Looper (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


Empire Admin -> Looper (7/9/2012 8:55:12 PM)

Post your comments on this article




Evil_Bob -> RE: Seriously? You call that a review? (11/9/2012 5:11:07 AM)

I read the above comment before reading the review and i didnt' really want to believe it because I like Kim Newman but seriously this review is a load of garbled tripe. No coherance whatsoever.

I also simply do not believe that this is a 5 star film based on the trailer alone.

I thought that was a joke about them digitally altering JGL's face to look like a young Bruce Willis but they did. And it looks just as s**t as it sounds.




adambatman82 -> RE: Seriously? You call that a review? (11/9/2012 9:46:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Evil_Bob
I also simply do not believe that this is a 5 star film based on the trailer alone.


Brilliant.




Evil_Bob -> RE: Seriously? You call that a review? (12/9/2012 3:30:38 AM)

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: Evil_Bob
I also simply do not believe that this is a 5 star film based on the trailer alone.


Brilliant.



*unsure if serious or sarcastic* [:-]




Rgirvan44 -> RE: Seriously? You call that a review? (12/9/2012 7:44:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Evil_Bob

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: Evil_Bob
I also simply do not believe that this is a 5 star film based on the trailer alone.


Brilliant.



*unsure if serious or sarcastic* [:-]


Look back at what you wrote and you should figure it out.




Qwerty Norris -> RE: Seriously? You call that a review? (12/9/2012 8:37:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Evil_Bob


I also simply do not believe that this is a 5 star film based on the trailer alone.



Ye of little faith! [sm=happy07.gif]

GOD DAMN YOU EMPIRE FOR LETTING THIS POOR SOUL DOWN!




squeezyrider -> RE: Seriously? You call that a review? (12/9/2012 11:09:33 AM)

I haven't seen the film (am really looking forward to seeing it though) but I do think this is a crappy review.

Still at least it's not quite as spoilerific as Newman's usual efforts.




Evil_Bob -> RE: Seriously? You call that a review? (14/9/2012 7:17:03 PM)

DELETED




Evil_Bob -> RE: Seriously? You call that a review? (14/9/2012 7:18:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44


quote:

ORIGINAL: Evil_Bob

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: Evil_Bob
I also simply do not believe that this is a 5 star film based on the trailer alone.


Brilliant.



*unsure if serious or sarcastic* [:-]


Look back at what you wrote and you should figure it out.




If I can't does that make me a bad person?




pete_traynor -> RE: Seriously? You call that a review? (20/9/2012 11:06:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Evil_Bob

I also simply do not believe that this is a 5 star film based on the trailer alone.

I thought that was a joke about them digitally altering JGL's face to look like a young Bruce Willis but they did. And it looks just as s**t as it sounds.


I have no interest in reading detailed reviews for such a film before seeing it but Empire are far from alone in giving this very high praise. The reviews have been glowing all round:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/looper/




film man aidy -> RE: Worth looking (20/9/2012 5:04:28 PM)

Previews for Looper are this coming Monday at several chains. 




Cool Breeze -> RE: Worth looking (20/9/2012 9:31:10 PM)

This film looks interesting and i usually like JGL, but....he looks fucking ridiculous with that nose! Its really putting me off seeing this film.




pete_traynor -> RE: I have to agree, this reviewer is an idiot... (21/9/2012 11:05:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: davidkclark

Just to hammer home my rationale for this, I quote "Looper isn't perfect..." Then why give it five stars you moron? If it's not perfect then it doesn't get a perfect score. It's not rocket science. Not seen the movie so going to give it three for an average.


As stated at the top of the review, 5 Stars does not mean perfect. I can only assume because there is no such thing in reality. 5 Stars from Empire simply means they regard it as a classic, which does not mean it has to be perfect.
 
