Puts characters in right place, and looks good. Still not a big success story

Rating: 6/10 (24 June 2013)

This film was really an interesting film to watch. And I mean it. When it was released back in September 2012, I had no such interest in watching it. For me the film just looked lame. I know you should never judge a book by its cover; I was just totally uninterested in this film. For starters it had that gangster's vibe going for it. And I just don't like gangster movies, for one and the fact that it involved killing people randomly, which I like, but this film kind of (for me) seemed to go over the edge and get a little too extreme. When I watched it, it had a very realistic and dark thing about it. What got me threw it all was the mesmerizing performances, by lead Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and supporters, Noah Segan and Emily Blunt. Okay so the issues with this film include Bruce Willis, length, and ending. Bruce Willis. The man behind Die Hard. I don't know what to say, the guy has lost it. He just can't act anymore, why he does it most likely now is to put food on the table. Whenever he's on screen he just doesn't seem to be n it, he doesn't have the same momentum he used to have. The dude unlike Sylvester Stallone just can't do it anymore. He's given up trying. His scenes were very poorly acted. The length of this film is way too long. I can think of a couple of scenes that should have been cut, or shortened more. It's just way too unbearable. This film could have made for a decent Hour and a half film, but instead the people behind it added un- necessary additions to the film such as the half naked women in the bed scene, and the "kid blue" getting his knuckles cracked scene. Those were lengthy additions that made little difference to the story. The ending to this film was also a bit of a disappointment for me. It ended with Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character killing himself so that the crazy future him, Bruce Willis wouldn't kill the kid. It was a very poor ending. The kid should have just been killed and Levitt's character ending it by killing the future him. The kid was freaking nuts, and would end up being a ruthless killer. The kid killed people, he was already a lost cause, and Emily Blunt's character man was she a freaking air head. She should have killed the son. Heck with it, I would have, he was nuts. Well now to the good things. It includes the acting, special effects, and character development. The acting as I already explained was very good. Memorable you could say. Joseph Gordon-Levitt nails another role in the head. He is most likely one of the best actors of today. Every film I see him in is more un- forgettable then the last! He is excellent in his role, and adds depth to his character. And a few supporting cast members as I've already stated were excellent as well. The special effects, while minimal, are excellent and sharpened to the tip. The character development is by far the best thing. All of the character's back stories are told neatly and well. All of the character's had an emotional back story, and you felt something for each one, good and bad. You felt their issues and problems, big and small. Every character was proved to be realistic and had something about them that at least one person could relate to. All in All, Looper might not be a big success, but it puts its characters in the right place and just seems realistic, and emotional. C+