Everybody likes LOOPER. Except me.
io9, which reviews all things SF-nal, called it "smart." I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around this. My problem is that the plot doesn't make sense, which would seem to be a basic requirement of smartness. To be specific: [Alert: Many spoilers ahead!]
In 2044, time travel has been invented. However, the only people who have a time machine are a very influential criminal organization headed by a mysterious man called the Rainmaker. The only people. No scientists, governments, etc. Just thugs.
Technology has advanced enough to create time travel, but not enough to dispose of bodies, so the criminal organization sends its enemies, bound and hooded and alive, back to our time to be shot by confederates called Loopers. They don't send the bodies back dead, even though the problem is body disposal. The Loopers have guns with ONE bullet, thereby enabling the odd sent-back thug to escape into our time.
The time machine looks like a rusty iron lung from the 1950's. In fact, nothing in the future looks very futuristic except Shanghai, which already looks futuristic.
Bruce Willis, a retired Looper, is transformed from a stupid Bad Guy by the power of love. Or so we're told. However, he still can, and does, shoot children (one of whom will grow up to be the Rainmaker) in order to change the future so he can get his wife back. Of course, if he succeeds in changing the future, what's to say that she will still be present in a drastically changed 2044? Nobody considers this.
The child (played by a truly wonderful kid actor) has telekinesis, which he demonstrates when he kills a different assassin. But when confronted with the exact same situation later in the movie, he doesn't use TK even though he could. Why not? Because if he did, the movie would be over.
Again, nobody else seems to mind any of this. As long as enough bodies drop, enough things blow up, and Bruce glares enough, everybody thinks that's adequate to make an SF movie. And if Hollywood wants to make a movie about time travel, why not Greg Benford's TIMESCAPE or Michael Swanwick's BONES OF THE EARTH or Connie Willis's "Firewatch"? Those all make
So -- is it just me?