sljohnson12

Production Values do not make a film, as this facet is a given in high budget movies. Adequate Actors do not make a film excellent if the script is poor - in this case mediocre - and there is a complete lack of characterization. A Screenplay with an interesting premise does not make a good film if the development is good but becomes extremely drawn out, then suddenly a rushed ending is thrown at the audience. The cliffhanger is great, though.

Allusions to stand alone classics and mythology do not make a film if they do little to nothing in contribution to the film in its entirety. People have lauded this film as if it is some avant-garde, incredible work of art for in the least its name being a reference to the Greek myth where Man is made, given the ability to make fire, as well as metaphysical overtones inherent of such, and the obvious reference to the story of the birth of Christ. All of this does little to actually help the film. If anything, these allusions are made to make the film seem deeper than it is.

Again, the premise is the best part, and while I was enjoying it so much as I am a huge fan of science fiction, there came a time in the film when I was struggling to come up with warrants to justify why the film was good, let alone why I should not walk out. I am capable to logic and reasoning- people complain at how analytical I am at times - yet, hopefully not to sound cyclical, it was when the film started to drag on that I, in retrospect, should have walked out.

I have never walked out on a film before (except for the second installment of Lord of the Rings, due to the fact I couldn't stand the directing). At least I got to watch that movie for free. I regret having spent $9 to see this movie. It had some good scenes though and I know not to watch this as if it is an Alien film, but treat it more like a separate sci fi film (given the ending, it is impossible to - I will say no more). To describe this film, only one word is required.

Terrible.

There are two aspects of Looper that cause it to be stifling: It tries too hard to be stylish and too hard to be deep. The production values are there, with the actors well cast - though, when it comes down to it Bruce Willis is cast as a character that is essentially himself in every single Die Hard, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt is cast as (and takes on the attempts at acting like) a younger Bruce Willis.

Here is where an interesting facet comes into play: The most basic -simplified, if you will- premise is that one person meets themselves in the future. With the help of some keen makeup and prosthetic, Gordon-Levitt was able to be given the jaw, cheekbones, and forehead of Bruce Willis. In addition, speaking in a raspy and sort of brooding tone, the film is able to pull off a decent narration. However, it just tries too hard to be "cool"; too hard to be "noir." The director, Rian Johnson, attempts to be the next Christopher Nolan by mimicking the deep provocations of Inception but fails due to the fact that the presentation is terrible. One moment he throws a concept at the audience and before one can really figure out any profundities or even specific relations to a plot, the scene following is an elementary action scene or something that is easy to conceive, partially due to similarities with action films hitherto. Perhaps with another viewing, aside from gawking at visuals, the viewer would be able to construe of something that is probably not there and, the undeniably corny plot "twists" thrown in make this film more than just a waste of money but also a waste of time. Inception was deep with the only real downside being that of the latter portion of it being drawn out - Looper tries with all of its might to be Inception, but can be evaluated from its ending which is, in the larger scope of cinema, a cop out.