All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
The anxiously awaited Looper just came out and it's receiving rave reviews. It's currently sitting at a 91% on rottentomatoes and many critics are calling it the best sci fi film so far this year. So is it worth the price of a ticket? Let's find out.
The plot of Looper revolves around time travel. It's set in the year 2044 and time travel hasn't been invented...yet. Once it is invented, it's deemed illegal almost instantaneously. So naturally, the mob gets a hold of it. They then use time travel to send people back in time, where "Loopers" await their arrival with a cocked blunderbuss. The looper destroys the time traveler and thus a body that technically never existed. Since no one's looking for them, they get away scott free. The story of Looper revolves around a looper named Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). One day, the people from the future decide to close his loop, and sends 60 year old Joe back in time. Bruce Willis appears, Joe can't believe that he turns into Bruce Willis when he's older, and the two have vigorous sex with each other for the duration of the movie. Spoiler alert, it's really just masturbation when you have sex with yourself.
So is it the best sci-fi movie so far this year? Absolutely. However, 2012's sci-fi movies have been like thanksgiving in the ghetto...slim pickings. Let's dive a little deeper into the review.
The good:
-Rian Johnson. He made it big within the indie scene with Brick and now I'm hoping he'll hit it big in Hollywood. He's a solid director, with a great eye, and deserves to be making bigger films. If Looper makes money, expect to see more of him.
-The acting. A solid cast all around. JGL studied Willis' mannerisms and it shows. It's really fun seeing him impersonating Willis. Willis carries his own of course as a complete bad ass. Jeff Daniels is amazing as always. And I wish Paul Dano had more screen time. He's great.
-The first 30 minutes. Seriously, the first 30 minutes of this film completely blew my mind. The best sci fi set up in years. It's a bit of a mind f uck as well especially when you learn SPOILER that the the film begins with the second parallel universe and not the first.
-The ending. It's very satisfying and creative. You kind of forget that it's an option and then BAM!
- The cinematography. Looper employs some inception-like cinematography and it's absolutely stunning.
-Paul Dano's fate. It's super f ucked up and just plain nasty. Loved it.
The bad:
-After the first 30 minutes. Alright, so it's technically not "bad," it's just not as good as the start. Sci-fi films should always be building onto themselves. You have a concept, then you add to it. And then you add some more. You need to stack the concepts and push the audience's boundaries. There's a point in the film where the movie stops advancing the originating concept of the film. Looper has "Walking Dead Syndrome." Once you get to the farm, it's not as much fun. The story takes over, but it's not nearly as interesting, especially with such a solid opening.
-Nobody's likable. I never once felt bad for any of the characters and this is a bit of a problem. Nobody's charming or the least bit redeeming. Even JGL's character lacks depth. He's just a guy. And there are other characters that the movie literally tells you to like. What's so likable about this asian wife? DOESN'T MATTER JUST LIKE HER AND WATCH THE DAMN MOVIE.
-The little kid. I'm not a huge fan of child actors and the "rainmaker" didn't change my mind. although he's ten, he looks way too young for his age. so it's silly when he says things like "i saw my mommy die." cringe.
-The more you think about the film, the more it falls apart. There are two gaping plot holes in the film.
1. What caused the rainmaker to despise all of the loopers the first time around? This literally goes unexplained.
2. Why does the mob send the old looper to the same young looper? Why not just mix it up and send different old loopers to different young loopers? Thataway, no one has a problem "killing themselves."
-Looper is juggling too many balls at once. There's this bit about telekinetic mutations at the beginning. And then it's put on the back burner until the very end. And it's a shame too, because it could have offered more depth to the film. There's also this back story about the rain maker and his mom that is completely unnecessary. There's just too much going on at times.
The ugly:
-Joseph Gordon-Levitt's make up. Seriously, it looks disgusting. They try to make him look like Bruce Willis, but it just doesn't work (because we know what JGL looks like). And for the love of god, would someone just fix his eyebrows?
Overall. Looper is a solid piece of sci-fi entertainment. It's a thinking man's film, but knows how to be absolutely kick ass when it needs to be. It's not perfect, but it's worth your time and you should throw it some green. We need more directors like Rian Johnson. Give him your money.
