoming a villain, is just one of many ways it could have happened. Different paths lead to the same outcome, many different paths lead to a probable outcome, a few different paths lead to an improbable outcome. And that’s the way Looper’s universe work, with “probability”, and it says so a couple of times, for instance, in the conversation in the diner. It’s still a bit of a mess, though, but it’s clear that, by not dealing with precise rules, the creators want to rely on something else, emotions. And I think that it works. (End of spoiler). So, that is it. In my opinion, Looper is not too far from being a truly acclaimed work. It’s original to a certain extent, fantastically made, well acted, smartly written and quite nasty towards its characters; uncompromising sci-fi. How many are there? (10/19/2012)

Complicated, narratively muddled, and considerably unpolished. The director didn't even understand the basic thing that if you have a low-budget sci-fi film, you can't afford panoramic shots or city and traffic scenes, because if in 2044 you see a Toyota Yaris driving on the road, that's probably not entirely right. Only the smaller role of Emily Blunt and the excellently stylized Joseph Gordon-Levitt are good, he perfectly captures not only the appearance of a young Bruce Willis, but also his facial expressions and delivers great looks and lines precisely in his younger style, and it works great. Not a timeless film for sure, not very high-quality either, rather unusual, perhaps, but that's not enough. (01/20/2013)

A Terminator wannabe and the stupidest science fiction movie among the intelligent ones. Longwinded; after the opening few minutes completely without ideas; set in the future only for effect; it is shamefully superficial, it has no rules (neither for time travel nor the simple laws of action/reaction; for instance, the reason behind getting rid of people in such a complex, costly and uncertain way, which it later completely denies), but it has the most annoying child around... It wouldn't matter with a dumb popcorn action movie, but with a movie supposedly based on its "smartness", it makes you want to slap the filmmakers in the face. So there are precisely two pros; the opening quarter of an hour before the well of ideas dries out, and Willis’ dialog-less scene at the first meeting. Just disappointing. And yet it's the best non-action science fiction since Source Code. Which is darn sad. (10/11/2012)