Looper
Posted by martinteller on January 9, 2013
Rian Johnson’s third feature film finds him exploring new territory. It’s neither a neo-noir like Brick nor a Jeunet-styled caper flick like Brothers Bloom. Here he tackles the sci-fi genre, a time travel piece that has a bit of a western spice to it. If for some reason you’re even more behind the curve than I am, the story in a nutshell involves Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) in the year 204-something. Basically he’s a hired gun, killing folks sent to his time by the mob from 30 years in the future. One day, his target is himself (Bruce Willis) and, well, stuff happens.
There’s a lot to be grateful for. Johnson doesn’t bore the viewer with too much exposition, and in one of the movie’s best scenes, casually tosses off any tedious discussion of paradoxes. Thank you, seriously. I was dreading it, as well as what I was sure would be an inevitable third act twist. Johnson keeps the plotting relatively straightforward, without the need to go back and figure out how he “tricked” you, or the need to draw up silly charts (*cough* Primer *cough*). It’s an enjoyable bit of entertainment. It doesn’t do a whole lot in the way of exploring any intriguing themes, but there’s room for a little thoughtful analysis if you want it.
There are a few downsides, though. I prefer not to see Paul Dano ever. He’s not in the film that much, but one minute is too much for my tastes. I also didn’t care for the little kid (Pierce Gagnon), nor did I particularly like his part of the plot. I didn’t hate him… but I didn’t like him. While I’m at it, neither Emily Blunt’s character nor performance did a whole lot for me either. It’s not that I objected to the story going in a different direction, I just found those portions less engaging than the more sci-fi/action-oriented stuff.
JGL is in fine form, though, especially handling his Willis-esque delivery without overdoing it. I wouldn’t have minded seeing more of Willis. I felt his character (which is the same as JGL’s character, but you know what I mean) had some interesting facets that could have been mined deeper. Technically the film is fine, with a few clever tricks. I wanted to know a little more about this future world (which simultaneously has hover jet-bikes and Ford F-150’s) but then I also appreciated the lack of over-exposition so maybe it’s better as it is.
In all, I found it a pretty good watch. In terms of recent sci-fi, it’s not as intriguing as Moon and I don’t feel like it’ll stick with me very long. But I don’t think I’d mind watching it again sometime. In the future. On my hover jet-bike. Rating: Good (78)
Martin Teller's Movie Reviews 
JamDenTel, said
Agree with you totally about Dano. The scene of his older self being bloodlessly dismembered was ingenious, but the fact that Dano was so incredibly annoying kind of sucked the emotional resonance out of it.
Personally, I had issues with the ending. I think Young Joe’s sacrifice felt kind of forced–the film bending over backwards to avoid showing a child getting killed, even after said child has encompassed the deaths of several people. At the very least, he could’ve killed Old Joe and kept an eye on the kid as he grew up.
I may be picking the nits pretty heavily, and I kind of owe this a rewatch (I think the expectations and the reviews got to me a bit first time around), but it bothered me nonetheless.
martinteller said
I don’t know if the film was “bending over backwards to avoid showing a child getting killed”… Willis killed that first kid, right? I mean, they didn’t show it, but it seemed like that’s what they implied. I didn’t quite follow what happened to the second one. As for killing Old Joe, he was too far away.
JamDenTel, said
Well, the first kid was a minor character, not one the audience ever built up any familiarity with.
And yeah, I know Young Joe was too far away from Old Joe to shoot him, but I find that kind of a weak contrivance on Johnson’s part. Again, though, I think I let the critical gushings drove me to pick the film apart more than was intended. I do want to see it again, especially since there’s a lot I do like about it.
Teddy Casimir said
While I loved the movie more than you did, I do see your point about the second half. I find it considerably weaker than the first. It’s like Johnson ran out of interesting ways to showcase the film’s themes and decided on that final portion. And I agree about Dano. I know this sounds incredibly shallow, but his face bothers me. But not moreso than his acting. That being said, I am glad you still enjoyed the film as I loved it.
martinteller said
If I had to guess, I’d say the second part is more important to Johnson than the first half. But that doesn’t make it any more enjoyable or rewarding to me. I just wasn’t that interested in the kid.
And yeah, Dano’s face is my big problem with him. It is shallow, but that’s how it is. I dislike looking at him.
Danny Reid said
I found it interesting how the film switched protagonists so effortlessly– In the first half JGL is a punk, and Willis the sympathetic lost man. Then as soon as Willis crosses the line and JGL finds himself on the farm, we begin to see how they become two very different people because of what drives them. I wasn’t a huge fan of the film, but I think it was crafted well.
martinteller said
I agree… although I still wish we could have seen more of Willis’s journey.