BelfastBoy
Posts: 452
Joined: 30/11/2005
|
HUGE SPOILERS FOR THE ENDING; DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THE INVISI-TEXT THING, SORRY!
Saw Looper last night on huge Omnimaxx screen, looks amazing given that (I'm assuming) the budget wasn't of Avengers proportions. First thing I need to say is that it's terrifically entertaining, 4* at least. I'd just say go and see it, prepare to be impressed, slightly confused, and stimulated with thoughts and possibilities (always the sign of a successful film). Rather than write an in-depth review, here's my observations:
- JG Levitt's makeup / prosthetics are effective enough, although unneccessary. Acting is 'make believe'; if the film says that JGL is playing a young Willis, then the audience will accept it without having to saddle the guy with a plasticky-looking face and nose! We all accepted Zachary Quinto as a young Spock, or Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan, so what's the problem?
- IMO the only time travel film that stands up to scrutiny is Twelve Monkeys. But, since time travel may not be possible at all, it's best to just - again - suspend disbelief and accept whatever way a particular film portrays it! Looper's take is certainly original, but riddled with plot holes that will frustrate if given too much thought. The film shows two possibilities - where young Joe kills his older self as per his standard MO, lives his next 30 years, before being sent back to be killed in the past. However, it also shows, to set up the bulk of the film, an alternative where old Joe manages to somehow break this 'loop' and go rogue in 2044. Without wishing to delve too deeply into the mechanics, surely only one of these timelines could actually happen? But then, there could also be an argument for there being alternative timelines. But my issue was this - surely for old Joe to get sent back in time, young Joe always has to kill him in the first place in order to get the gold, live the life, meet the beautiful woman etc?! How can it work if old Joe comes back but doesn't get killed? Does not compute! Game over man! etc. (Like I said, and despite what this paragraph may indicate, the film uses time travel as a plot device, not necessarily aiming for scientific plausibility. In this sense it succeeds 100% with something fresh and original.)
- On a related, slightly irrelevant, point, did the future criminals invent time travel, or did they somehow just gain exclusive control of the technology?
- Fans of Piper Perabo will be pleased to note that she has a topless scene, although it's totally unerotic.
- When Bruce Willis wants to be, he can be a great actor. For Looper, it's as if he's channelling his superb Twelve Monkeys performance one more time.
- JGL is quietly becoming one of the most effective and versatile actors currently active. If he's not on the A-list yet, then he soon will be. I can't believe how far he's come since Third Rock From The Sun, where he was good but seemed to play second fiddle to John Lithgow and Kristen Johnson (whatever happened to her?).
- The 'can you kill a child who will grow up to be a monster?' dilemma is employed to maximum effect here. I think it's fair to say that neither version of Joe is particularly pleasant, but the film does fully explore the trauma of killing children without being gratuitous. The power of suggestion is greater than seeing it happen explicitly.
- Emily Blunt's accent is flawless, and here's further evidence of her skills and versatility.
- The child actor playing Cid is amazing, although is it possible that his more complicated speeches were the result of some CGI trickery? If not, then his ability to deliver pretty lengthy and complicated dialogue is astonishing.
THE ENDING
This is my take, and I accept straightaway that I'm probably reading WAY too much into things! But here goes:
- At the end of the film, Cid is still alive, a generally lovable kid who nevertheless displays wildly uncontrollable TK-fuelled violent rages. Even if Sarah attempts to raise him as best as she can, who's to say that he doesn't grow up, learns to control his powers, and becomes The Rainmaker anyway? The film has a slight but notable fascination with China, and The Rainmaker sends Loopers back from future Shanghai. To me, since we know nothing about Cid's father, could it be that he was Oriental, because the boy looks vaguely mixed race?
OR
- This is my leftfield suggestion, but what if Sarah actually turns out to be The Rainmaker? In 2044, she knows about Loopers, although (based on my memory of a single showing) I don't think it's ever clear how she knows about them. She implies a life as a younger woman of excess in the city - a city that we know is effectively run by a crime boss from the future (Jeff Daniels). So, perhaps she learnt about Loopers and their work that way, before falling pregnant and escaping to the country. The Rainmaker is a Keyer Soze-esque figure, and it's not clear if it's even a man or a woman. Sarah - when manipulating the cigarette lighter - suggests that her TK powers are greater than normal, and she's given birth to a much more powerful son again. What if she learns how to develop her powers to the point where she can be a future criminal mastermind? Since she's already - in 2044 - seen the problems caused by Loopers on her own doorstep, in the future she sets out to 'close all the loops'. She either does it alone, or perhaps with the help of a grown-up Cid. This is a bit tenuous and highly unlikely, but I think it's at least a possibility!
< Message edited by BelfastBoy -- 29/9/2012 9:16:05 AM >
|
Printable Version
RE: Looper - 
Mod Candidate 2013
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread