Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Looper

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Looper Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Looper - 28/9/2012 11:14:53 PM   
jcthefirst


Posts: 4421
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: Bangor
Good first hour, establishing the world, and the loops. Second hour is pretty dull, and sadly becomes every time travel movie ever, and you can see the resolution and the reasoning behind it, coming a mile off.


MASSIVE MASSIVE ENDING SPOILERS (highlight to read)

It's fairly obvious to everyone that Bruce Willis killing the kid's mum is what messes the kid uo enough to become the Rainmaker, so of course JGL will kill himself/Bruce to prevent this happening.

END MASSIVE MASSIVE ENDING SPOILERS

What does everyone make of the very final scene?

_____________________________

@Jonny_C85

My Movie Blog | My Other Various Rantings Blog

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 31
RE: Looper - 28/9/2012 11:56:10 PM   
Boring Prophet


Posts: 3030
Joined: 1/10/2005
From: Dublin, Ireland

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcthefirst

Good first hour, establishing the world, and the loops. Second hour is pretty dull, and sadly becomes every time travel movie ever, and you can see the resolution and the reasoning behind it, coming a mile off.


MASSIVE MASSIVE ENDING SPOILERS (highlight to read)

It's fairly obvious to everyone that Bruce Willis killing the kid's mum is what messes the kid uo enough to become the Rainmaker, so of course JGL will kill himself/Bruce to prevent this happening.

END MASSIVE MASSIVE ENDING SPOILERS

What does everyone make of the very final scene?


SPOILERS

What I don't get is that if Bruce killing the mum was the one thing that turned the kid into Rainmaker, why does he become Rainmaker in the original timeline which Bruce was forced to escape?

That gaping hole aside, I really enjoyed it.

(in reply to jcthefirst)
Post #: 32
RE: Looper - 29/9/2012 12:49:51 AM   
Olaf


Posts: 23695
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41N 93W
SPOILERS
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................















Bruce killing the kid's mum is what turns him into the Rainmaker in this rewritten permutation of the event (though the fact that JGL is the one who narrates that sequence makes me think that it's more just what he 'sees' as what will happen etc rather than an actual representation of events), but the 'original' cause - ie pre-Bruce coming back in time - is more of a general anxiety and latent aggression (what he does to his aunt occurs before any time-travelling shenanigans so it can be taken as canon in both timelines). JGL's presence in his home life - more specifically the change in the relationship between mother and son that comes out of that - is thus the key alteration in the timeline that displaces the anxiety/defensiveness that 'was' his primary motivation in the first place. of course, it's left ambiguous enough to leave open the possibility that nothing has changed, he's still messed up and will go on to be a crazy criminal ganglord anyway. That's how I interpreted it, though there are definitely moments that back up the more plot-holey version (the bit where the kid talks about protecting his mother comes to mind)

(also, spoilers aren't hidden on the review page if I remember correctly. perhaps a Favourite Films thread would be better for in-depth discussion with spoilers and all that.)

< Message edited by Olaf -- 29/9/2012 12:50:30 AM >


_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to Boring Prophet)
Post #: 33
RE: Looper - 29/9/2012 9:13:07 AM   
BelfastBoy

 

Posts: 573
Joined: 30/11/2005
HUGE SPOILERS FOR THE ENDING; DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THE INVISI-TEXT THING, SORRY!









Saw Looper last night on huge Omnimaxx screen, looks amazing given that (I'm assuming) the budget wasn't of Avengers proportions. First thing I need to say is that it's terrifically entertaining, 4* at least. I'd just say go and see it, prepare to be impressed, slightly confused, and stimulated with thoughts and possibilities (always the sign of a successful film). Rather than write an in-depth review, here's my observations:

- JG Levitt's makeup / prosthetics are effective enough, although unneccessary. Acting is 'make believe'; if the film says that JGL is playing a young Willis, then the audience will accept it without having to saddle the guy with a plasticky-looking face and nose! We all accepted Zachary Quinto as a young Spock, or Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan, so what's the problem?
- IMO the only time travel film that stands up to scrutiny is Twelve Monkeys. But, since time travel may not be possible at all, it's best to just - again - suspend disbelief and accept whatever way a particular film portrays it! Looper's take is certainly original, but riddled with plot holes that will frustrate if given too much thought. The film shows two possibilities - where young Joe kills his older self as per his standard MO, lives his next 30 years, before being sent back to be killed in the past. However, it also shows, to set up the bulk of the film, an alternative where old Joe manages to somehow break this 'loop' and go rogue in 2044. Without wishing to delve too deeply into the mechanics, surely only one of these timelines could actually happen? But then, there could also be an argument for there being alternative timelines. But my issue was this - surely for old Joe to get sent back in time, young Joe always has to kill him in the first place in order to get the gold, live the life, meet the beautiful woman etc?! How can it work if old Joe comes back but doesn't get killed? Does not compute! Game over man! etc. (Like I said, and despite what this paragraph may indicate, the film uses time travel as a plot device, not necessarily aiming for scientific plausibility. In this sense it succeeds 100% with something fresh and original.)
- On a related, slightly irrelevant, point, did the future criminals invent time travel, or did they somehow just gain exclusive control of the technology?
- Fans of Piper Perabo will be pleased to note that she has a topless scene, although it's totally unerotic.
- When Bruce Willis wants to be, he can be a great actor. For Looper, it's as if he's channelling his superb Twelve Monkeys performance one more time.
- JGL is quietly becoming one of the most effective and versatile actors currently active. If he's not on the A-list yet, then he soon will be. I can't believe how far he's come since Third Rock From The Sun, where he was good but seemed to play second fiddle to John Lithgow and Kristen Johnson (whatever happened to her?).
- The 'can you kill a child who will grow up to be a monster?' dilemma is employed to maximum effect here. I think it's fair to say that neither version of Joe is particularly pleasant, but the film does fully explore the trauma of killing children without being gratuitous. The power of suggestion is greater than seeing it happen explicitly.
- Emily Blunt's accent is flawless, and here's further evidence of her skills and versatility.
- The child actor playing Cid is amazing, although is it possible that his more complicated speeches were the result of some CGI trickery? If not, then his ability to deliver pretty lengthy and complicated dialogue is astonishing.

THE ENDING

This is my take, and I accept straightaway that I'm probably reading WAY too much into things! But here goes:

- At the end of the film, Cid is still alive, a generally lovable kid who nevertheless displays wildly uncontrollable TK-fuelled violent rages. Even if Sarah attempts to raise him as best as she can, who's to say that he doesn't grow up, learns to control his powers, and becomes The Rainmaker anyway? The film has a slight but notable fascination with China, and The Rainmaker sends Loopers back from future Shanghai. To me, since we know nothing about Cid's father, could it be that he was Oriental, because the boy looks vaguely mixed race?

OR

- This is my leftfield suggestion, but what if Sarah actually turns out to be The Rainmaker? In 2044, she knows about Loopers, although (based on my memory of a single showing) I don't think it's ever clear how she knows about them. She implies a life as a younger woman of excess in the city - a city that we know is effectively run by a crime boss from the future (Jeff Daniels). So, perhaps she learnt about Loopers and their work that way, before falling pregnant and escaping to the country. The Rainmaker is a Keyer Soze-esque figure, and it's not clear if it's even a man or a woman. Sarah - when manipulating the cigarette lighter - suggests that her TK powers are greater than normal, and she's given birth to a much more powerful son again. What if she learns how to develop her powers to the point where she can be a future criminal mastermind? Since she's already - in 2044 - seen the problems caused by Loopers on her own doorstep, in the future she sets out to 'close all the loops'. She either does it alone, or perhaps with the help of a grown-up Cid. This is a bit tenuous and highly unlikely, but I think it's at least a possibility!

< Message edited by BelfastBoy -- 29/9/2012 9:16:05 AM >

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 34
RE: Looper - 29/9/2012 12:06:41 PM   
Greggieboy

 

Posts: 240
Joined: 28/4/2006
So in the future they have floating motorbikes but no chainsaws on farms to get rid off tree trunks!

And in a busy, overpopulated city in the future a hospital only has 3 births on a particular day!

But apart from that I really enjoyed it. Its not my favourite film of the year but it was amazing. Maybe a bit overlong especially in the secound half when the plot spins off on a tangent and in a certain scene there should be a loud honking noise and subtitles in capitals going ITS HIM, ITS HIM. SEE WHAT WEVE DONE HERE.

but great

_____________________________

Last Few Films Seen:Captain America;77/100 Harry Potter 7b; 85/100 Super 8; 74/100 X Men;First Class;76/100Fututre Films: Cowboys & Aliens, ROTPOTA, Cars 2, , Bridesmaids (at some point)

(in reply to BelfastBoy)
Post #: 35
RE: - 29/9/2012 6:48:09 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
Time travel doesn't worK. But still liked it a lot.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

Post #: 36
RE: RE: - 29/9/2012 11:14:51 PM   
homersimpson_esq


Posts: 20118
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Springfield
MAJOR SPOILER






















I have an issue with one gaping plot hole.

