Looper

I was not expecting great things from this film. From the trailer I gathered that it was going to be an attempt to put a new spin on the time travel theme. Usually, when a film has what I consider to be an overly "clever" premise (for lack of a better word) I wind up being disappointed. Movies with overly clever premises usually wind up being all about the premise, and they tend to leave out other things that I think are important: interesting characters, an interesting plot, and some thematic material with some substance. So that is what I was expecting with this film. I assumed I would be entertained, but I was not expecting much more than that. What I got was much more interesting, and much more satisfying, than what I was expecting. First of all, the makers of this movie were clearly aware that they were operating with a well worn premise. We have all seen so many time travel movies and shows that we have become jaded. The interesting paradoxes that arise when trying to think about time travel are no longer all that interesting. They no longer blow minds the way they used to. There is a scene in this movie where young Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and old Joe (Bruce Willis) are sitting at a diner and young Joe starts to ask the standard, mind-bending, time travel questions ("so when I do things does it change your memory?", etc.). Old Joe essentially brushes him off by saying "If we start talking about that we are going to be talking about it all day". I take this to be the filmmakers saying to the audience "We know you have heard all of this before so we are not going to repeat it." I always appreciate it when filmmakers are self-conscious enough to know when they are bordering on cliche. Ultimately it is probably impossible to avoid cliche entirely in a time travel movie, but I appreciated the nod to the audience, and this movie actually does succeed in avoiding cliche. It is hard to imagine a time travel movie that has something new to say, but this one does (though, not necessarily about time travel, which is not really what this movie is about). The goal of the movie did not seem to me to be to "bend minds". In fact, while the premise is an interesting premise, I felt like the premise was really just a means to explore some more interesting themes. Themes about the cycle of violence, and how to break it, and about personal transformation. It also raises some interesting questions about how we look back on our old selves. Old Joe does not think very highly of young Joe. While very few of us have probably ever had the experience of traveling back in time and talking to our old selves in person (I have, but I am an exception) I think we can all relate to old Joe's attitude towards his younger self. With perspective, and hopefully a little personal growth, our past errors, and stupidity, often become glaring. This movie dramatizes that universal human experience by having Joe's young and old selves actually come face to face. The premise, in other words, is not just clever for the sake of being clever, it serves a purpose, and it allows the filmmakers to explore a number of interesting ideas and themes, which is what I think good movies, and good premises, are supposed to do. There is a real human story at the center of this film. It is certainly an exciting, and entertaining movie, but the center of the movie is a human story about original sin and redemption. When I say 'original sin', I do not mean 'original sin' in the theological sense. I just mean that the violence of the world existed before we were born and we were all, to some degree, victims of that violence before we were old enough to make conscious decisions, and we all tend to perpetuate that violence, to some degree, into the future by visiting it upon future generations, before they are old enough to make conscious decisions, and so on. That, to me, is really what this movie is about. There is one last thing that I really appreciated about this film: it trusted its audience. That is so rare. To explain what I mean I am going to have to give some things away about the plot, so this is my SPOILER ALERT. The "hero" of the film is really kind of an anti-hero. Joe is already an assassin when the movie begins. Now, it seems like most films would do everything they could to downplay that, and try to sell the audience on the "assassin with a heart of gold". This movie goes in exactly the opposite direction. Early in the movie Joe sells out his best friend for money, and even old Joe, who is supposed to be reformed, makes it his mission to kill "The Rainmaker". Old Joe knows "The Rainmaker" is one of three kids, but he does not know which, and so he starts killing them one at a time (two of them, remember, are innocent). Most movies would have found a way around all of that. There would have been some plot twist that would have revealed who "The Rainmaker" was before old Joe actually killed anyone, or young Joe would have knocked the gun out of old Joe's hands just in time. Most filmmakers would not have trusted their audience to stick with a main character with such a dark side. Filmmakers (or maybe it is the studios) seem to think that audiences want morally unambiguous characters, or, that audiences are unwilling to put up with any moral ambiguity, complexity, or subtlety. Movies have to go all one way or the other with characters. Either they are good, in which case they can never do anything morally reprehensible, or even morally ambiguous, or they are evil, in which case they are pure evil and have no conscience at all. Fimmakers (or studios) seem to think that audiences are incapable of understanding anything more subtle than that. I do not think that is true, and it frustrates me. The world is morally complex and ambiguous, and morally complex and ambiguous characters tend to make the most interesting characters, so I wish that more movies had the guts to do what this movie did: have a hero who was clearly very flawed and unlikable in many ways. The main character in this film does not fall into either extreme. He is certainly not "good". He does things that are genuinely morally reprehensible. But he has a conscience, at least at times. It is just that his own self-interest tends to outweigh his conscience most of the time (does that sound at all familiar?) So I just want to say how much I appreciated the fact that the filmmakers trusted their audience enough to make their main character so morally ambiguous. This genuinely was a very entertaining, and interesting, movie, and I highly recommend it. Kudos, filmmakers, for a job well done!

