Review of Looper (2012) by Erik R — 12 Jan 2014

I am so happy this movie got made. So happy. It's got a relatively smart script, ripe for viewer interpretation. Best - and in fact most lucid - interpretation I've read is that the universe is collapsing. So that's cool. It's got science fiction nods left and right: telekinesis, hover bikes, autonomous crop dusters (seriously - I loved how understated the futuristic elements were), a dystopian atmosphere reminiscent of Blade Runner's, a time machine that looks like something straight out of Jules Verne. It's got Joseph-Gordon Levitt and Bruce Willis, in very fine acting form. Hard to top that. And it's got noir sensibilities, which are the best kind of sensibilities to have. Also it's got a really fantastic pocket watch. I was green with envy.

Honestly, if you can't enjoy this movie, then just stop watching movies.

But there's a problem. In fact, if you're a savvy reader, you ought to be wondering now why a movie on which I just heaped such heavy praise got THREE stars. The problem is this: I've seen Twelve Monkeys. I've seen Primer. (And I've also seen Rian Johnson's fabulous debut Brick.) Those two movies both portray time travel in a way which is palatable (Brick is just damn good). Primer is truly mind-bending. Even Terminator 1 and 2 portray time travel in a way that doesn't suggest enormous plot holes. Why? Because the future is not modified by past actions in Terminator 1 & 2. Whoa whoa whoa, you might protest, but the future is modified in Terminator 1! John Connor sent his own father back into the future in order to conceive himself! But how could John have existed - in the first place - in order to do so?! It's a bit of a paradox but as far as the movie is concerned, everything which needed to happen in the past to ensure that specific future did, indeed, happen. Everything else just becomes a matter of interpreting how time actually flows.

Quick Digression you should skip if you don't like to think about time travel: (I personally believe a time traveler would be unable to change the future: the future already takes into account any actions a time traveler could do. Which, in a sense, means that free will does not exist. Objectively speaking, yes... and no. Take the grandfather paradox: you go back in time and kill your grandfather as a young man, thereby preventing you from being born which means you wouldn't have existed to go back in time and kill your grandfather in the first place. PARADOX?!!?!?!! I believe the universe would self-regulate this. You might point a gun at your grandfather and pull the trigger and the gun would misfire, and you would then remember the story your grandfather told you about the one time some guy ALMOST shot him and you would realize that was you. This may seem like free will does not exist. False. Can you fly right now? Can you jump up and fly? No? Does that mean you don't have free will? Of course not. You must obey the law of gravity. Likewise, you must obey the laws of time. You are unable to break causality. The time-elements necessary for the gunpowder to combust and expel the bullet would not function. As for which specific element - the gun, a train hitting you, etc - the universe would cause to malfunction, I believe it would take the path of least resistance. Which means blocking the invention of a time machine in the first place. If that makes you uncomfortable - the notion that the universe is capable of 'choosing'- well... tough. Why should you be the only thing that gets free will? It already happens. When electrons flow through a circuit, they prefer the path of least resistance. Why do they do they prefer that? Cause that's how nature is setup. And, for all we know, a couple of electrons do their own thing anyway: as long as most follow the rules, the universe works. Which is basically how individuals and society work too).

Anddd... returning from those murky depths of time travel, my point is this: the time travel of Looper isn't palatable. I'll get into specifics in a following post, but it just doesn't ring true to me. And that's not the only thing. Like time travel OK whatever. Back to the Future's time travel didn't entirely make sense either but those are hellaciously entertaining movies: 80-100% rating from me. Cause they also made sense on a character level. Looper doesn't always. Young Joe does some things that are not consistent with his character. There's a seriously damn goofy villain, who nevertheless plays an important role. A meeting in a cafe between Bruce Willis and JGL is so fantastic that it served to show the potential... that was often unrealized. The so-called third act plays out exactly as you might expect. And the ending felt, well... it felt anti-climactic. I was like... I went through ALL OF THIS... for what? To avoid a fate that was never shown? Hm.

Final Say: It's a good movie. Straight up. It's got a 94% rating on the official RT meter (as of writing). And while a lot of those fresh ratings are 3/4 stars rather than 4/4s, it does deserve its praise. It is fresh. It feels bold. I'm glad the movie was made, and you should go see it. But it is no Primer or Twelve Monkeys or Brick or Children of Men.

How to Watch It: Not with someone with enough intelligence to notice the film's flaws... but not enough to keep those flaws to himself. Seriously, Looper is ripe for being nitpicked. You want to go with someone really enthusiastic who just LOVES STUFF and is going to talk about how it was THE BEST GODDAMN MOVIE OF 2012! Right next to THE DARK KNIGHT RISES! Or with someone who thinks, Hrm there was some weird shit going on there. But being an insufferable know-it-all about it will neither get me laid nor improve anyone's life. and says, "Wow that was pretty great. I was totally freaking about how JGL didn't actually look like JGL!".

EXTRA: The scene in which Young Joe falls from the balcony (very early on - no spoilers) was shot during JGL's 30th birthday! The stunt/set people let him hang there and sang happy birthday and rolled out a big cake. I have no idea if that's true or not, but if it isn't, it ought to be.