The consensus among the critics I read was that one shouldn't question the scenario about this story's basic concept (travelling back in time in order to change the past and hence to alter the future), but just to go open-minded and prepare to be entertained. So that was the frame of mind I took along.
Well, first of all, the initial half of this tale is taken up with setting the scene (yes, I get it - now move along, please!) and for me it only seems to acquire purpose and direction after nearly an hour when Emily Blunt appears - steely, sassy and with gun in hand - more than a match for any man! (Watch out, fellas, 'cos if you go on upsetting her she's gonna blast your balls off!)
Well, you know that when said Blunt has a fiery and envenomed first encounter with Joseph Gordon-Levitt, it won't be long before they're in bed together, bonking merrily away to appropriately smoochy musical strains, and leaving me cringeing in my seat. But that was only one of the two major irritations which came about simultaneously. The other one being that there's also a young kid (let's just call him her 'son' for practical purposes) - and there are few things that rile me more on the cinema screen than a child talking with a wisdom and maturity way beyond his or her years. (It could be argued that in this case there was justification for this, but it still makes me wince.)
Then things get even weirder with telekinesis thrown into the already curious mix. Bruce Willis gets the film's star billing but he doesn't really have all that much to do - both in terms of screen time and acting, either enigmatically subdued or explosively angry, as he stalks his younger self (in the J.G-L in character) and goes little boy-hunting.
I gave up on this film long before the end - and was looking at my watch more than I usually do, seriously considering walking out before it was over, but I did stay up to the final credits.
It's a film that's doing well in the U.K. so I accept that it's probably yet another that reveals me as being well outside the range of its target audience. But I can only talk of my own personal reaction -
- which is to give 'Looper' an unimpressive score of.......3.5/10.
oh dear.... Empire Mag....loved it!
ReplyDeleteyour reviews are always insightful and well written
I am enjoying them
Thanks for that, J.G. - but what I say is very subjective and I'm only too aware that films are definitely NOT being made for the likes of me. I know that this film has been given generally quite high approval ratings. You yourself may well like it - and if you did I don't think it says anything at all negative about you. Let's put it down to a 'generation' thing!
ReplyDeleteThis film holds a place in the top 10. I guess everything is subjective because I disliked it - guess I am out of the mainstream viewing audience for which it was intended. You did better than I. After 45 minutes, I exited the theater. Not worth wasting my time.
ReplyDeleteIt's currently #1 here, Paul.
DeleteI'd be walking out of the cinema a lot more often than I do were it not for my self-created rule (from the 1960s) that I cannot record myself as having seen a film unless I remain for at least 2/3 of it. By the time I get to that point it's often a case of thinking "Oh well, now having seen most of it I might as well see the rest of it through" - and so I hang on.
But it's reassuring to read for 'Looper' I wasn't alone. You're the first that I've read so far who also didn't care for it.
Wow. Don't know if I should try it myself or take your (and Paul's) word for it. Very insightful review. Thanks!
ReplyDeletePaul and I are clearly in a minority, Mitch. I think if you have the chance, time and money it might be worth giving it a shot - after all, I'm just an old fogey! ;-)
Delete