The entire premise is based around the idea that it is hard to dispose of bodies in the future. There are tracking issues - this is mentioned in the voiceover. It's the entire point of having to send people back in time.

So, if it's so damned hard to kill someone, if it's such a problem that TIME TRAVEL has to be used, why is BruceJoe's Chinese wife killed so blithely? It's that which spurs BruceJoe on to start murdering children, because he needs to save her.

If anyone has a reasonable solution, I would love to hear it, because otherwise it's a worse plothole than any time-related one. Time travel will always cause plot holes, this is separate.


_____________________________

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.


Bristol Bad Film Club
A place where movie fans can come and behold some of the most awful films ever put to celluloid.

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 37
RE: Looper - 30/9/2012 4:37:33 AM   
demoncleaner


Posts: 2378
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Belfast
Yeah, excellence bordering on magnificence. High-concept self-prescribed rules of the Matrix meets a wistful countrified Shane. Sounds awful but Rian Johnson is so concrete in his scenes that I as a viewer have confidence and belief of where he's taking this. Looper on paper is a constant massive tonal and genre shift that should make for a confused mess. The fact that it's so forthright and articulate on a scene-for-scene basis makes this recurrent exchange in sensibilities so exciting and appealing.

It's the epitome of "can't make up it's own mind on what it wants to be". And for once that isn't a bad thing.

It's a structural, genre confused, tonal odditity, but so assured that all those contradictory anomalies make a lovely sense. The Matrix done by Terence Malick.

5/5

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 38
RE: RE: - 30/9/2012 8:10:48 AM   
Castor Troy


Posts: 7076
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Rocky's graveside

quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

MAJOR SPOILER






















I have an issue with one gaping plot hole.

The entire premise is based around the idea that it is hard to dispose of bodies in the future. There are tracking issues - this is mentioned in the voiceover. It's the entire point of having to send people back in time.

So, if it's so damned hard to kill someone, if it's such a problem that TIME TRAVEL has to be used, why is BruceJoe's Chinese wife killed so blithely? It's that which spurs BruceJoe on to start murdering children, because he needs to save her.

If anyone has a reasonable solution, I would love to hear it, because otherwise it's a worse plothole than any time-related one. Time travel will always cause plot holes, this is separate.



Because it was an accident. She surprised the bad guy and he instinctively shot her.


_____________________________

The individual human mind. In a child's ability to master the multiplication table, there is more holiness than all your shouted hosannas and holy holies. An idea is more important than a monument and the advancement of Man's knowledge more miraculous than all the sticks turned to snakes and the parting of the waters.

(in reply to homersimpson_esq)
Post #: 39
RE: RE: - 30/9/2012 11:21:23 AM   
BelfastBoy

 

Posts: 573
Joined: 30/11/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

MAJOR SPOILER






















I have an issue with one gaping plot hole.

The entire premise is based around the idea that it is hard to dispose of bodies in the future. There are tracking issues - this is mentioned in the voiceover. It's the entire point of having to send people back in time.

So, if it's so damned hard to kill someone, if it's such a problem that TIME TRAVEL has to be used, why is BruceJoe's Chinese wife killed so blithely? It's that which spurs BruceJoe on to start murdering children, because he needs to save her.

If anyone has a reasonable solution, I would love to hear it, because otherwise it's a worse plothole than any time-related one. Time travel will always cause plot holes, this is separate.



MANY SPOILERS IN THIS RESPONSE BELOW

If you think about the permutations too much, Looper is riddled with time-travel paradoxical plotholes. However, the thing you've highlighted I don't see as a plothole. The death of his wife is Old Joe's motivation to try and change things in the past, but think of her death merely as collateral damage. The Rainmaker's men came for Joe, he's the one who's going to get sent back 30 years in order to 'close the loop'. The wife was shot just because she happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. (The fact that, by attempting to change the past, Joe will likely remove himself completely from existence, or else change things so that he'll never meet his future wife, is just one of the actual plotholes.)

