#41  
Old 09-29-2012, 05:21 AM
Nice review Mr. Hyde.

I saw it tonight with a friend and Looper is worth seeing in the theater. It pretty much has everything I want from a solid popcorn movie and a little something extra to chew on: boobies. I mean it has well written scenes, but yes, the movie has boobies.

What was the best special effect of the movie? The makeup they used to make Joseph Gordon Levitt's penis identical to Bruce Willis'. It's both uncanny and unnecessary. I think Shane Curruth was a consultant on the film just for that detail.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09-29-2012, 07:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
Wish I hadn't seen Richard Roeper's review of the movie.

Spoiler:
In the review he says how Bruce Willis goes back in time to kill someone who is a big bad guy in the future and it's pretty obvious that the person he goes back in time to kill is Emily Blunt's son.
Spoiler:
Yeah but it's not like that's a big twist or anything. It's revealed pretty early on.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-29-2012, 08:34 AM
WOW...amazing movie.

Now this is a 10/10 , the best movie of the year so far.

Last edited by CuatroDiablos; 09-29-2012 at 08:40 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 09-29-2012, 09:49 AM
Spoiler:
The only issue I really had was the TK stuff with Sid being a tad cheesy. The constant close-ups on his screaming mug, the Children of thE Corn facial expressions and shot angles, but eh, it's pretty minor. Obviously, it presents a few questions such as: how did every item in the house get TK'ed into the air and the Jesse's chest explode out both sides (which was badass), but Sara and Joe are able to leave the house and NOTHING happens to them?

I feel like these are nitpicking details, personally, because I was completely emotionally invested in this movie. I don't go to movies for mindless entertainment. I loathe cookie cutter summer blockbusters. Sure, this film had some of those elements with the crazy shootout and yes, that was quite entertaining. But I was enthralled with old Joe's arc and also Sara's. Young Joe was an amazing character to watch in his actions and dialogue with his regards to the world.

Loved it.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09-29-2012, 03:11 PM
Blown away. I can't remember the last time a movie was that emotionally satisfying. Everything just clicked. Also that Shanghai montage should now go into the textbook of how to do a montage. Apparently Johnson really struggled to put that together, but at the last minute finally figured it out. Did he ever.

I also need to get my hands on the soundtrack.

Side note: after the eye drug sequence near the beginning, a couple in front of me got up and said, "Let's go watch that Eastwood movie." Boy did they miss out.

Last edited by Bourne101; 09-29-2012 at 03:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09-29-2012, 09:22 PM
There were some great lines in the film as well, particularly when

Spoiler:
Jeff Daniels says, "I'm from the future... go to China."
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-29-2012, 10:03 PM
Excellent film and so happy to see Willis in something substantial again, his last hit in my eyes was Unbreakable.

JGL was obviously great, no need to even mention it at this point in his career.

I even enjoyed the performance from the little kid which in most movies is a deal breaker but he was likeable.


One question:

Spoiler:
At the beginning, JGL waits for Willis, then Willis escapes. JGL ends up falling down the escape ladder shortly after and THEN there is a replay of him killing Willis. Where does that fit in, the loop of him actually killing Willis? Been trying to figure that one out?
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-30-2012, 01:05 AM
I dug it. I wasn't blown away by it like a lot you guys were, but I was thoroughly entertained nevertheless. Johnson took an intriguing concept and realized it to its full potential, creating a feature that has a near-perfect blend of just about everything: engaging character development and conflict, exciting action sequences, interesting themes, and a plot that's thick with tension (those last twenty or so minutes were especially edge-of-your-seat). To top it all off, Johnson easily has one keenest ears for dialogue and he peppers his script with several memorable exchanges (the Heat-esque diner scene being the highlight for me) and the whole cast is given the opportunity to show off their range, especially Gordon-Levitt, who perfectly embodies the cold-blooded assassin role while at the same time enabling a touch of tenderness.

Overall though, I can't say that anything really stuck with me after walked out of the theater. This film is really an odd case...I can't really put my finger on what didn't work for me. It's certainly a well above-average effort, but just something that didn't entirely click on first viewing. Maybe my admiration for it will grow on repeated viewings, but for now I'm giving it a modest 7/10.

The film also has the best, most interesting, and more realistic (TK aside) view of the future I've seen since Children of Men. Did anyone else catch the insane attention to detail Johnson put into the mise-en-scene? The tarps and "caution tape" over the bookshelves in the library stood out especially.

