I saw Looper the other day, and I liked it. Good action, nice (but unobtrusive) world-building, solid performances, and enough of the weird to keep it interesting. There’s one casting choice in there that makes so much sense I can’t believe no one thought of it before now.
It’s got some major-league plot holes, and the premise has some big flaws, and I’m pretty sure it contradicts itself big-time at the end. Maybe someone smarter than me can explain the mechanics of that ending, considering the rules they set up at the beginning.
Almost every geek movie I’ve seen this year has had the same issues — especially the good ones. The internet has spent more time trying to decipher Prometheus that it has talking about it, and Dark Knight has some serious issues, too. I think Avengers succeeds primarily because it manages not to fall down and vomit on itself.
And yet … I report enjoying Dark Knight, Prometheus and Looper. I don’t think I’m alone in that.
So here’s my question: How many flaws can a movie have before they reduce your enjoyment? How much nonsense are you willing to tolerate to see your favorite characters? Has a lifetime of reading comics made you come to expect a certain amount of slapdash storytelling?
In each of those three cases, the movie had an X-factor that carried me past the flaws. Prometheus has a sense of grandeur, a sense of probing the big issues, and some amazing production values. Ditto for Dark Knight. Looper succeeds through the strength of its lead performances, its world-building, and the ability to show me something I haven’t quite seen before.
So I’m happy, but not satisfied. I want my geek movies (particularly my sci-fi) to show me something new, and do it with a baseline level of internal consistency.
Can’t anybody here play this game? Or do I just have to watch John Carter again?