Review of Looper (2012) by Oxcart — 04 Nov 2012

Looper is one of those films that desperately wants to be taken seriously. It tries to capture audience interest and respect in several ways -- action, inter-character and character development, even the cerebral "nature of cause and effect" conundrum.

Unfortunately, it screws everything up and makes a royal mess. Its characters are, by and large, shallow to the point of one-dimensionality, generally merely character stereotypes rather than even photocopied archetypes.

The primary anti-hero protagonist/antagonist (yep, it's that convoluted) probably undergoes the most development, but that's due in part to the fact that he's being played by two separate actors. By and large, the performances are wooden and unconvincing, the writing stilted to the point of being hack dialogue, and the plot so full of holes that trying to sort it all out would take much more time than this film is worth.

(Consider this a note to all would-be time travel story writers: whether you decide on a deterministic or non-deterministic model of causality doesn't matter as long as you are consistent. Looper? Total flop on that.

) Joseph Gordon-Levitt does a reasonably good job with what the script gives him (which isn't much), and Emily Blunt turns in a rather good performance, in part because she's the only believable character in the whole mangled mess.

To be totally and brutally honest, if billing on this movie were by quality of performance, Blunt should be going first; hers is the best portrayal in the film. By the same logic, Bruce Willis' unconvincing, flat, and downright uninterested performance should earn him a credit just below the lighting intern.

Frankly, Willis phoned in this performance; even with the pathetic writing, he could have done much better. Jeff Daniels turns in a decent portrayal of a boss from the future sent back to run herd on the miscreants that populate the turkey of a plot.

Scriptwriting was horrendous, particularly in the area of plot. The entire film was over-the-top violence and brutality. Really, with the aforementioned exceptions to the generally poor performances, the only other people in this production that deserve a true pat on the back are those responsible for generating the setting and scenery.

They, at least, did a fine job in creating a dystopian, energy-starved, socially collapsed world in which to set this train wreck of a film. (It's an unfortunate thing when the setting is outshining most of the cast in quality of performance.

) Given the blasting I've given this film, it's easy to wonder why I'm giving it a 2 instead of a 0. Three reasons: Gordon-Levitt, Blunt, and the scene setting crew. Everything else? Junk. Had I known now what I was getting into, I would not have gone to the theater for this.

I would've waited until it hit cable...and then watched something else.