But giving a film that you haven't even seen a 3 (or anything for that matter) is rather peculiar though… [&:]




Hood_Man -> RE: I have to agree, this reviewer is an idiot... (24/9/2012 12:39:57 AM)

Wow, I thought the trailer looked interesting but I'm thrilled to hear this is getting such high praise. Looking forward to this one big time now [:)]




Darth Marenghi -> RE: (24/9/2012 6:05:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: clarkkent

I'm torn. On the one hand, I have LOVED this directors past work ever since i saw Brick and have left the same about JGL. Unfortunately, this five star review is a little tainted by the fact that Empire recently gave THE DARK KNIGHT RISES five stars, which at best is a three star flick. That said, I've been excited about this flick from it's announcement before i'd seen a shot of film or anyone had even started talking about it, let alone raving about it. So, you know, I've avoided this review to avoid spoilers, but still, the review worries me slightly.


Other reviews are available. [8|]




Olaf -> RE: RE: (24/9/2012 7:11:38 PM)

Jeff Bridges looks scarily like Slavoj Zizek you guys.




film man aidy -> RE: RE: (24/9/2012 10:51:28 PM)

Just caught a (very busy) preview showing. I definately felt it wasn't worthy of a ***** rating. There is much to recommend it, not least a vaguely original screenplay (in an age of sequels, prequels, reboots and remakes) and is suitably twisty. The whole tone was more Pulp Fiction/Twelve Monkeys Bruce Willis material than say the weak Surrogates. Nice to see  Jeff Daniels having a different style role than he's used to. Couldn't make my mind up over JGL though. Just like how Bane's voice distracted in Dark Knight Rises, the weird makeup job and contacts JGL has to wear were just plain odd. The makers almost went to too much effort making the two Joe's look alike, and it backfired.
The film did have some neat visual tricks and camera work, with a particularly good ending.

SPOILER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SPOILER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My biggest issue with the film was the level of violence levelled at small children. Admittedly, one key scene is implied more than the other, but it just didn't sit that well with me...

SPOILER END

I would imagine that this thread will light up like a Christmas tree after opening day, with everyone argueing over various time travel issues. I just can't fathom where  Empire, Total Film and SFX are coming from with the ***** ratings. For me it did the job at ***1/2.




eddieryan -> RE: I have to agree, this reviewer is an idiot... (24/9/2012 11:46:27 PM)

You put it perfectly @davidkclark.

I have just got in from a free screening & I'm glad I didn't have to pay to watch that as I was bored shitless from about an hour in. I didn't care about any of the characters (& I like all the actors and they all gave good performances, especially the delightful Ms Blunt & her flawless American accent) & I will admit that the kid is a great little actor (not a spoiler) and as for the ending - it took 2 hours to do what I said they should have done from the minute Bruce Willis appeared.

As for the JGL make-up job - Why?? It didn't make him look like a young Bruce Willis (I remember Moonlighting), it just made him look like a weird Joseph Gordon Levitt.

I'm really disappointed as I've been looking forward to it for absolutely ages, but I guess I'm not a Rian Johnson fan as I felt the same about Brick (which I actually did give up on before an hour). Won't be giving him a third chance...

Just for balance in this post, I would add that my wife loved it, so there you go. The last film to divide us this much was Black Swan (but this is marginally less boring).




TheMightyBlackout -> Great fun, not quite as intelligent as it thinks it is, though. (25/9/2012 12:55:43 AM)

Looper is a great time-travel movie, although you shouldn't need to see it twice to get everything that's going on. In places, the film tries to be too clever for its own good, yet in others it's a tad too simplistic. My favourite scene features Joe and Joe in a diner, with Bruce yelling at his younger self to get him to understand that the how-and-why of the time-travel isn't important; it's what's happening now that is. It's not entirely subtle, but it's basically a guide for watching the film.

If a movie about time-travel, and assassins, and having to take out your future-self doesn't get you going then... look, Emily Blunt getting all attitudey with a shotgun. This alone has to be worth the price of admission.




waltham1979 -> RE: Great fun, not quite as intelligent as it thinks it is, though. (27/9/2012 9:19:30 AM)

I really liked the film...but I just can't believe they didn't show how Bruce got back to Gotham so quickly!!




jobloffski -> RE: Great fun, not quite as intelligent as it thinks it is, though. (27/9/2012 12:24:20 PM)

Haven't seen it yet, but just wanted to ask: Instead of using a fake nose and contacts for JGL why didn't they just have it as a plot point that assassins with long careers may need to indulge in plastic surgery to keep the job going (if, for example their face becomes known, and eventually even that's not enough because you still cant choose your nature and sooner or later, your style makes you identifiable to anyone, rendering you useless) and up the possibilities for 'how can you be me' scenes and all that, while making the nuances and mannerisms of the actors the way in which they are identifiably each other?