Time travel. It's an idea that's so incredibly simple to start, but so amazingly hard to complete in a logical sense. For years, sci-fi film/TV geeks like myself have debated ad nauseam how certain films break the basic rules of time travel when one goes back in time, because no matter what, your actions are going to have consequences on the future. These possibilities of varying futures were discussed to some end in the film THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT, but sadly, because it's not a very good film, it's made to feel trite. But here in writer/director Rian Johnson's LOOPER, those ideas are put to the test, and it's a test that it passes with flying colors in every aspect of the story it's telling. It begins in the year 2044. Time travel has been invented, but it's illegal. We have Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a specialized assassin called a "looper" who works for an organized crime syndicate whose boss (Jeff Daniels) is from the future. The deal is, when the mob wants someone disposed of, they send them back to the loopers (who know the exact time, date, and arrival point of the target) packed with bricks of silver as payment, the loopers kill them, incinerate the bodies and that's that. Although, the life expectancy of a looper (who are usually in their twenties) is only about their late 40's, and every so often, a looper is forced to kill their future self, which is termed "closing the loop" and then, the looper's contract is terminated, they get a big payday, and then go off and live the rest of their lives until they're sent back to die. But one day, Joe meets his adult self (Bruce Willis) as one of his contracts, and he escapes. This is not something the syndicate allows (as evidenced in one absolutely horrific scene), and the syndicate is sent after both the young and older Joe, despite the younger one's promise that he will find and kill his older self. This wild cat-and-mouse game sees the young Joe make his way to the rural outskirts of the giant city and to the farmhouse of Sara (Emily Blunt) and her son Cid (Pierce Gagnon), while the older Joe is stalking the city for reasons of his own. Now if this was just another simple time-travel sci-fi action film that didn't give much thought to character, dialogue, or plot, it would be somewhat interesting but like THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT, it would have fallen flat. But since this is Rian Johnson, a writer/director who is rapidly reaching a strange hybrid of journeyman AND auteur status with his two previous (and quite brilliant) films, the high-school neo-noir BRICK (also starring Gordon-Levitt) and the con man comedy-drama THE BROTHERS BLOOM (with Adrien Brody, Mark Ruffalo and Rachel Weisz), you're not getting the standard summer fare. Johnson very smartly spends less time dazzling us with millions of dollars of eye-popping set design of futurescapes and also concentrating solely on the action of the film, and gives us an ultimately fascinating character study of two men who are the same man, but products of two very different purposes and motives. We see the life that the younger Joe leads as well, which is a life of semi-luxury, endless clubbing, tough-guy posturing and drug addiction. We also get glimpses into the life that is eventually led by Joe after he "initially" closes his loop without incident, and we get a real sense of a man who will justify anything, including some pretty horrible things to prevent the future he knows is coming for him. Now this is not to say that Johnson skimps on the action or the set design. The future is a pretty dystopian place, littered with junker cars and super-sleek