I enjoyed the movie, but didn't think it was very good. Does that make sense? They put all of the interesting action stuff at the beginning then it was just a slow simmer from midpoint to credits. Why they decided to put that whole supernatural angle in there is mind-boggling, and this is coming from a guy who lives and breathes fantasy. It just didn't fit the story. Kind of ridiculous, actually. Yet for all that was wrong with it, it wasn't the worst way to spend ten bucks.
Not a word I'd use very often, but pretty apt here: meh.
Imagine Back to the Future or Terminator had been told in such a painfully convoluted way as Looper. They would've been fat around the belly like this film. There's a quote on the poster from a critic calling it "this year's Matrix" - don't make me laugh.
The key difference is the complex world of The Matrix is skillfully disentangled, whilst Looper is a much simpler premise made unnecessarily complex. It's a foggy movie that would've benefitted from clarity. My thinking is the director wanted himself noticed more than his story.
This was my first post-movie thought too:
Quoted from alb
Looper is juggling too many balls at once. There's this bit about telekinetic mutations at the beginning. And then it's put on the back burner until the very end.
Quoted from alb
The more you think about the film, the more it falls apart.
I saw this on Sunday and totally agree with the above reviews.
The first part set up a good story but it kind of fell apart in the second half. There are too many things and times when I went, why? Why would they do that, why would that happen and so on.
The whole TK thing was mentioned once for a brief moment early on in the story and then later and out of the blue it plays a major part.
There were some great parts though. The looper's limbs disappearing is one that was quite disturbing.
It's a good film but by no means a great film.
Check out my scripts...if you want to, no pressure.
Can't believe you guys are ripping the TK thing for not being mentioned enough. An idea was planted. It was planted hard! It comes back into play later.
Despite everyone else, apparently, I thought the story got better when JGL got to the farm. It took an unexpected turn and I was already becoming wary of the shoot outs and chases. It was a nice calm before the final storm.
I was intrigued when his mom ran and locked herself into a safe when the child got mad. Then you slowly realize what this child is capable of.
To me, it was the character arcs, and i hate to say that, but it was. Bruce Willis was willing to kill kids to save the love he finally found at the end of his life. JGL was willing to give up all the glory days he had coming to him. All because of what happened in the story.
Some major logic flaws if you want to sit down and talk about it. Don't get me going, I was Mr Physics my senior year at high school. Travel to the future, a viable possibility. To fathom traveling backwards?? Would take half the energy of the entire universe according to MIT profs. Yet, Willis does it in a tuna can.
I agree with Albino, the most relevant option to end this, is the one you think of the whole time, but don't see coming by the end.
With James 100%. Thought the whole movie was great, and particularly surprised by complaints regarding the TK stuff. It's introduced early in the first act; it's revisited; it's set up with the idea that the Rainmaker took over "by himself"; it's stepped up when we learn that Blunt's powers are slightly stronger than most; it's totally broadcast when Blunt hides in the safe. Doesn't get much smoother than that, in my opinion.
Source Code is light years ahead of Lopper for sure.
Ghostie
Don't get me wrong, Ghostie, I was a big fan of Source Code, but I didn't even think of that movie when I saw Looper. There's really no comparison. Wasn't Jake's character a destroyed soldier hooked up to a computer? In which they kept playing back the scenarios in his head to find out what happened?
I'll have to watch that again, but have seen Looper twice now. Had to explain it to my companions twice. It is a hard movie to get, but once they got it, you could see that "Wow" look in their faces.
Hello, my friend. And you would be correct about Source Code, but I wasn't comparing the two... both are sci-fy, and I'm the biggest sci-fy fan, especially when it comes to time travel. I just liked Source Code much better.
Like I said the hook for Looper was great, maybe i had my expectations set high, but I felt the second half of the movie turned into "Hollywood" cliche. I'm a sci-fy buff, so I'll eventually see it again, because it's funny when you look at movies for the second time, usually you see things you've missed the first time around.
Just saw this flick this morning. Tough film to review, for me, as well as a tough film to even decide what I thought of it.
Overall, I did enjoy it. For once, we get an actual R rated movie that deserves and utilizes its R rating. sex, nudity, violence, drug use, and profanity.
Good action, great gunshot wounds, interesting, but convoluted story and plot, rather deep as well, meaning it could have a wide appeakl to various kinds of movie goers.