Probably irrelevant questions, but if not, pretty stupid of the production to opt for false nose and contact lenses and thereby futz with what the face of a rising and well known star looks like isn't it?




waltham1979 -> RE: Great fun, not quite as intelligent as it thinks it is, though. (27/9/2012 12:43:28 PM)

I haven't seen the film yet...or the full trailer yet for that matter but yesterday when I was chasing after school children with a box of puppies I saw a big giant bill board poster of it and I liked that so I am going to rate the film 6 out of 5...although the poster has gone over The Dark Knight Rises poster that was up there before and that gave me my daily fix of man-crush Bale, so on that basis I am going to award the film 2 out of 5.

Update.

I just heard one of those radio trailers I hate so much and discussed with my designer (whose name is Steve by the way) that they were irritating and ruined my enjoyment of that 'We are never ever ever ever like ever getting back together again' song that I like so much.

So based with this new information I am going to give the film 1 out of 5. Which I am a bit relieved about as otherwise I would have had to go to the cinema and watch the film and prices at the Odeon are quite expensive these days and I have no money (having spent it all on boxes of puppies).





jobloffski -> RE: Great fun, not quite as intelligent as it thinks it is, though. (27/9/2012 1:37:33 PM)

Thanks for taking the piss, if that's what you're doing there...was just questions, given the amount of attention the fake nose and contacts are getting as far as response to the film goes, conceding that they might be irrelevant questions.




clownfoot -> RE: Great fun, not quite as intelligent as it thinks it is, though. (27/9/2012 1:42:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jobloffski

Thanks for taking the piss, if that's what you're doing there...was just questions, given the amount of attention the fake nose and contacts are getting as far as response to the film goes, conceding that they might be irrelevant questions.


I think he was taking the piss out of some of the dafter posts that preceeded your's Job. Specifically the chap who's rated the film three stars without having seen it...




jobloffski -> RE: Great fun, not quite as intelligent as it thinks it is, though. (27/9/2012 1:48:13 PM)

Ah, me so sensitive today[:D]




waltham1979 -> RE: Great fun, not quite as intelligent as it thinks it is, though. (27/9/2012 1:55:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jobloffski

Ah, me so sensitive today[:D]


I wasn't taking the piss out of you...c'mere and gimme a hug jobloffski [sm=love25.gif]

Would you like a puppy?? [:)]




adamg88 -> RE: Looper (27/9/2012 6:44:24 PM)

Hi ther new to the forum. Seen this on monday and loved it even ma missus enjoyed who ie not a.
Sci fi fan. Performance by all actors were great and don't know what people are moanin bout with the nose I thought jgl looked great. Been to cinema 3 times this year for avengers rises and this and been very entertained by them all and with taken 2 and hobbit comin 2012 will be a great year for cinematic experiences. Oh agree with many this review is odd whilst reading it seemed Kim did not like it yet gave 5 stars ? Also he says ther easier ways to getting rid of a dissappontin associate than zappi-g them in the past but the film gives a very reasonable explanation. Any way film is a cracker and is worth ur hard earned cash. watch it !




jobloffski -> RE: Great fun, not quite as intelligent as it thinks it is, though. (28/9/2012 8:03:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: waltham1979


quote:

ORIGINAL: jobloffski

Ah, me so sensitive today[:D]


I wasn't taking the piss out of you...c'mere and gimme a hug jobloffski [sm=love25.gif]

Would you like a puppy?? [:)]


Tried 'em. Too crunchy...




jackmansgirl -> RE: Great fun, not quite as intelligent as it thinks it is, though. (28/9/2012 1:02:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: waltham1979

I haven't seen the film yet...or the full trailer yet for that matter but yesterday when I was chasing after school children with a box of puppies I saw a big giant bill board poster of it and I liked that so I am going to rate the film 6 out of 5...although the poster has gone over The Dark Knight Rises poster that was up there before and that gave me my daily fix of man-crush Bale, so on that basis I am going to award the film 2 out of 5.