Last edited by Reckoner; 09-30-2012 at 01:09 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-30-2012, 01:47 AM
Spoiler:
Was it really necessary for young Joe to kill himself? He knows exactly what is going to happen. So just don't do it. Also old Joe killed everybody in the syndicate (that was a badass scene too! ) doesn't that mean no more loopers?
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-30-2012, 02:40 AM
Somebody help me out here, because I'm really confused about something.

Spoiler:
We first see old Joe escaping from young Joe and then soon after, young Joe is again waiting for old Joe and this time kills him.


What gives?
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 09-30-2012, 02:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz68 View Post
Somebody help me out here, because I'm really confused about something.

Spoiler:
We first see old Joe escaping from young Joe and then soon after, young Joe is again waiting for old Joe and this time kills him.


What gives?
Spoiler:
That initially confused me as well, but I eventually I got that it was just flashbacks to the original time when he closed his own loop and we see him in the montage live for 30 years up until they capture him and send him back. What's funny too is if they hadn't killed his wife, he would have just let himself die instead of trying to escape to stop his wife from dying from killing the rainmaker as a child.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 09-30-2012, 02:58 AM
Yeah, I just found an answer from the director.

Spoiler:
1. The first time Old Joe pops back to the present, he escapes. Later we see him die in the same place. Which happens first and why the deception?

The first time we see Old Joe and he escapes is actually the second time he appears in the straight story. According to Johnson, and evident upon a second viewing of the film, the straight line of narrative is that Joe becomes a looper, closes his loop by killing Old Joe (this is the second time we see the scene in the field), goes to China, meets his wife, then gets sent back without the hood and escapes, setting off the rest of the movie, which is the first and third time we see him.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 09-30-2012, 10:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
Spoiler:
Was it really necessary for young Joe to kill himself? He knows exactly what is going to happen. So just don't do it. Also old Joe killed everybody in the syndicate (that was a badass scene too! ) doesn't that mean no more loopers?
Spoiler:
Young Joe doesn't know exactly what's going to happen though and without making Old Joe disappear, he is 100% killing the mom. Did you see how far away Young Joe was from Old Joe? Remember the comments about the Looper gun? No way he could have reached/killed Old Joe before Old Joe killed Sara and started the "loop" of Sid becoming the Rainmaker.

I think it was pretty ingenious.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 09-30-2012, 11:08 AM
my thoughts from the "what films did everyone watch" thread:

I can't not like a sci-fi action movie with an original concept and Looper delivers plenty of futuristic thrills as well as food for thought. However, more set pieces would have been nice, plus I think that for all the issues the film explores, the script could have handled some of them better. The film kind of plods along with one plot turn/fallout after the other and though I was satisfied with the ending, surely Johnson might have wanted to leave things open for a franchise? The actors all delivered good-but-not-their-best work with Emily Blunt being the standout and despite the comic charm of young Pierce Gagnon, I find giving young kids more dramatic scenes troublesome (can't really elaborate without spoiling but those who have seen it will know what I mean). Still, it's slick, stylish, funny and thought-provoking, can't say it doesn't deserve its status as the sci-fi film of the year.
7/10
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 09-30-2012, 11:56 AM
Still blowing my mind that this was made on $30 million dollars....what could the man do with $150?

I know I said it once already but this was so F'ing good.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 09-30-2012, 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natty View Post
though I was satisfied with the ending, surely Johnson might have wanted to leave things open for a franchise?
Leaving things open for a franchise is the fundamental problem that bogs down much original work. I'm glad Johnson didn't leave much room so he can move on to other things. When you have a great original idea like this that you absolutely nail, the last thing you need to do is make sequels. You end up with The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 09-30-2012, 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cop No. 633 View Post
Nice review Mr. Hyde.
Thank you sir!
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 09-30-2012, 12:32 PM
After initially accepting the explanation I found last night, I thought about it some more and it just doesn't make sense.

Spoiler:

Why send the old Loopers back the the past to be killed by their younger self? In doing so, you run the risk of the younger self not following through, or something else going wrong. Why not just kill the younger Looper in the past erasing their older self from the future?

Also, I don't get how killing their older self was considered "closing the loop". When the older version of the Looper was sent to the past and killed, the younger Looper would then live his 30 years and then be sent back to the past and killed by his younger self again. What they were doing was creating a loop, not closing one. The movie establishes this circular time line in showing old Joe being sent to the past twice, escaping once and being killed the other. The loop can only be closed if the younger version of the Looper is killed, as Joe does when he commits suicide.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 09-30-2012, 01:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz68 View Post
After initially accepting the explanation I found last night, I thought about it some more and it just doesn't make sense.

