Tuesday, 9 October 2012

LOOPER

Last week, I saw Looper, a time-travel drama that's been billed as this decade's The Matrix. (I don't remember where I saw it being called that but it stuck with me, if you happen to know where I got it, let me know). I would have reviewed it sooner, but I needed some time to think it over.

It's a good film. Mostly. Overall.

I have this theory about time-travel which involves paradoxes (essentially, if you go back in time to change something, then it never happens which means you would never go back to change it, which means it would happen, which means you would go back and change it, which means you wouldn't go back, which means it would still happen...and on and on forever until my head starts to really hurt.) My theory is that is impossible to make a good time-travel film which is free of paradoxes. This film is no exception, so if like me you hate paradoxes and they really bother you...well, I still think you should see this film, but just go in and try to switch off your brain and just enjoy it. I think it's a good film but because time-travel is a flawed theory, all films that feature it will be flawed. I want to see it a second time, actually, because I think I would be able to enjoy it a lot more a second time around because my brain wouldn't be nitpicking and asking questions.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt was impressive, although I don't understand why they digitally altered his face and made him look like a bad robot. Emily Blunt was also very good. There was some debate within our little party concerning her American accent, and while I can't speak to the quality of it, I don't think she sounded like herself. Bruce Willis has hair in some scenes. If you've seen Surrogates, you'll know it's not a good look on him. You have been warned.

Overall, it's hard to say what I really thought of this film. It's been brought to my attention that I am overly critical about...well, about everything, but time-travel is a particular issue for me. I'm sure I've seen films where they say something along the lines of "But isn't that a paradox?" . . . "In theory, yes, but in the real world, time-travel doesn't actually work that way," which would be fine. Because time-travel doesn't exist, we don't know how it works. But you can't just put in a bloody great paradox and then pretend like you can't even see it. It is a good film though, and I did enjoy it for the most part. I just had so many questions about the specifics of the time-travel technology that I found it hard to just sink into the film and enjoy it properly.



No comments:

Post a Comment