hovercycles, and no one is safe, unless you're one of the privleged. The action scenes have a breath-taking bravura that is intense, disorienting and highly stylized to fit Johnson's aesthetic. Even the weapons used have a strangely old-world feel to them, with huge old-west style pistols and the looper's blunderbuss which is a combo of future and past. The performances are excellent. This is absolutely Willis' best work in some time as he gives his aging killer real gravity and world-weariness as he ends up traveling to the past in order to fight his tragic future. Gordon-Levitt continues his streak of fascinating and layered performances and continues to show that he is one of the great actors of his generation (the prosthetic work done to make him look like a young Willis is pretty nice too). Emily Blunt is the major standout here, though, as the fierce-tempered Sara, who's only goal is to protect her son, despite what her son is and what he might become. Jeff Daniels and Piper Perabo don't have large roles, but what they do with them are substantial. The real discovery here is young Pierce Gagnon, who plays Cid with a number of different layers, which is surprising for an actor of his very young age. He never seems out of place in this film, and his performance is pretty amazing. Paul Dano and the (surprisingly) ever-menacing Garrett Dillahunt also do a great deal with small roles. Another fun character here is that of Kid Blue, a wannabe shootist (Noah Segan, another Johnson regular), who is both menacing and comical at the same time. The effects work here in this film is seamless as well, as some characters also display telekinetic ability (one much more so than the other), but is left largely alone in the film so that when it does happen, it happens with maximum effect. There is also a particularly disturbing sequence when one character fails to close his own loop and the syndicate gets their hands on the younger looper's self, and we see in real time what happens to the older self as the younger self is... well, you'll see. What makes this film so different from other time travel films is that you see actions and consequences not just in the physical world, but from a character perspective as well. There's an absolutely brilliant scene with the two Joes at a diner where they discuss the ideas of time travel, and as it's played by Willis and Gordon-Levitt, it not only helps put the whole idea of time travel in a unique perspective, but it also frames the events of the film in a way that no other time travel film has tried to do, or has done nearly as successfully. While those who are looking for a popcorn-munching action film are likely going to be disappointed by LOOPER, people who are looking for extremely intelligent, well-written, well-acted, well-directed sci-fi action fare will find themselves EXTREMELY pleased. LOOPER is indeed one of the best films of the year, and will likely find a better and more discerning audience at home than it could find in the theatres.

This is a good film to watch if only for Bruce Willis and of course top-notch Emily Blunt but by no mean does it justify 5 stars. The acting good by all across the board which marks it above average. If not for all the fine actors, it be a cliché movie but IS surprising different in that no one is a “good guy,” somewhat refreshingly un-Hollywood. The movie is interesting but rather depressing. Not to mention illogical. I mean they murder in the future (old Joe's wife) and aren’t concerned getting caught which is if I understood correctly the premise for using Loopers? And as far the telekinesis mutation - say what?? I liked it but certainly not be my mention to anyone’s “must-see” list.

