Attempt at cerebral sci-fi let down by endless plot holes and a feather-headed lack of logic

Rating: 2/10 (11 October 2012)

First the good Looper is clearly aiming high, and Rian Johnson handles things with an admirably straight-faced and serious tone that, for the most part, assures you he's more interested in creating a lasting work of art than mere box-office fluff. The film takes a few risks (such as offering a sympathetic child-killing antagonist/protagonist), and the actors take the whole thing seriously – with some decent performances from Joseph Gordon-Levitt and particularly Jeff Daniels.
The problem is (and it's a big one!) the film is so riddled with plot holes and logical inconsistencies that suspension of disbelief becomes far too much to ask. The problems here are so numerous that they fall into two main categories: Firstly, the gaping plot holes in the premise of the Loopers, their function, and the relationship between the mobsters of 2044 (the film's "present day") and the crime syndicates of the future. Second, and more importantly, the model of time travel presented in Looper is entirely nonsensical – even by its own parameters.
Obviously time travel stories will always through up interesting paradoxes and questions – which is precisely why they are so popular. However, for a time travel story (or any story with a fantastical element) to work effectively, the writer has to establish a logically framework from which the story can be told. Any sci-fi fan will tell you there are effectively two major approaches to handling time travel in fiction. The first assumes that time travel operates on a causal loop, single continuum system (what happened always happened) – films that successfully utilise this approach include the excellent 12 Monkeys and vastly underrated Timecrimes. The other approach is that time travel to the past creates new and independent time lines, or alternate realities. Both approaches offer their own interesting questions and situations, but when you come across films that mix the two (which most do!) it smacks of lazy writing and a lack of logical understanding. Looper fails to establish or abide by any set of rules, offering a model of time travel that seemingly changes to suit whatever the story requires at a given point. I'm the kind of viewer who can accept any situation in a setup, no matter how wild, but when a story fails to follow its own rules the whole thing collapses for me – and this was my problem with Looper.
Films with shaky time-travel mechanics can still succeed, so long as time-travel isn't actually the real focus of the story (Terminator, Back to the Future), but Looper is firmly focused on being a time-travel story, and so it ultimately lets itself down.
Aside from the logic and plot points, there are other aspects of Looper which I was disappointed by. The vision of the future presented seems inconsistent – and in some cases poorly realised. Clearly some effort has gone into the detail of certain aspects of the future presented (the idiosyncratic weapons, drugs, hover bikes), but since the rest of what is on show is attempted in a fairly half-baked manner (like a straight- to-DVD version of Children of Men) these things tend to draw unnecessary attention to themselves, and stand out as fairly impractical additions. The film also relied on exposition voice over for large parts of the setup – which is a classic sign of lazy writing, and I always thought was practically outlawed by movie critics (who bizarrely all seem to love this film)!
On a positive note, I thought JGL's Bruce Willisisms were great – but what the hell was up with those eyebrows they gave him?! It's not like Bruce is famed for his obviously died black eyebrows! The critics have been hailing Looper as "intelligent" sci-fi, which I think is fairly ironic. If you want to see a really smart time-travel picture watch Sourcecode, 12 Monkeys or Timecrimes.