Had a few more thoughts on Looper, rhetorical questions as usual!

- The central notion of sending someone back 30 years for killing and disposal is nonsensical. Surely a body can be burned just as easily in 2074 as it apparently can be in 2044? The voiceover attempts an explanation but it's a vague fudge.
- On a related note, if the body has to be disposed of in the past, then why not make the looper's job easier by sending back a corpse?
- Anyone interested in debating the paradoxes should head over to Looper's IMDB page, where discussion thrives. One concept which is probably intended as correct is that Kid Blue is the younger version of Abe. Otherwise the character really serves no function other than as an irritating incompetent. The film seems to be constantly trying to suggest some sort of meaningful connection between them so it makes sense for them to be the same person (while at the same time introducing more paradoxes!)

(in reply to homersimpson_esq)
Post #: 40
RE: RE: - 30/9/2012 1:01:20 PM   
Olaf


Posts: 23695
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41N 93W
I thought it was more a case of the Rainmaker being so all-powerful at that point in time that concealing deaths/disposing of bodies is unnecessary (since presumably he's not afraid of the police or whatever). Bruce does make reference to mass executions as well, which would reinforce the idea.

_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to BelfastBoy)
Post #: 41
RE: Really 5* - 30/9/2012 2:37:16 PM   
Filmfan 2


Posts: 1045
Joined: 30/9/2005
**SPOILERS**

Thoroughly enjoyed it. Great production design, and JGL had some of Willis' mannerisms down so well it was quite spooky at times (and I thought the prosthetics really worked). Definitely agree about it being the best thing that Willis has done for a while. The movie does take a bit of a strange shift tonally after the TK element of the child becomes a major plot point (and the revelation that Blunt's kid is The Rainmaker is guessed before the film reveals it), almost pulling it from one genre to another, but it's not enough to derail it.

Can't decide if it's worthy of full marks, but it's definitely a 9/10 and certainly one of the year's best films so far.

< Message edited by Filmfan 2 -- 30/9/2012 2:38:40 PM >


_____________________________

I am not drinkin' any fuckin' Merlot!

"All I wanted me was a piece of cornbread, you motherfuckers!"

Defender of all things Batman Begins

Post #: 42
RE: Really 5* - 30/9/2012 2:57:10 PM   
jackcarter


Posts: 1859
Joined: 12/1/2006
Terminator1/2+12 Monkeys+Timecop+Back to the Future1/2+X Men3+Witness+Shining

any more?

also did any one catch any Bruce Willisisums? - i noticed the vest, a 'mofo'...

mustve been a few more

(in reply to Filmfan 2)
Post #: 43
RE: Great fun, not quite as intelligent as it thinks it... - 1/10/2012 9:56:41 AM   
bennyboy1971

 

Posts: 43
Joined: 4/7/2008
Loved 'Looper'. But Bruce Willis has got old. It made me sad.

I want to watch '12 Monkeys' again now.

< Message edited by bennyboy1971 -- 1/10/2012 9:57:14 AM >

(in reply to clownfoot)
Post #: 44
RE: Great fun, not quite as intelligent as it thinks it... - 1/10/2012 3:26:35 PM   
blackduck


Posts: 1604
Joined: 1/10/2005
In the very early stages of the film the rules are laid out about what time travel is and what it's used for. If you accept the rules at face value then there is a clever and twisty slice of sci-fi to be enjoyed. It makes a nice chage for a major sci-fi blockbuster to focus on the concept it's exploring rather that the fx and gun fights.

there is a major plot event that you'll twig a mile off, but there are so many little distracting details along the way that you won't mind too much the ovious payoff.

JGL and Bruice are on fine form ( the face alterations take a while to get used to and are at times quite distracting, but it does lead to an interesting cafe scene.
But the kid is amazing, There is one scene in paticular where he's just talking in the kitchen that blew me away.

However the middle scetion does drag a bit and it does give you a bit of time to start questioning the rules, from why send them back alive? to Why does Jeff Daniels live in such a dump?

Overall, an interesting movie that will hopefully lead to more concept sci-fi making it to the big screen

_____________________________

I am but an egg.

(in reply to bennyboy1971)
Post #: 45
RE: Looper - 1/10/2012 4:01:56 PM   
paulyboy


Posts: 2563
Joined: 30/9/2005
**Spoilers!**

Loved it, really can't find much to complain about in all honesty, thought it was tight, performed well and decently put together.