Kein Remake, eine spannende, mit Abstrichen neue Idee und bewährte Darsteller um meinen Lieblings-Schauspieler Joseph Grodon-Levitt schienen mir weit prickelnder, als Kino-Alternativen wie der gefühlt fünfzehnte Teil "Resident Evil", Til Schweigers "Schutzengel" oder Stallone's Schlechte-Sprüche-Festival "The Expendables 2". Und was soll ich sagen? Geil, geil, geil! Nach der Vorpremiere von "Looper" ging mein Weg schnurstracks hierher um den Film vorzubestellen, der mich sogar zu meiner allerersten Amazon-Rezension bewegt hat. Die ungefähre Story: Im Jahre 2074 sind Zeitreisen zwar erfunden, aber strengstens verboten. Einzig die Mafia nutzt diese Möglichkeit noch; da es nicht mehr möglich ist Menschen zu eliminieren, ohne dabei aufzufliegen, werden die Opfer 30 Jahre in die Vergangenheit geschickt, um dort von sogenannten "Loopern" umgebracht zu werden. Die Looper wie Protagonist Joe erhalten ihr Silber, stellen keine Fragen, erledigen einfach den Job. Bis Joe irgendwann auf sein Zukunfts-Ich trifft, das er töten soll ... Ohne hier irgendetwas vorwegnehmen zu wollen, lässt sich der Film in meinen Augen als Mischung der Atmosphäre und der Location eines "A History of Violence", der storytechnischen (positiven und möglicherweise anmaßenden) Verworrenheit eines "Inception", einer Prise Mystik à la "Chronicle" oder "X-Men" und natürlich dem seit jeher faszinierenden Element der Zeitreise betrachten. Die Story ist komplex aber nie überfordernd, ein, zwei Längen zu Mitte des Films sind verzeihbar und in Bezug auf die viel zitierte Vorhersehbarkeit über das Ende von Action-Thrillern: Ich, sowie das ganze Kino um mich herum, hatte ein baffes "Wow" ins Gesicht geschrieben, wie ich mich zuletzt bei Inception oder Lucky Number Slevin erinnern kann. Natürlich wird es entgegen dieser Meinung wieder unzählige "Mich-überrascht-nichts-Helden" geben die das komplett anders sehen, die möchte ich aber an dieser Stelle schon einmal lieb grüßen und dazu auffordern, mir in ihren Augen gute Filme zu empfehlen. Der hier verwegen, lässige Joseph Gordon-Levitt als "Joe" ist wie immer klasse, wenngleich ihm durch oscarreife Maskenbildner derartige Kanten ins Gesicht gemeißelt wurden, dass man ihn auf den ersten Blick fast nicht erkennt. Bruce Willis als JGLs Zukunfts-Ich ist gut, wenn auch etwas schwächer als gewohnt, da ihm nicht der uneingeschränkte Fokus zugestanden wird, wie in Paradewerken wie "Die Hard". Eine einzelne Szene, in der er sich mit seinem jüngeren Ich Levitt unterhält sowie ein paar erwartet lässige "Einer-gegen-Alle-Kämpfe" sind aber dennoch souverän und irre unterhaltsam. Emily Blunt, die ich zugegeben nur aus anderen Genres kenne, liefert eine fantastische Leistung in der schauspielerisch am meisten fordernden Rolle. Zur zweiten Hälfte des Films trumpft zudem der kleine Pierce Gagnon als "Cid" gewaltig auf, dem IMDb eine Größe von 1,17 aber leider kein Geburtsdatum ausstellt (schätze Jahrgang 2002 oder noch jünger), dessen Leistung ich ähnlich beeindruckend und eindringlich fand wie Logan Lerman in "Butterfly Effect". Die Kameraführung ist makellos gut und vor allem nie störend, gleiches gilt für Ton und Montage. Die Noir-Optik von "Looper" ist grandios und stilvoll, es sei denn man erwartet einen knalligen Sci-Fiction mit hübsch-bunten Effekten wie "Transformers". Die FSK hat mit Freigabe 16 - Überraschung - auch nicht gewürfelt, zwölf wäre ein bisschen zu tief gefasst gewesen. Da ich den Film nur im Kino gesehen habe, kann ich zur Qualität der Blu-ray und den Bonusinhalten noch nichts sagen. Regisseur Rian Johnson, der mit JGL bereits in Brick zusammengearbeitet hat, ist bisher (noch & und nicht mehr lange) eher unbekannt, doch ihm glückt ein feiner, spannender Film im sonst häufig schiefgehenden Spagat zwischen Arthouse und Mainstream, der sowohl mit schlagkräftiger Action als auch einer intelligenten Geschichte aufwartet und - was in meinen Augen fast das wichtigste ist - eine