I just had a chance to watch this on DVD and I thought it was great. A lot of people dinged it because it wasn’t “funny” like the original or “as faithful” to the Philip K. Dick story (which I still have on my list so I can’t comment much there) as the 1990 movie. However, I thought the story was more believable (if you’ve seen the original, just think about how ridiculous the ending was), and the acting was much better (sure, cheesy Arnold lines were okay 20 years ago, but give me a serious sci-fi story any day). Of course, the FX were much better with today’s technology, and I thought Jessica Biel was much better than the original Melina actress. Referring to her and Kate Beckinsale as “eye candy” in many Netflix reviews is sexist and juvenile in my opinion. They both brought something to the movie, especially Kate (who definitely topped Sharon Stone, though she was good in the original movie, and Michael Ironside, who is always Michael Ironside). I’m sorry, but ever since Underworld, Kate has been kicking butt on screen, literally.

Colin Farrell was outstanding and much more believable than the buff Arnold in the Quaid / Hauser role. But surprisingly, Bryan Cranston was great as the villain Cohagen. Also Bill Nighy makes a brief appearance as Matthias the rebel leader.There were also some nice nods to the 1990 film with the three-breasted woman flash, but the better one was the woman at the terminal saying “two weeks.”

It seems like people either like this movie or hate it. If you like good sci-fi storytelling, you will like this movie. Go into it without any thought of or comparison to the 1990 movie and you’ll probably like it even more. The movie tells a good story and has good flow through it, and the ending is decent and conclusive.

I went into this movie with an open mind. I wasn’t looking for a continuation of the Bourne trilogy, but something similar and different. Jeremy Renner does a great job as the main character. His action scenes are good and his methods are believable. Rachel Weisz also is good in this movie as a doctor involved in a Treadstone-like project, but with no real knowledge of what the project’s purpose is.

The beginning of the movie is a little confusing, and the tie-ins to the Bourne Ultimatum don’t do much to pull you in, although they tie the plots together. I was expecting more from some of the big names from the last movie like Joan Allen, but her, Scott Glenn, and David Strathairn only have brief scenes in the movie. Maybe the inevitable sequel will provide them with more screen time.

The beginning and middle of the movie have the best action scenes in my opinion. A lot of people have complained that the final motorcycle chase is way too long. I also was disappointed with the way the super agent sent in to kill Renner and Weisz was disposed of. I would have liked to see some fighting between him and Renner like Bourne had in the previous movies with agents sent to kill him.

Edward Norton’s role was a bit confusing in the beginning, and he was definitely no David Strathairn on Bourne’s trail. I think this movie had a weak supporting cast, unlike the previous movies. There were some nice surprises throughout, but the ending was very weak: the end of the motorcycle chase as well as the final scene.

I enjoyed the movie overall, but it won’t be one I’ll be running to buy. The movie had a good cast, but I think the writing was too muddled and the suspense did not do enough to pull you in at times. Don’t go into it expecting one of the previous Bourne movies and you will probably enjoy it as a good action movie.

I watched this movie recently because it looked like a pretty cool time travel flick. I knew Joseph Gordon-Levitt was in it, but I didn’t recognize him as the main character in the movie. Apparently they changed his appearance to look more like his older self (played by Bruce Willis). Both of these actors gave good performances in the movie, as well as Jeff Daniels in a bad guy role. The movie did have some cool effects like doing stuff to a younger self affecting the older version. The idea of sending back people to kill them was kind of cool in the beginning.

Unfortunately, the story had some problems with it. In the trailer, the way I understood it Joseph’s character is a looper, a person who kills people sent back in time. Then his future self is sent back and this is a big deal. However, in the movie this happened to all loopers at some point (referred to as “closing the loop”). You were supposed to kill your future self and the mob (who sent people back) paid you big bucks for this and you retired from your job. Throw in that 10% of the population somehow gets telekinesis in the future (which is not important until the end, so it really only serves as an excuse for how some events take place in the future).  Throw in the killing of children to stop a future bad guy (even though it is portrayed as heinous, was this really necessary?). Also a fall from 20 feet up onto a car with no discernible injuries by one character?

The end of movie solution to a problem is interesting, as is Bruce kicking butt over the bad guys, but the ending also makes you wonder what you sat through everything for. Maybe the main characters struggle of what to do about his future self who doesn’t want to die?

Looper is worth watching for the effects, interesting ideas, and butt-kicking. I was just disappointed it wasn’t better. I gave it 3 out of 5 stars.