Movie Reviews with Matt: Looper

*Minor spoilers

Ever wanted to go back in time? Well, news flash, it probably wouldn't work. But don't worry; it works in Looper because, in Looper, all the paradoxes that come with changing the past are completely pushed aside. Yes, they're entirely ignored in a film whose plot revolves around that very concept. But it's not all bad. In the end, you get a three-dimensional sci-fi flick about love, identity, sacrifice, and creepy ten-year-olds who look more like six.

This newest instalment in the time travel universe centres on Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a desensitised junky with no purpose in life other than to accumulate silver and 'move to France'. The year is 2044, the state of living is declining in America, and every now and then a person the Mafia wants dead appears from the future and is killed on the spot. Indeed, in the year 2074, time travel is invented, outlawed, and only used in secret by people like the Mafia. It's almost impossible to murder without a trace, what with all the uber technology; so the Mafia sends their liabilities back to 2044, where, as soon as they arrive, a man they've commissioned (known as a Looper) does the job for them. Joe is such a man; and since his victims have silver attached to their bodies, his dream of starting over is certainly coming into view. However, things get interesting when the Mafia no longer has need for Joe. As is custom, they send his future self, Old Joe (Bruce Willis), back to be killed by, well, himself. Of course, it'd be silly if Willis died after five seconds of screen time. So he doesn't, and instead, his mission is to kill the murderer of his (future) wife, who in the present is but a child.

The plot is constantly moving and evolving in Looper, keeping the film feeling fresh and exciting. What starts with but one character becomes a full-fledged cast of five or six, each with different goals, often clashing. Forsooth, no character is all good or all bad. Everyone has a past, and the concept of time travel is used to emphasise the vehicles driving different characters' ambitions. Old Joe is fuelled by the love of his dead wife; Sara (Emily Blunt) is ready to sacrifice herself out of love for her son; and Joe - well, be sure you don't count him out, even though he smokes. But with Old Joe, it becomes particularly intriguing when the very drive to avenge his wife - his memories - is thwarted by the actions of his past self. What if he never meets her? There would be no one to avenge, and his purpose to live would vanish from existence. There's a scene in which this almost happens. While short, it questions the very concepts of identity and purpose - who would he be without his past? - and thus suggests the importance of treasuring one's own memories.

Of course, this scene also reveals, dare I say it, a plot hole. Old Joe's 2044-self is doing this and that, any of which might change what Old Joe (from 2074) has come to know. But what about all the things he might do between 2044 and 2074? Shouldn't Old Joe's mind be in perpetual flux from all the things his past self will now do differently based on his recent, life-changing experiences? Well, he's not. It seems that his 2044-self, and nothing outside of that instance in time, matters. To me, this makes absolutely no sense. Bear with me; there's more.

Ever heard of the grandfather paradox? Looper runs on the assumption that, if time travel were possible, a man could go back in time and alter his past, thus changing the future from which he came. The grandfather paradox can be understood in the following example: Bobbery uses a time machine to go back in time, before his grandfather had had a son (Bobbery's father), and then proceeds to kill his grandfather. So now Bobbery's grandfather is dead, which means Bobbery had never been born. However, if Bobbery had never been born, then he couldn't have come back in time to kill his grandfather. As such, if he could've never come back in time to kill his grandfather, then his grandfather lives, and Bobbery was born after all! Which means --- you get the idea. In other words, the universe would implode. Anyway, a certain event towards the end of the film makes as much sense as going back in time and killing your grandfather. That is, it makes no sense at all.

A third and final plot hole (there isn't room for more) joins us in the restaurant scene, where Old Joe attempts to kill Joe. If Joe was to die, then Old Joe wouldn't exist. So why is he shooting at him? Also, if Old Joe never existed, he couldn't have killed Joe. Whoa, slow down! Another paradox!?

If you can ignore these inconsistencies - Willis pretty much tells viewers several times not to think about time travel too much - the film is mostly good. Some of the major details are predictable; Joe narrates at the beginning to inform us who's who (a shortcut method to get the premise covered); some scenes simply feel weird in their execution; and there's a ten-year-old who's more like six and way too smart for either age, who's a paradoxical combination of creepy and cute. However, these finer details are more-or-less shoved to the bottom in light of a well-developed plot, action which entertains, and a cast of interesting characters. The ending, while cheesy, is very apt and refreshing. It completes the film and solidifies a message veiled behind all of the action - that true love means sacrifice. That, or the future has lots in store for coming generations - like telekinetic powers!