Spoiler:

Why send the old Loopers back the the past to be killed by their younger self? In doing so, you run the risk of the younger self not following through, or something else going wrong. Why not just kill the younger Looper in the past erasing their older self from the future?

Also, I don't get how killing their older self was considered "closing the loop". When the older version of the Looper was sent to the past and killed, the younger Looper would then live his 30 years and then be sent back to the past and killed by his younger self again. What they were doing was creating a loop, not closing one. The movie establishes this circular time line in showing old Joe being sent to the past twice, escaping once and being killed the other. The loop can only be closed if the younger version of the Looper is killed, as Joe does when he commits suicide.
Spoiler:
But in the one reality, it does close the loop. I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from. I felt they actually explained this part of the story and time travel exceptionally well.

Also need to keep in mind what the conversation was at the dining room table. The movie's intent is not to have focus on the time travel aspect. They address it extremely effectively and tongue-in-cheek. If someone, and not saying you in particular, gets completely hung up on the time travel aspect, that is no fault of the filmmakers. They make it obvious to disregard the time travel as anything more than a plot device.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 09-30-2012, 02:15 PM
A quote from movie producer Keith Calder posted on his blog today:

"I recently read a saying about civil engineers that I love:

Anybody can make a bridge that stands up, but it takes an engineer to make a bridge that can barely stand up.

Rian Johnson is an engineer.

LOOPER is an easy movie to appreciate for a regular audience, but it carries a special power for someone who spends most of their life thinking about and making movies. This is a film where literally every single scene could break the entire movie if handled slightly differently. The plot, themes, characters, world, tone, and yes even the make-up all run across a tightrope the width of a fishing line. Rian Johnson and his creative cohorts giddily bounce back and forth across this razor blade tightrope like kids on a trampoline.

Itís incredibly hard to make a good film. Every filmmaker knows this, and I think itís natural for us to try to minimize the difficulty-setting when embarking on a new production. We try to design films that work even if we donít get them perfect. If we were talking about food, Hollywood turns every cut of steak into a burger, puts cheese on every burger, and puts bacon on every cheeseburger. And in a practical sense, this is smart. How can you rely on perfection in a process where so many things can and will go wrong? Where so many forces knowingly or unknowingly conspire against you. So when I see a film like LOOPER it makes me take a step back and realize that itís possible to set yourself an impossible task and still achieve it. LOOPER is Armstrong on the moon; itís Amundsen at the South Pole; itís Obama in the Oval Office.

So Rian, I just want you and your whole team to know that I know what you did. And I appreciate it. And it inspires me. Thank you for LOOPER. Thank you for taking the difficult path, and my compliments on making it look so effortless."
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 09-30-2012, 02:57 PM
So let me see if I got this timeline thing right:

Timeline 1:
Spoiler:
Before Old Joe is sent back, he resists and fights the syndicate. He loses the fight, gets sent back, and Young Joe closes the loop, setting off the 30 year timeline we see.


Timeline 2:
Spoiler:
Before Old Joe is sent back, he resists and fights the syndicate. This time, he wins the fight, sends himself back, and sets off on a TERMINATOR-like search for the child that becomes The Rainmaker.


Timeline 3:
Spoiler:
At the end, Young Joe finally sees how allowing Old Joe's pursuit would set forth the chain of events that might have fostered the Rainmaker's beginnings. To prevent it, he turns his blunderbuss on himself, ending his life (and Old Joe's existence) before Old Joe fires the shot that would have killed the mother.


...does that sound right?
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 09-30-2012, 03:19 PM
Judging by the absence of Smiert, I think it's safe to say he is now happy in his grave.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 09-30-2012, 03:44 PM

Can't believe Looper was shown in China since the Goverment banned any films and shows related to time travel. Is this a sign the last remaining communist countries are headed to a fall like Soviet Union? I'm planning to see this film next weekend.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 09-30-2012, 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digifruitella View Post
Judging by the absence of Smiert, I think it's safe to say he is now happy in his grave.
After seeing Looper, he had himself cryogenically frozen to be awoken on the premiere of Breaking Bad's final season.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 09-30-2012, 03:58 PM

Finally, this year delivered a movie that I absolutely loved. Emotionally gripping and intense as fuck.

