In the same way hundreds of critics applauded Hitchcock for Psycho, Scorsese for Good Guys, and Tarantino for Pulp Fiction, this movie is just one of those amazing films that needs to be written about.
Looper tells a twisted tale of time travel, assassinations and violent ends for violent beings but most of all, explores the bigger picture of how we as humans battle ourselves each day to determine what is right for the future. Starring Bruce Willis, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Emily Blunt (who can not be said to be a "star" of the movie as such considering she doesn't rock up until halfway through), the film tackles many complicated themes with an equally complicated plot, the two points I will be focusing on for this analysis. There are so many amazing qualities of this movie that can be discussed - from its mise-en-scene; to its cliche-free script; to the beautiful cinematography achieved by Steve Yedlin - Looper has it all. But for me, it really was the way it dealt with some rather far-fetched themes with a plot that physically had me on the end of my seat in the last half hour that I find most fascinating.
The film's thematic development at first centres around the stories initial prognosis - "loopers" are hired as assassins in the year 2044 to kill criminal associates sent back in time from the year 2074. As a consequence of this however, loopers are warned that one day their loops will be closed meaning they will be awarded a large some of money to live out the last 30 years of their life until 2074 where they are sent back to themselves to be killed. Don't worry: it gets more complicated that that. Gordon-Levitt's character is your typical assassin cum vagabond - sly, cold, and selfish - he has no interest in the world around him or the people in it, established in the first scene where he trades his best friend's life in order to remain in possession of his wealth - first theme: money over life. This isn't dealt with in the same way other sci-fi movies usually treat this theme where money is the be all and end all of existence. That is overridden by the ideal put forth over and over again that protocol is more important than ever, no matter who you are or what you do. So when Gordon-Levitt's character meets himself at his usual looper kill-spot, his inability to remove himself from the equation leads to dramatic consequences and the next lead in the story.
From here we are introduced to Bruce Willis' character, a 30-plus version of Gordon-Levitt's who has a secret agenda and a wealth of memories to overpower his younger self. That age-old battle between young and old (pardon the pun) is explored intricately in a scene between both characters at a local diner, a grounding magnet for a plot that is starting to get slightly out of hand. Levitt's character receives a strong lecture from Willis' about his self-centred behaviour and his inability to see beyond his own personal needs for that of his future self. Levitt argues that because of this knowledge he will be able to change the future just by carrying out the task he should have done before Willis' managed to escape, but this plan is thwarted when the criminal syndicate at the centre of this whole debacle interrupts their joyous reunion.
Enter Emily Blunt, a hard-nut in the middle of nowhere protecting what seems to be just a bunch of sugar canes and a rickety old house with her son, Sid. Levitt's character seeks solace with the small family and in return, provides protection against the men planning to come after him. It is at this point we discover the real reason behind Willis' return to the past which involves Blunt's son who he believes is "the Rainmaker", a force so powerful in 2074, he has managed to take control of all 5 counties without a single army. All Blunt and Levitt know is that Willis is planning on killing the boy to prevent that from happening as Sid is the younger version of the Rainmaker, a fact we do not yet know is true until a larger event later in the movie (which I shall keep a secret for all of you already holding your breath). It is at this point the movie ventures into that done-to-death ideal of the power of a mother's love and how it can influence a young boy's upbringing but how Looper does it differently is by juxtaposing the two pasts of Levitt's character and Sid, an important moment that becomes much clearer in the movies finale. The film asks, what resolutions can be concluded when this love is not evident during a child's upbringing.
The themes within this film are complicated and multiple hence why director Rian Johnson's skill in giving us all plenty of time to catch up on who and what is important to remember is a blessing for those a little behind the 8-ball. The film won't appeal to those who never got Inception - its not as complicated but if you miss 5 minutes, you won't have time to catch up before the end. In saying that, the plot handles the whole time-travel issue with excellent precision, by not focusing too much on the future for a change and rather focusing on the past and how it can influence the future. A small number of locales also help with this as we begin to recognise the importance of certain locations over others, assisting with anticipation and the stringing together of certain elements, the train station and diner being one of them. Finally, the noir-ish tone to this film lets the audience guess a little how certain things are going to pan out meaning that whilst they're watching, they're also able to forge a few ideas in their head which are then supported by what happens next in the film. Films I'd say that don't do this so well include the Zodiac Killer and Shutter Island.
My friend was not a fan of this film after the credits rolled, complaining about the fact that there were not enough twists to keep one occupied however, I disagreed with her in that the original premise of the film was not to stupify or confuse the audience, leading to an lightbulb moment at the end - but was to guide us all to the same conclusion which was the one played out on screen; the only conclusion that one could have come to in that particular position. Strong performances from Blunt and Gordon-Levitt need to be acknowledged as well as that gorgeous editing by Bob Ducsay who can coordinate timing like a sniper. I give this film a strong 4 stars and sincerely hope it receives some Oscar nominations if for nothing else than editing and cinematography and possibly best original screenplay.
