"Inception" For Dummies

Rating: 7/10 (16 October 2012)

"Looper" is one of those a tad above average movies with intriguing and original concept, poorly developed into the uneven, unpolished, and confusing story.
Sadly, "Looper" could have become so much more than that if the writer- director Rian Johnson succeeded in developing the interesting, promising concept into a coherent, believable story.
Instead, "Looper" is a "mixed bag" with the few original, truly powerful moments diluted by the unnecessary, stereotypical, distasteful, hardly believable, unmotivated, or weakly implemented scenes.
In addition to lacking depth, "awe" factor, and good taste, "Looper", with all its mind-bending time travels and difficult moral dilemmas, is surprisingly not thought-provoking.
The artificially simplified reality of "Looper" is closer to a simulated reality of a computer game, than to the endlessly complex reality of human live. The movie deceptively pretends to be more than it actually is, to go deeper than it indeed goes, and as a result leaves the viewers underwhelmed and unsatisfied.
On a positive side, "Looper" has earned my respect by not having a cheesy Hollywood-style happy ending as opposed to somewhat similar "SourceCode".
Paying proper attention to the Joe's (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) character development has definitely strengthened the story as well. Joe's transformation was happening subtly and gradually, as a result of trials and soul searching and because of that it felt realistic enough.
At the same time, we cannot but notice that the transformation Joe was going through should have affected his older version and perhaps should have made his future self, Old Joe (Bruce Willis), more humane. That not happening somewhat undermined the very foundation of the movie.
Let me be clear: I realize that someone determined to find plot holes will probably find them in every movie on the face of the Earth. However, while some plot holes can be quickly forgiven, the others cannot be overlooked that easily.
As a good illustration, consider the life-changing event supposedly experienced by Old Joe. According to the movie, he, a cold-blooded killer and a hopeless drug addict at the time, fatefully meets a fascinating woman who somehow (!) falls in love with him. That relationship transforms Joe, cleanses him, cures his drug addiction, and overall makes him a new person. All that magic, I might add, happens in probably less than a minute of the screen time. We are basically told to simply accept it as a given.
Only couple minutes later, the supposedly "transformed" Old Joe methodically murders two innocent little kids and is close to slaughtering the third one. I do not even take into account those unfortunate adults who just happened to be in Old Joe's way during his horribly shocking killing spree.
As it turns out, one of the kids was destined to become the "Rainmaker" – a mysteriously powerful and bloodthirsty criminal boss, responsible for the deaths of many people including Old Joe's wife. Because of the time travel paradox, if Joe kills the "Rainmaker" as a kid, there will be no adult "Rainmaker" in the future and Old Joe's wife as well as many other people will still be alive.
To me, it is one or the other. Either the cold-hearted drug-addicted Old Joe was indeed transformed, cleansed and cured by his wonderful relationship with the mysterious woman (which already sounds suspiciously cheesy, but is still acceptable), or he was not transformed at all. If the former, his killing spree is completely implausible, if the latter the "love story" contradicts the rest of the movie and most of the Old Joe's actions lose their motivation.
The acting was generally good, but not great. Bruce Willis played his usual self quite comfortably and confidently. While his performance generally met our expectations, there was nothing truly significant about it.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt was tasked with playing young Bruce Willis. The impersonation sort of worked, but not to the complete satisfaction, ending up being a little forced and unnatural. The overall impression was mixed: Joseph Gordon-Levitt was much more interesting in the scenes where he was not trying to pretend that he was a young Bruce Willis.
Emily Blunt was good in a quite stereotypical role of Sara – a "tough" chick, who of course just happens to be kind, loving, and sensitive inside. Sara is a strong, lonely woman desperately trying to redeem her dark past by singlehandedly raising Cid, her early developed but emotionally fragile son, on a remote farm in the middle of nowhere.
And that brings us to the true star of the movie - Pierce Gagnon who quite impressively played Cid. Surrounded by the far better known and far more experienced actors, Pierce Gagnon still managed to steal every scene he was in. Every second the young actor was on the screen, he was perfectly believable, both as a regular ten year old boy, and as a mysterious carrier of the supernatural telekinetic abilities.
A good actor Jeff Daniels was stuck with playing local criminal boss Abe - a badly written, clichéd character that does not do justice to his talent. Abe is one of those accessory, disposable characters, whose sole purpose is to serve as plot devices, supporting the clumsy story twists. To Jeff Daniels' credit, he manages to make the most of his obscure character and is fun to watch in the movie.
In conclusion, "Looper" is a typical case of a poor cinematic implementation of an interesting, but underdeveloped concept with unrealized potential. The movie can be recommended as one-time entertainment only – slightly above average, but overrated, shallow, sometimes distasteful, and overall easily forgettable.
knowyourmovie.blogspot.com