10/10
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 09-30-2012, 04:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MidnightAngel View Post
Can't believe Looper was shown in China since the Goverment banned any films and shows related to time travel. Is this a sign the last remaining communist countries are headed to a fall like Soviet Union? I'm planning to see this film next weekend.
Also. Isn't one the primary reason for Pacific Rim's 3D conversion supposed to be because Chine won't show American movies that aren't 3D? Very odd.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 09-30-2012, 04:30 PM
Looper was shown in China because one of the main financial backers was a Chinese company.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 09-30-2012, 05:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MidnightAngel View Post
Can't believe Looper was shown in China since the Goverment banned any films and shows related to time travel. Is this a sign the last remaining communist countries are headed to a fall like Soviet Union? I'm planning to see this film next weekend.
I think the ban of any time travel-related entertainment in China had to do with how the stories (before LOOPER) had to do with Chinese's OWN history. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Chinese government wasn't too fond of the film or television studios having stories take place during politically sensitive times and events, which led to the banning.

This film, however, doesn't exactly fit that criteria

Last edited by Exophrine; 09-30-2012 at 05:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 09-30-2012, 06:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xseanymacx View Post
Looper was shown in China because one of the main financial backers was a Chinese company.
Cool bit of info. I also bet it didn't hurt that Looper implies that China will be the top dog in the future.

Also, nice write up Seany. This film was a tough feat to pull off and Johnson indeed made it look effortless. I'd say it's his best film so far, and I hope he keeps up the quality in all of his future projects.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 09-30-2012, 07:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cop No. 633 View Post
Cool bit of info. I also bet it didn't hurt that Looper implies that China will be the top dog in the future.
Originally the future country WAS France but it was eventually rewritten to China and the Chinese actress was added as the wife. The company's name was DMG I believe or something along those lines. I just read about it on Deadline yesterday I think.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 09-30-2012, 09:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digifruitella View Post
Judging by the absence of Smiert, I think it's safe to say he is now happy in his grave.
Hardy har har

Nah, because of work and being sick the past couple of days, I didn't get to Looper until today. Verdict? Fucking loved it. So nice to have something I've been anticipating for so long actually pay off.

Looper happens to combine three of my favorite things: assassins, time travel and telekinesis!



[Review coming soon]

9/10

Last edited by Smiert Spionam; 09-30-2012 at 09:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 09-30-2012, 10:44 PM
Kermode review http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdmLg...eature=g-all-u
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 10-01-2012, 07:05 AM
LOOPER



The fact that the film Looper invigorates the time travel genre is just one of the reasons it deserves high marks.
Based in a dystopian future of the haves and the have absolutely nothing. Joseph "Joe" Simmons (Joseph Gordon-Levitt,),
is a Looper one who terminates those transported from the future for the mob .Loopers who are seemingly living
the good life of collecting silver bars as payment which comes attached to their transported hits, and clubbing drug induced nights.
Then they are faced with closing the loop,meaning terminating your future self,but Joe's future self (Bruce Willis)
has other plans.

Shades of other popular time travel films like The Terminator and Frequency run throughout Looper,also a dash of
X-men is put into the mix.
Even though the prosthetics and contact lenses applied to Levitt are a bit distracting he and Willis are excellent
in the film. I also liked Jeff Daniels moments as Joe's boss, a lieutenant in the Looper organization he expertly channels
The Dude character from The Big Lebowski
There is also an involving subplot with a sugar cane farmer named Sara ( Emily Blunt), who lives with her son Cid (Pierce Gagnon)
and how they figure into the lives of the 2 Joe's.
If that isn't enough there are two love stories at the core of the film.One familial and one romantic.
Director and writer Rian Johnson offers the audience a plate full of style,action,humor and romance and i gladly gobbled it up.
Sale of 1-10 an 8Ĺ

Spoiler:
I couldn't help but laugh at a woman's comments as i walked out of theatre:Why didnt he kill himself at the start of the film and it would have been over in 2 minutes.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 10-01-2012, 05:37 PM
Agree with Bourne re the Shanghai montage. Just amazing. Thought the movie was fresh, with a raw kind of energy and confidence in the first half that rips right along. The editing is quick, at every turn more efficient than you expect, throwing the viewer slightly off-kilter with a nervous tension that keeps things unpredictable. The confidence remains in the second half but the energy is replaced by a slow-burn character drama with a lazier rhythm that gives the film more heft. I do think this part, while generally well-done, is missing something on a scene-by-scene basis (and I get what Johnson is going for in style and mood here) but it's a small complaint. The final act brings the disparate portions together well, resolving the only way it could.