Even with all the above, for some reason, there seemed to be many very slow scenes that didn't deliver, though, which is a bit odd. Not sure I can figure out exactly why that is.
For me, the negatives are as follow:
Even though it's quite unique in its setup and plot, it also feels very by the numbers. I'm talking about various relationships and characters. Almost as if certain "things" just had to be included here, which for me, is a mistake.
Even though it's a very "big" wide open premise, again, it seems rather small in how it all goes down, and again, for me, that's a problem that shouldn't have been present here.
Finally, the biggest issue of all, is that for me, the premise and setup did not make much sense and therefor, I had issues with the entire thing, the entire time I was watching.
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
So, in the future, time travel is invented and quickly made illegal, meaning it goes right to "the mob" (the mob? For reals? C'mon now...). If you think about all the illegal uses time travel to the past would open up, I just can't wrap my head around the use they employ here, which is basically capturing someone they want dead, and sending them back in time bound and hooded, wearing a vest of silver or gold bars, where a "looper", or contract killer, immediately blows them away and disposes of the body. I just can't understand what the gain or even reason is for doing this.
Also, let's think about Jeff Daniels role here and whether or not it makes any sense at all. He's a dude from the future, sent back to create and manage a group of these loopers, and that includes having these loopers kill themselves when the powers that be decide it's time. For me, it's a bit silly, really, with these bad guys all reporting to Mr. Daniels, and the ease in which "Old Joe" (Bruce Willis), dispatches of them, again, it just seems a bit silly - if he can do this so easily, why can't anyone else? Why can't the loopers themselves take him out?
And what's with the silver and gold ingot things? Unique, yes, but does it make any sense? I don't think so.
I think the central problem this flick has is that it's tough to really root for any 1 character...or really anyone in general. I mean, who is the Protag here? I guess it's "Young Joe" (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), but because he is a cold blooded killer who is trying to kill our old pal Bruce Willis, I for one had serious trouble rooting for him.
The movie is well done, especially on a rather small budget of $30 Million (small in comparison to other sci-fi, action flicks), Performances are all very good, IMO. I thought Emily Blunt's Sara was not only well acted, but damn, she looked fine as well. My hat is off to young Pierce Gagnon, as Cid, who grows up to be the evil "Rainmaker". In all seriousness, I'd say his performance was one of the best by a child that I can remember.
I'm not surprised the critics adore this movie, nor am I surprised that it's making a killing, based on WWBO returns. It is a good flick and it's a fresh take on time travel and sci-fi. I may even watch it again, when it comes to DVD and satellite. I definitely didn't love it, though...but I guess that's a pretty positive thing that I didn't dislike it, either.
Emily Blunt was the best surprise for me. Gordon-Levitt is always nice to watch. He didn't quite look like Bruce, but he got his voice and mannerisms down pretty good.
SPOILERS!
Here's my gripe. He knows in 30 years what'll happen. Instead of running, he stays in one spot. How they found him, I have no idea and I don't think it's ever explained.
The scene with Cid killing Jesse was great though.
Saw this last night and not sure whether I liked it or didn't. There are some great scenes, etc. But so many unanswered questions. Maybe I'm thinking too trivial like always, but a couple of examples being: What kind of havoc is 'the rainmaiker' doing in the future? Of course we see his powers, but for what reason did he start in the future doing what ever he was doing?? They show 2 seconds on the TV once and that's it - not enough info to make killing children acceptable IMO. And Emily's character - how did she know he was a looper? How did she know about them? Did I miss something? Nod off for a sec during a crucial moment? I don't know. I think the more I'm getting into screenwriting, the more I'm asking questions when I watch something.
Overall, it was entertaining, I liked what they were trying to do with the story, but I think that could of pulled the second half together a lot better. Although - IMO, the ending was excellent.
So I'm curious. What I saw was a film about child-rearing and the desire for parents, the emptiness of being without them; about violence being cyclical and transmitted through the family; about the effects of cyclical violence being irrevocable.
Is that the way other people think about movies like this? Are people aware, unaware, interested, not interested, more focused on the plot, more focused on the characters, more focused on the action? What do y'all think when you think of this movie?
I ask because there's such intense (and intelligent) focus on the story mechanics, which I hadn't even really considered.