Skip to main content

Guest Review: George On Looper

James A. George, Eyewear film critic on  Looper



In my reviews for Eyewear I try to discuss plot as little as possible. I strongly believe that the purest and most fulfilling experience had in the cinema is when the viewer has avoided as much media concerning the film as possible in this world of constant in-your-face advertising. To discuss Looper at all the following must be revealed; there’s time travel and there’s telekinesis, both of which are revealed right at the start. The latter feels extremely tacked on so that the plot structure works but (along with one flying motorcycle) feels out of place in what is a thoroughly realised and believable future.

Time travel is messy, and one could dissect the plot and raise logistics questions but Looper pushes this aside by moving along rapidly and entering human consciousness into the mix. I can’t claim to be a sci-fi expert outside of the medium of film, but at least in film this is a fairly unexplored formula. The dark experiments of memory and physicality concerning time travel conducted by characters are unique and result in a lot of answers to “what if” questions you probably hadn’t but wish you had considered. Alongside all this sci-fi excellence are a haunting depiction of age, young and old, and an elegant study on destiny.

The script is beautifully written and the combination of direction, cinematography and editing breaks away from boring Hollywood convention. The violence is graphic but kept on a leash – skipped straight to the aftermath, or even highlighted in one long take or in distorted slow motion if necessary. The camera work is effective, moving only when it adds to the atmosphere. The framing is composed to explore the comedic undertones and simultaneous harsh reality of such a gritty story. The weight of the dystopian setting is kept at a distance as not to dilute the finely crafted film but is paid enough attention as evident in the cinemagoers I heard talking tirelessly about the film.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis play the same character, Joe, at different ages. Many don’t dwell on Bruce’s acting talents but this is a good example of his range and subtlety. I did wonder if there was some element of method acting when the two share the screen when Willis declares how strange it is to look into the eyes of his younger self; considering the eerie yet sweepingly realistic makeover teamed with Gordon-Levitt’s impeccable impersonation of Willis. The careful flash-forwards and flashbacks, the engaging montage sequence and a key exchange in a diner result in three-dimensional characters that could have otherwise been tough guys with cool guns. Emily Blunt as countryside farmer and mother, Sara, trying to avoid the polarized wealth of the city for the sake of her son is strong and compelling. None of the characters in this film are angelic and although there is a clear line drawn between the protagonists and antagonists, they’re all as enthralling as the other and right up to the startling conclusion I was itching to see all the paths play out and enjoy every moment en route.
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

DANGER, MAN

Like a crazed killer clown, whether we are thrilled, horrified, shocked, or angered (or all of these) by Donald Trump, we cannot claim to be rid of him just yet. He bestrides the world stage like a silverback gorilla (according to one British thug), or a bad analogy, but he is there, a figure, no longer of fun, but grave concern.

There has long been a history of misogynistic behaviour in American gangster culture - one thinks of the grapefruit in the face in The Public Enemy, or Sinatra throwing a woman out of his hotel room and later commenting he didn't realise there was a pool below to break her fall, or the polluted womb in Pacino'sScarface... and of course, some gangsta rap is also sexist.  American culture has a difficult way with handling the combined aspects of male power, and male privilege, that, especially in heteronormative capitalist enclaves, where money/pussy both become grabbable, reified objects and objectives (The Wolf of Wall Street for instance), an ugly fus…

AMERICA PSYCHO

According to the latest CBS, ABC, etc, polls, Clinton is still likely to beat Trump - by percentile odds of 66% to 33% and change. But the current popular vote is much closer, probably tied with the error of margin, around 44% each. Trump has to win more key battleground states to win, and may not - but he is ahead in Florida...

We will all know, in a week, whether we live in a world gone madder, or just relatively mad.

While it seems likely calmer heads will prevail, the recent Brexit win shows that polls can mislead, especially when one of the options is considered a bit embarrassing, rude or even racist - and Trump qualifies for these, at least.

If 42-45% of Americans admit they would vote for Trump, what does that say about the ones not so vocal? For surely, they must be there, as well. Some of the undecided will slide, and more likely they will slide to the wilder and more exciting fringe candidate. As may the libertarians.

Eyewear predicts that Trump will just about manage to win th…

SEXTON SHORTLIST!

Announcing the Shortlist for the 2016 Sexton PrizeSeptember 13, 2016 / By Kelly Davio
Eyewear Publishing is pleased to announce the shortlist for the 2016 Sexton Prize. The finalists are, in no particular order, as follows:


THE BARBAROUS CENTURY, Leah Umansky
HISTORY OF GONE, Lynn Schmeidler
SEVERE CLEAR, Maya Catherine Popa
GIMME THAT. DON’T SMITE ME, Steve Kronen
SCHEHERAZADE AND OTHER REDEPLOYMENTS, David McAleavey
AN AMERICAN PURGATORY, Rebecca Gayle Howell
SIT IN THE DARK WITH ME, Jesse Lee Kercheval

The shortlist was selected by Eyewear’s Director Todd Swift with Senior Editor Kelly Davio. Don Share of Poetry Magazine will select the winning manuscript, which will be released at the 2017 AWP conference in Washington, D.C. The winner will be announced in October. 
Congratulations to our finalists!