Seele besitzt. Dem Regisseur sei noch zu danken, dass er auf 3D verzichtet hat, was in einigen Szenen möglich gewesen wäre, grundsätzlich aber den Noir-angehauchten Stil des Films beschädigt hätte. Ich fand den Film auf alle Fälle außergewöhnlich gut, da er künstlerischen und inhaltlichen Nährwert bietet und nicht wie heutzutage Hollywood üblich flache Stereotypen abarbeitet um das Zielpublikum mit Bewährtem zu bedienen. Mein Blu-Ray-Player wird erfahren, warum der Film den Titel "Looper" trägt und falls jemand Rezensionen nur nach einem zusammenfassenden Fazit für die Sternebewertung absucht: Fazit: [+]Schauspieler [+]Optik [+]Story & Innovation [+]Stil [+]Gesamteindruck Enttäuschung könnte durch falsche Erwartungen an den Film aufkommen, da z.B. kein Special-Effect-Feuerwerk. Update 12.08.2014: Wusst ich's doch :D Rian Johnson wird zwei Star Wars Filme inszenieren. Der Mann hat Talent :)

Cette critique un peu longue, et ne dévoile pas trop l'intigue. Elle devrait vous permettre de vous faire une idée suffisante pour savoir si l'achat de ce film vaut le coup ou non pour vous. Looper est un excellent film de science-fiction, intelligent, malin, et fort bien filmé. Le synopsis est le suivant. Joe, le héros est un jeune homme, tueur à gages d’un genre un peu spécial. Il est chargé par le crime organisé d’exécuter des victimes venant du futur, où tuer et faire disparaître un corps sont devenus trop compliqués. Et chaque « nettoyeur » sait qu’un jour il devra tuer son propre lui-même trente ans plus vieux, pour fermer la boucle (to close the loop, d’où le titre). Mais gare au « looper » qui laisserait échapper sa « boucle »… C’est pourtant ce qui va arriver à notre héros, avec des conséquences bien plus importantes que tout ce qu’il aurait imaginé. Car alors débute une traque multiple, à la fois dans la ville et dans la campagne, avec pour enjeu la vie d’un enfant et de grandes répercussions sur le futur. Joe est joué par Joseph Gordon-Levitt, et son alter ego âgé est incarné par Bruce Willis. En fait, il y a une subtilité à l’image : les traits de JGL ont été morphés avec ceux de Willis afin d’accentuer la ressemblance entre les deux acteurs. C’est relativement bien fait, mais pour les fans de l’un ou l’autre acteur cela reste perturbant, que ce soit ne plus reconnaître les traits habituels de JGL, ou retrouver des mimiques typiquement Willissiennes sur une autre tête que la sienne. C’est peut-être la chose qui m’a le plus gêné pendant tout le film, et à laquelle je ne suis pas parvenu à m’habituer. D’autant que, au-delà de la prouesse technique, je n’en ai pas vu l’intérêt. Les deux acteurs ne sont pas suffisamment dissemblables pour que l’idée qu’ils soient l’alter ego l’un de l’autre paraisse inconcevable. Autrement dit, on n’avait pas besoin de ça pour renforcer la suspension d’incrédulité. Indépendamment de cela, le jeu des deux est bon. Pas époustouflant ni bluffant (Willis ne retrouve pas sa qualité d’interprétation de L'armée des 12 singes , ni JGL celle de Mysterious skin ), mais ça va. En revanche, on a beaucoup de plaisir à voir Jeff Daniels dans la peau (inhabituelle pour lui) d’un chef mafieux antipathique et cependant attachant et paternel. Paul Dano hérite du rôle court mais marquant d’un autre looper. Emily Blunt, qui incarne la mère de l’enfant, confirme son registre de jeu après sa très bonne prestation l’an passé dans L’agence. Mais surtout, il y a l’enfant, Pierce Gagnon. Comment un acteur aussi jeune a-t-il pu livrer une telle intensité et une telle justesse avec autant de naturel ? L’écueil classique des films de science-fiction se déroulant dans l’avenir réside dans l’esthétique. Il faut réussir à présenter un univers suffisamment différent pour faire futuriste et de suffisamment probable pour que le spectateur puisse s’y projeter de façon crédible. Dans l’idéal, il faut aussi que ce monde futuriste ne vieillisse pas trop mal avec le temps (comparons