Update.

I just heard one of those radio trailers I hate so much and discussed with my designer (whose name is Steve by the way) that they were irritating and ruined my enjoyment of that 'We are never ever ever ever like ever getting back together again' song that I like so much.

So based with this new information I am going to give the film 1 out of 5. Which I am a bit relieved about as otherwise I would have had to go to the cinema and watch the film and prices at the Odeon are quite expensive these days and I have no money (having spent it all on boxes of puppies).




This may just be my favourite comment about anything ever. EVER.




R W -> RE: Looper (28/9/2012 8:46:45 PM)

Prior to the release of his long-awaited third feature, Brick director Rian Johnson had commented on being influenced by Christopher Nolan’s Inception, which indeed has a long lasting appreciation. Because of Nolan’s brain-scrambling masterpiece, there has been an array of intelligent sci-fi from greats like Duncan Jones’ Source Code to not-so-greats like Andrew Niccol’s In Time. Following dreamscapes and time-living, time travel is given a fresh and exciting approach, thanks to Johnson’s latest.

In a futuristic gangland in the year 2044, mafia assassins known as “Loopers” kill and dispose those sent by their employers from corporate headquarters from the next thirty years. The loopers are paid on the condition that all targets must never escape. Sadly for the young looper Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), he fails to kill his next target, which is a future version of himself (Bruce Willis), causing his employers to come after him, forcing him to fight for his life as he hunts his older self.

Whilst the concept of time travel will be more familiar for mainstream audiences with the Back to the Future trilogy, there are those who might compare Looper to Bruce Willis’ previous time-travel yarn Twelve Monkeys, which forced you to put your head in gear and figure out its complex structure. Whilst Looper is not as puzzling as Gilliam’s film, writer/director Rian Johnson presents a puzzling but fun thriller exploring not only its theory of time travel, but also its futuristic world that is strange, chaotic and cool.

Throughout the film, you can see what it is referencing from its noirish atmosphere of the futuristic surroundings to later the old western landscapes, along with a plot to somewhat mirror The Terminator, as well as a tiny gag about superheroes which becomes a key moment in the story. As always with time-travel flicks, it has to piece together the threads of the plot, which indeed it cleverly does, but the real strength of Looper is the character dynamics between the young self-absorbent Joe and his older sympathetic self, and how their actions blur the line between good and bad.

While you’re not going to see Bruce Willis in a vest (given his age), he does hold a lot of guns and does indeed shoot a lot of people, but acting-wise, he does show some emotion, particularly in the film’s surprisingly dark moments. To look and sound like his co-star without saying “yippee-ki-yay”, Joseph Gordon-Levitt as a young Bruce Willis is a convincing antihero who lives his life by killing targets from the future, and unlike his older self, struggles to feel any emotion towards anyone. In Looper’s finest sequence, the thirty-year span from young Joe to old Joe is a master stroke of both story and character.

With the introduction of Emily Blunt’s southern-accented Sara and her son, the story does slow down as it focuses on the relationship between Joe and the small but dysfunctional family, so you do wait a bit for the action to come back. On the other hand, Blunt is terrific as the shotgun-wielding mother who is struggling to keep her son safe. During the course, there is a great supporting cast surrounding the three poster names, including Paul Dano’s troubled looper, Noah Segan’s ambitious but idiot henchman, and best of all, Jeff Daniels as the laid-back mafia boss who has the great funny speech about time travel.

Since his debut Brick, any follow-up by Rian Johnson is exciting and with Looper, he has shown that he is one of the most exciting filmmakers working today. It may not be perfect, but Looper is an excellent time-travel actioner that is thought-provoking and thrilling.




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.1445313