The time travel logistics are quite frankly mind boggling when you start to think about them, but I still think they hold up pretty well. The cynic in me likes to think that these looping timeline scenarios eventually bite you in the arse and come full circle, regardless of how much you try to alter their course. Triangle covers similar ground (look away if you haven't seen), the harder you fight to change each loop, the more inevitable the conclusion becomes. Looper ends on a relatively positive note, but there's nothing to say they changed anything ultimately.

So yeah, really loved this!

4/5

< Message edited by paulyboy -- 1/10/2012 4:03:53 PM >


_____________________________

"Pain heals, chicks dig scars, glory lasts forever!"

(in reply to blackduck)
Post #: 46
RE: Great fun, not quite as intelligent as it thinks it... - 1/10/2012 4:31:07 PM   
bennyboy1971

 

Posts: 43
Joined: 4/7/2008
***SPOILER***********

Well, kind of a spoilerish thought anyway: do you think the little kid - who's a dab hand at electronics - would have gone on to be the one who invents time travel, so he can save his mom? And therefore by doing what he does, Joe actually kills both himself and his Bruce Willis self, but also the whole concept of time travelling for everyone?

(in reply to clownfoot)
Post #: 47
RE: Great fun, not quite as intelligent as it thinks it... - 1/10/2012 4:34:52 PM   
BelfastBoy

 

Posts: 573
Joined: 30/11/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: bennyboy1971

***SPOILER***********

Well, kind of a spoilerish thought anyway: do you think the little kid - who's a dab hand at electronics - would have gone on to be the one who invents time travel, so he can save his mom? And therefore by doing what he does, Joe actually kills both himself and his Bruce Willis self, but also the whole concept of time travelling for everyone?


Possibly, but I don't think so. The film suggests that time travel and the 'looping' method of criminal disposal was invented before The Rainmaker seized control of organised crime in the 2070s. On the assumption that Cid is indeed The Rainmaker, it seems unlikely that he'd invent time travel and yet somehow lose control of it, given the huge potential TK powers he displays even as a child.

(in reply to bennyboy1971)
Post #: 48
RE: Great fun, not quite as intelligent as it thinks it... - 1/10/2012 5:32:03 PM   
Coyleone


Posts: 567
Joined: 13/10/2008
Looper was good, really good actually, but it wasn't brilliant. Really liked the plot, thought JGL was great, especially in mimicking Bruce's mannerisms and such. The action scenes were really not that great though, and almost felt half hearted to me. Loved the first half of the film more than the second, although some of the scenes with the kid were pretty great (think you'll know the ones I mean if you've seen it). Someone said a few posts back that the some of the camera work and editing was lazy, and I completely agree for the most part, infact it really annoyed me in places, but in others it was really well done. I don't usually notice things like that too much when watching films, but here I really did see it. I also don't see how it was overly original like people are claiming it is, there's elements of so many different films in it it's insane, but I literally saw no relation to The Matrix at all like the posters and trailers say. Saying that it's hard to be totally original these days, especially in blockbuster movies, and Looper was refreshing in the fact it was a relatively smart sci-fi flick. Loved the score, really added great atmosphere in some scenes, and I thought some of the cinematography was great. It's not a patch on most of the movies it borrows a lot of it's content from, but it is a really good modern sci-fi blockbuster and we should be thankful for that I guess. Definitely worth watching. 7/10

(in reply to BelfastBoy)
Post #: 49
RE: Great fun, not quite as intelligent as it thinks it... - 1/10/2012 6:37:31 PM   
mclane1


Posts: 367
Joined: 7/2/2009
sorry, but its not a sci fi blockbuster, granted it is on 'a big screen' in cinemas but it aint mainstream enough to be a blockbuster. and surely as in my ealrlier spoiler post someone else winced at brucies expressions whilst hes SPOLIER, SPOILER,!!! dangling in the air! i swear hes grinning!, poor acting. Also the effects were poor, the hover bike especially going through the corn field. i think the 5 star reviewers have just got a JGL crush
quote:

ORIGINAL: Coyleone

Looper was good, really good actually, but it wasn't brilliant. Really liked the plot, thought JGL was great, especially in mimicking Bruce's mannerisms and such. The action scenes were really not that great though, and almost felt half hearted to me. Loved the first half of the film more than the second, although some of the scenes with the kid were pretty great (think you'll know the ones I mean if you've seen it). Someone said a few posts back that the some of the camera work and editing was lazy, and I completely agree for the most part, infact it really annoyed me in places, but in others it was really well done. I don't usually notice things like that too much when watching films, but here I really did see it. I also don't see how it was overly original like people are claiming it is, there's elements of so many different films in it it's insane, but I literally saw no relation to The Matrix at all like the posters and trailers say. Saying that it's hard to be totally original these days, especially in blockbuster movies, and Looper was refreshing in the fact it was a relatively smart sci-fi flick. Loved the score, really added great atmosphere in some scenes, and I thought some of the cinematography was great. It's not a patch on most of the movies it borrows a lot of it's content from, but it is a really good modern sci-fi blockbuster and we should be thankful for that I guess. Definitely worth watching. 7/10



_____________________________

If the cash is there, we do not care.

(in reply to Coyleone)
Post #: 50
RE: Great fun, not quite as intelligent as it thinks it... - 1/10/2012 7:59:57 PM   
Coyleone


Posts: 567
Joined: 13/10/2008
I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant anyway. It's a large scale sci-fi action film that stars Bruce Willis. It's gonna' be very popular I would expect. It's pretty 'blockbustery'.

I'd also like to add that I agree Bruce didn't seem up to much for the whole film, he didn't really do anything.

< Message edited by Coyleone -- 1/10/2012 8:02:19 PM >

(in reply to mclane1)
Post #: 51
RE: Looper - 2/10/2012 8:36:13 PM   
jrewing1000


Posts: 486
Joined: 23/11/2005
Loved it. Would have loved it even more if it wasn't for the selfish pricks who:

- used their mobile phone about 5 rows in front of me, constantly checking for messages.
- chatted about plot about 5 seats to the side of me
- took a phone call right outside the door

Anyone who still uses a mobile phone while a film is playing is a complete moron.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 52
RE: what? (spoilers) - 2/10/2012 8:38:32 PM   
jrewing1000


Posts: 486
Joined: 23/11/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: tysmuse

I am not understanding the love for Looper whatsoever.

Zero surprises. Slow third act. And plot holes/questions galore! (why bother sending a looper back to be killed by the same looper, just send them to someone else for execution. How exactly does the future communicate with the past to set up the killings? If killing in the future is SUCH a big difficulty, then why does bruce willis wife get shot by bad guys without any 'oh no, whoops, we've properly fucked up'?? Why did they bother to torture that guy early on when the old version just disappears when young version is actually killed? etc etc...

It's not bad, but four stars would have been generous!?


Methinks you're pulling the movie apart too much - you could destroy any movie this way. I don't think the problems you've described were that important. Go looking for problems and you'll find them. It's a movie. It's not reality.
Post #: 53
RE: what? (spoilers) - 2/10/2012 8:44:38 PM   
jrewing1000


Posts: 486
Joined: 23/11/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: jrewing1000


quote:

ORIGINAL: tysmuse

I am not understanding the love for Looper whatsoever.

Zero surprises. Slow third act. And plot holes/questions galore! (why bother sending a looper back to be killed by the same looper, just send them to someone else for execution. How exactly does the future communicate with the past to set up the killings? If killing in the future is SUCH a big difficulty, then why does bruce willis wife get shot by bad guys without any 'oh no, whoops, we've properly fucked up'?? Why did they bother to torture that guy early on when the old version just disappears when young version is actually killed? etc etc...

It's not bad, but four stars would have been generous!?


Methinks you're pulling the movie apart too much - you could destroy any movie this way. I don't think the problems you've described were that important. Go looking for problems and you'll find them. It's a movie. It's not reality.


eg:
Rocky - why didn't Apollo just fight someone who wasn't a southpaw? Why didn't Rocky just give up boxing and become a full time heavy?
Star Wars - why didn't Luke just become a farmer like his Uncle?
Top Gun - why didn't Maverick just behave himself?
The Godfather - why didn't Sonny just leave the family and live happily with his wife?
Gone With The Wind - why didn't...etc etc

Movies are artificial and designed to offer up an idea in an entertaining way. Don't expect perfection. It doesn't exist. Just enjoy the film.

(in reply to jrewing1000)
Post #: 54
RE: Looper - 2/10/2012 11:22:10 PM   
MonsterCat


Posts: 7934
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire
This movie is fucking badass.