disons 2001 ou Alien et L’âge de cristal , par exemple), sans parler des effets spéciaux. De ce côté-là, Looper a choisi de représenter l’avenir comme relativement proche de notre présent, sans véritables excentricités vestimentaires ni de technologies trop improbables. L’autre bonne idée, beaucoup plus originale, fut d’utiliser les deux acteurs principaux dans un lieu différent du présent et de leur faire chacun vivre son « arc » d’intrigue, l’un en ville, l’autre à la campagne. La représentation du monde futuriste devient ainsi bien plus complète que ce qu’on nous sert normalement (toujours citadin). Le seul autre exemple de cette bonne idée est l’excellent Les Fils de l'homme d’Alfonso Cuaron (découvrez-le si vous ne le connaissez pas !!). Dans ce monde qui gagne en réalisme à mesure que le film progresse, l’intrigue s’installe assez vite puis décide de prendre le temps d’approfondir ses personnages pour leur donner une véritable épaisseur. Et bien que les rebondissements soient nombreux (grâce aux ellipses intelligentes, Rian Johnson ne montre de l’intrigue que ce qui lui est essentiel), le film ralentit volontairement son rythme pour nous surprendre, nous perdre un peu, et finalement nous mener là où il veut aller. La fin nous montre à quel point l’ensemble est bien construit. L’histoire est également émaillée de trouvailles bien vues qui augmentent encore la crédibilité du monde imaginé. La punition infligée au looper qui avait laissé fuir sa cible est probablement la plus marquante (scène hallucinante !), mais c’est loin d’être la seule. Enfin, quand on parle de science-fiction, il faut dire dans quel type de SF on est : le pop-corn pur (Cinquième élément, Tron, Star wars, Super 8), ou la SF engagée qui veut poser des questions morales, éthiques, existentielles, spirituelles, etc (Gattaca, Soleil vert, Colossus, L’expérience interdite, The box, Cube, etc). Looper s’inscrit clairement dans la seconde, la SF noble. De nombreuses questions sont abordées tout au long du film. Certaines sont assez classiques dans les films de voyages dans le temps (Retour vers le futur, Terminator, L’armée des 12 singes), comme la prédestination et l’immutabilité du futur vs la liberté, les jugements préventifs (condamner quelqu’un pour des choses qu’il n’a pas encore faites). On en arrive à l’application froide du principe de précaution à un enfant, ce qui, dans le film, devient la cause dont on voulait justement éviter les effets. D’autres sont plus originales comme le choix d’une vie de plaisirs dont le prix à payer est que l’on se condamne soi-même ; il y a aussi le conflit de générations avec soi-même qui est représenté de façon très amusante entre Joe jeune et Joe vieux. On trouve aussi un conflit entre deux histoires d’amour, une au présent contre une au futur. Je ne peux pas en évoquer d’autres sans risquer de dévoiler des ressorts cruciaux de l’intrigue, mais sachez que la liste ne se limite pas qu’à ces quelques points. Looper est donc un excellent film de SF, bien joué, intelligent, et vraiment jouissif. Ne vous laissez pas duper par l’affiche assez mauvaise, ni par la présence de Bruce Willis au casting. N’allez pas croire que c’est un sous-produit hollywoodien idiot, bien au contraire !

Good 4K release although comes in a slim and cheaper feeling US style case. Movie is very enjoyable with a good cast, enjoyable characters, and interesting plot. The visual quality doesn't stand out as much as some other 4K releases, especially since it's a 1080p master, but the HDR is good and nothing stands out as particularly bad. There's a fairly heavy film grain to the whole movie, but I don't mind it. The audio quality is very good and it's a great test of your sound system.

La versión del Bluray de Sony es mejor que la distribuidora qué la trajo a México. La película es increíble y llegó pronto y en excelentes calidad. Mi única queja es que no incluyó el slipcover.

Súper entretenida