I enjoyed the film as a whole and have few complaints. While it narrowly misses out for me on being a sci-fi classic, it's a huge leap forward for Rian Johnson from his previous two films. I think we saw his work as a director mature on his two episodes of Breaking Bad (one of which is, of course, the basis for my display pic above) and this continues that evolution into an even bolder, more confident filmmaker. I can't wait to see what he does next.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 10-01-2012, 06:30 PM
Great film... I didn't realize until a few days before that it was also from the guy who did Brick (one of the hippest and most original films of the past decade).

My favorite part of the flick was how they somehow stepped over all of the paradoxes that time travel into the past (which is completely impossible) pose. . . I thought they explained everything well and showed everything exceptionally well. JGL and Bruce were fantastic - as was the incredibly talented Paul Dano.

All in all, I enjoyed it. The people I took with me had no idea what it was or what it was about and they were incredibly surpirsed. Great film - one of the best sci-fi flicks of the past few years.

8/10
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 10-02-2012, 12:18 PM
Did I see the same movie as everyone else? I was stoked to see it because I am a fan of everyone involved and would love to see Willis make a comeback after some of his crappy roles, but this movie sucked. If you haven't seen the movie maybe stop reading here: but the whole time travel concept was dumb, why if we have the power of time travel in the future we are only using it to send criminals to the past to be killed? And why in the world would you send someone back to kill themselves when you have other people who could do the job. And we have future Willis going around killing kids? And Emily Blunt as a farmer? The movie lost me when the 2 versions met themselves, that was where everything went downhill. And why in the future can no one hit what they're shooting at? And why is the future in 2040 so horrible, what happened to make it that way?? Why had we resorted to using bricks of silver as payment? The future is going to be digital. Movie also had shitty graphics. Overall all it did was make me apreciate Source Code more, that was one of the last good movies about time travel.

4/10 and I feel like I'm being generous.

Last edited by DareDevil; 10-02-2012 at 12:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 10-02-2012, 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DareDevil View Post
Why had we resorted to using bricks of silver as payment? The future is going to be digital.
I don't think, as time progresses, we're going to be in a state where hitmen and drug dealers get direct deposits into their bank accounts from the criminal organizations they work for. Advancements in tracking suspicious activity will always trump that.

Last edited by Bourne101; 10-02-2012 at 03:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 10-02-2012, 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DareDevil View Post
Did I see the same movie as everyone else? I was stoked to see it because I am a fan of everyone involved and would love to see Willis make a comeback after some of his crappy roles, but this movie sucked. If you haven't seen the movie maybe stop reading here: but the whole time travel concept was dumb, why if we have the power of time travel in the future we are only using it to send criminals to the past to be killed? And why in the world would you send someone back to kill themselves when you have other people who could do the job. And we have future Willis going around killing kids? And Emily Blunt as a farmer? The movie lost me when the 2 versions met themselves, that was where everything went downhill. And why in the future can no one hit what they're shooting at? And why is the future in 2040 so horrible, what happened to make it that way?? Why had we resorted to using bricks of silver as payment? The future is going to be digital. Movie also had shitty graphics. Overall all it did was make me apreciate Source Code more, that was one of the last good movies about time travel.

4/10 and I feel like I'm being generous.
Yeah this is what really bothered me as well. I've probably forgiven other movies for worse but it was one of those awkward cases of me not being able to get past one implausibility for the rest of the film. We're told it's difficult to dispose of bodies because of implants, but they don't have fire or knives in the future?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
Leaving things open for a franchise is the fundamental problem that bogs down much original work. I'm glad Johnson didn't leave much room so he can move on to other things. When you have a great original idea like this that you absolutely nail, the last thing you need to do is make sequels. You end up with The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions.
Ah, I quite liked the Matrix sequels...my bad.

I guess I owe Looper a rewatch but I do really think it's a case of critics letting an original concept drive their enthusiasm for the overall picture. That 30 years montage was great though.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 10-02-2012, 04:57 PM
awesome movie!

A question.
Spoiler:
When Blunt finds JGL and asks him to explain the numbers on the paper, he hardly gets out a sentence and she says, "You're a looper?" I'm pretty sure he asks how she knows about loopers and she never explains. If people know about loopers, why doesn't he just start off with "I'm a Looper."?
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 10-02-2012, 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DareDevil View Post
Did I see the same movie as everyone else?
Nope.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump