January 5, 2013

Looper


There are a handful of movies that received decent praise from critics and audiences that I've failed to make it into the theaters to see. This is one of them.

Coming into theaters during the height of my move, I just never manage to make time to see this regardless of the fact that I've been drooling over the film since I someone at Sony went to a prescreening and couldn't stop freaking out over it. I'll give a brief breakdown of the plot for those unaware of this guy:

In the future time travel will be possible, however, it will only be accessible by organized crime. Police authorities are so prevalent at this point getting away with murder is next to impossible. The only safe option to offing someone is to send them back in time to 2044 where Loopers are waiting to assassinate them and dispose of the body where no one will find them. Being Looper does have its perks. You're paid well and live a fairly decent life in a world that looks like it's basically gone to shit. The downside, one day one of your targets that gets sent back through time to be killed will be an older version of yourself. You kill yourself - consequently ending your loop - receiving a giant cash bonus and are allowed to spend the next 30 years in retirement enjoying the fruits of your labor till you're force to back to the past to meet your demise. But, what happens if your future self returns and you fail to close the loop? Your older self breaks free on a mission that could offset the mob's whole plan of operation. What do you do then?

This is what was a basically explained to me this past summer and had me salivating like no other. What a brilliant concept for a sci-fi triller! There's one crucial aspect to this future world that is left out in this synopsis. Left out in all the trailers as well - from what I can tell - that would give the film a complete different look. I'll refrain from spoiling it here, but let's just say it's a supernatural element that ends up leading the story in a fascinating direction.

What did I end of thinking of this movie? I loved it. However, did it live up to its hype? No. Maybe it's just me, but I was hearing tons of praise for this film. With a 94% on RottenTomatoes and bunch of critics clamoring over it, I was expecting something a little different. I suppose that ruined it a little for me. Rather than receiving this film with absolutely no expectations, it was placed on this holy pedestal with unfair standards that just about no film, regardless of how great, could live up to. For this one I'll put the blame on me. Either see the film of interest right when it hits theaters or shut out the voices of critics and friends till I'm prepared to see it on my own terms.

One other side note. I just want to applaude the film for it's simple explanation of time travel - a story device that can otherwise convolute a story to the point of incomprehension. The storyline is definitely not the easiest to draw out on a timeline - you go forward, then back thus rewriting the future again and again - but somehow writer/director Rian Johnson pulls it all together in a simple, intelligent manner. 

To just reiterate my experience here, I enjoyed the film. It is one of the better movies to come out this year, and if you're schtick is sci-fi then it's a must see. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wanted to go into a rant here - brace yourself. It doesn't have so much to do with Looper as it does with the films of 2012 in general.

Over Christmas, Winnah asked what is my favorite of this past year. Keeping in mind there's a lot I've yet to see (Flight, Django Unchained, The Hobbit, Bernie, Zero Dark Thirty, Lincoln, Frankenweenie, Life of Pi, Les Miserables... like I said, there's a lot) I settled on year's largest blockbuster, Marvel's The Avengers. Why? I saw it twice in theaters then went on to watch it at least a dozen times since it came out on video. Maybe not all the way through each time - skipping around to some of my favorite scenes - still, it continually enthralls me. 

Then this comes out by the LA Times: 'The Avengers' voted most overrated movie by a landslide.

In many ways, I get it. Made a shit-ton of money, was the only thing anyone was talking about for the majority of the summer. It's soaked up so much of the spotlight of couse it's going to be the subject of this type of criticism. Still, what "wows" me more than anything is how Marvel planned out all of their superhero franchises to finally collide in this brilliant ensemble action movie. A well worth it payout. 

However, if there's any other movie I'm going to give any praise to (from those that I've seen) it's going to be Cabin in the Woods. No, not Argo or Silver Linings Playbook - although those are both outstanding movies that will reap their share of award talk - it's the slasher/horror movie that was able to flip the whole genre on its head. I know, I'm biased to any film in this genre, still... I recommend all that haven't seen this move yet, give it shot. I would have to say it's one of the more underrated movies of the year that definitely makes it mark as one of the best horror movies of all time. 

5 comments:

  1. I just recently wrote something very relevant to the latter half of this post: (http://ranksfornothing.blogspot.com/2013/01/ranking-movies-i-saw-in-theaters-in-2012.html)

    We both said that Drive was the best movie we saw in 2011, and it would appear that we have very similar tastes once again in 2012. Hoo-hah!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Stan, serious... two blogs! How much freaking time do you have on your hands!

    ReplyDelete
  3. That blog is very infrequently updated. The end of the year gives me a ton of great opportunities to make ranked lists of things. Aside from the recent flurry of activity there, I'd say it gets updated once or twice a month at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think that, Avengers bias aside, Looper was my favorite movie of the year last year for a couple of very basic reasons.

    Number 1)The rules of time-travel were static, made sense and because the universe hates paradoxes when they occurred they were dealt with. The set up was the perfect self-cleaning con. The Rainmaker could have come from multiple traumas, but prevented one way. I was pleased.

    Number 2) Characterization. Bruce Willis is selfish and only concerned with his future, because Joseph Gordan Levitt is selfish in the past and only concerned with his survival. There as no wisdom with age, they are the same selfish thug at different parts of the story line.

    I guess the TK was the perfect example of Chekhov's Pistol, I can roll with that. What I wanted explain was how the hell Boy Blue hadn't been killed ages ago. I kept waiting for him to be Jeff Daniel's from the past, but alas; no payout.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dee, I just saw the movie and I've gotta say, yes, completely, Boy Blue was all kinds of set up to be Jeff Daniels from the past - or at least SOMEONE relevant, like maybe the rainmaker from an intermediate point in the future. The hand-crushing scene felt like it had to pay off somewhere down the line. But no, nothing. Still a great movie though.

    ReplyDelete