Why can't we have more films like this that requires you to think?

_____________________________

"I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist and a theoretical philosopher. But above all, I am a man, a hopelessly inquisitive man, just like you."

Films watched in 2013

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 55
RE: what? (spoilers) - 2/10/2012 11:39:11 PM   
Hood_Man


Posts: 12151
Joined: 30/9/2005
SPOILER ALERTS








quote:

ORIGINAL: tysmuse

I am not understanding the love for Looper whatsoever.

Zero surprises. Slow third act. And plot holes/questions galore! (why bother sending a looper back to be killed by the same looper, just send them to someone else for execution.
I wonder if it's a loyalty thing? Being given gold as a reward instead of the usual silver for instance. It could also prevent any sort of resentment between Loopers.
"You shot me you asshole!"
"No I didn't..."
"Well... you will shoot me!"

How exactly does the future communicate with the past to set up the killings? If killing in the future is SUCH a big difficulty, then why does bruce willis wife get shot by bad guys without any 'oh no, whoops, we've properly fucked up'??
I think I need to see the film again because this never occurred to me, but yeah it does seem a bit odd.
Why did they bother to torture that guy early on when the old version just disappears when young version is actually killed? etc etc...
I'm not sure the young version is killed. I know he was tortured brutally and had bits and pieces chopped off to stop his future self from running away, but when his old self gets shot and we see the young self covered in blood, we can hear what sounds like a life support machine. He's being kept alive so as not to overcomplicate the future too much by disappearing entirely, even if he is literally only half the man he should have been
It's not bad, but four stars would have been generous!?


I loved the first half of this film so much. The only thing I didn't like at all was Gordon-Levitt's makeup The nose was understandable, it was the weird lips and eyebrows which looked ridiculous, and it's a shame as his performance was Willis-like enough as it was. "Careful you don't blow your other foot off" was delivered perfectly, and the slight pout of his lips too made for a very convincing Willis impersonation.
Post #: 56
RE: Looper - 2/10/2012 11:39:51 PM   
vad3r


Posts: 4403
Joined: 3/9/2010
From: Close to Mod HQ

quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

This movie is fucking badass.

Why can't we have more films like this that requires you to think?


Glad you liked it, it'll be mine on blu ray eventually.

< Message edited by vad3r -- 2/10/2012 11:40:24 PM >


_____________________________

Single Virgin Mod Candidate 2013


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives
To paraphrase the great man himself:

Vad3r won't go anywhere near this.

(in reply to MonsterCat)
Post #: 57
RE: Looper - 3/10/2012 12:18:42 AM   
Ref


Posts: 7461
Joined: 5/10/2005
From: Leicester
I really enjoyed this film. JGL was sublime as usual and you get used to the nose , but seriously his acting is fantastic. His facial movements, physical movements, the way he spoke were so similar to Willis. Willis and the rest of the cast were good too, but this film is Joseph Gordon-Levitt's.

5/5


_____________________________

Viewers of a nervous disposition may be interested to know that your television is off and I am speaking to you from inside your head...

Hugh Dennis, Mock the Week

Icon created by the talented JaD

(in reply to vad3r)
Post #: 58
RE: Looper - 3/10/2012 12:28:17 AM   
Evil_Bob


Posts: 2870
Joined: 1/5/2006
From: GGGAAAHHH!!!
The first half of the film is masterful
The second half is ponderous and slow as all hell
The Telekinesis/Akira element of the thing didn't work for me at all.
I liked the fact that it tried to throw several different sci-fi movie tomes together but I think it over-reached a bit.

_____________________________

How dare you call me inhumane. Right you fucker. I'm going to do the washing up.


(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 59
RE: Looper - 3/10/2012 12:35:05 AM   
MonsterCat


Posts: 7934
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evil_Bob

The second half is ponderous and slow as all hell



Other opinions are just as valid of course, but I've read this criticism many times before and I just don't get it. The movie as a whole runs at a good, even pace.

_____________________________

"I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist and a theoretical philosopher. But above all, I am a man, a hopelessly inquisitive man, just like you."

Films watched in 2013

(in reply to Evil_Bob)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Looper Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Movie News|Empire Blog|Movie Reviews|Future Films|Features|Video Interviews|Image Gallery|Competitions|Forum|Magazine|Resources
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.219