Looper

I totally saw this movie.
And then didn't write a post about it.

I suppose I should though since everyone was going off the deep end about it. They were practically frothing at the mouth from excitement.

Spoilers under the cut.

The Good:

+The Cast
                =Joseph Gordan Levitt in particular. That boy can act like nobody's business. (I feel like he's kinda...faux-intellectual in real life though but that's for a different post). His portrayal of the character, his subtlety in acting through probably inches of prosthetics, the little quirks that he picks up from Bruce Willis and incorporates into his performance, it's all amazing stuff. I was a little skeptical of his talent before. He had hosted SNL a year ago or something and I was like, he seems a little...manic. Sort of had a crazy look in his eyes and kind of brushed him off. But he hosted again a few weeks ago and I was really impressed with his range of characters. I feel like SNL is a good gauge of acting talent. If you can successfully pull off SNL and really give it your all, really submerse yourself in the skit and the outrageous character you're playing, then you've done it. And I think he did that. It was an amazing performance in Looper. He played against Bruce Willis who's been a lead actor for a long long time and held his own.
                =Bruce Willis in a role that I've never really seen him play before. Or at least, it evolved into a role that I had never seen him play before. He started out pretty much the same, tough guy who kicks ass and takes names. But as the movie goes on, he really has a role where you, as the viewer, start to think about whether his reasons are good enough. He seems to devolve into a man with dubious morals, who would kill a child because of what that child might do in the future, but still feels sorrow for his actions. He breaks down after he shoots a child, and it's a side you don't really see in a Bruce Willis character. He becomes the villain in the end. But villain doesn't even seem like the right word, the antagonist maybe? It's an interesting choice for him because he was John McClane, hero extraordinaire. He always plays sort of one note characters and this specific character is a lot more complex. I think he pulled it off pretty well, where you feel for him but at the same time can condemn his actions.
                =Emily Blunt. She is really good in this movie. I don't even know how to put into words. She really shines when she's talking to her son and saying it's okay. You know the scene I'm talking about. The one that made me almost cry. She really immerses herself in the character and you can tell she's had a difficult life and yet she keeps going and she loves her son a lot. In just a few minutes, you're on her side.

I think what was really great about this movie is that it was so innovative, story-wise. I went into the movie knowing nothing about what was going to happen. I didn't read up on it beforehand, I didn't look at any reviews or anything. I didn't know what was going to happen next and it wasn't a predictable story. I didn't go in and think to myself oh, this is a remake of a remake of a remake. If I was the type of person to not think ahead it would have genuinely surprised me that he shot himself. When his older self goes in and kills everyone, I thought it would be the end. But then realized he had to go to the last house on the map to kill the kid. (Or try to kill the kid). It was genuinely surprising to find out that her child was a strong telepath. I didn't see THAT one coming at all but it made sense. It was a tightly shot and well edited film and I would recommend it to anyone to see it if just to see something that is new and not a sequel or a remake or based off a book.

The Bad:
I don't think there was anything that I particularly didn't like. Every part was well cast, Paul Dano was an inspired choice as the friend because he's an amazing actor all around. I think the prosthetics are off-putting at first but then you kind of forget that they're there. I can understand why they needed them though. In the shot in the diner, when they're staring at each other and all you see are their profiles then you can understand why they needed to use prosthetics. It's a very specific profile. There wasn't anything new about the special effects really (other than the prosthetics) or the cinematography, but there were some beautiful shots. I didn't have anything to nitpick about. I wouldn't say I absolutely loved the film so much that I would see it over and over again (just because the plot doesn't hold THAT much interest for me) but it was a great little film that definitely deserves recognition.

Another point: It was a REALLY GREAT scene when they explain how they punish the runners. You understand then all these things at once: 1. How the time travel works 2. how they punish people without killing them 3. The ruthlessness of the crime corporation 4. The inventiveness of the freaking writer and director of the movie because I wouldn't have thought of that in a million years. All of that in a not even ten minute sequence. The world works so well and the plot works well in it. I was just really impressed with the writing.