#81  
Old 10-03-2012, 12:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xseanymacx View Post
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.
Spoiler:
Huh? Yes, I know young Joe isn't close enough to shoot old Joe. But he IS able to see what happens. He KNOWS that his older version kills Blunt's character which supposedly is what makes the kid grow up to become a monster. That is why he kills himself. As he says, he sees a man who stop at nothing to save his wife. And a kid who, because he grows up without his mother, becomes a monster. It's a circle, a cycle. So he decides to change the cycle by shooting himself. My question is why is that even necessary since HE KNOWS what he's going to do so all he has to do is not do it. The movie Minority Report went into this. Because you know your future, you have the ability to change it. But young Joe doesn't try that.

I also wonder if it's even necessary because old Joe just KILLED everybody at the syndicate. They are all dead it appears. So doesn't that mean no more loopers and wouldn't that in itself change everything?


I love the movie. Especially the ending. The last 20 minutes of the movie are unbelievably fantastic but I do wonder about that.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 10-03-2012, 09:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
Spoiler:
Huh? Yes, I know young Joe isn't close enough to shoot old Joe. But he IS able to see what happens. He KNOWS that his older version kills Blunt's character which supposedly is what makes the kid grow up to become a monster. That is why he kills himself. As he says, he sees a man who stop at nothing to save his wife. And a kid who, because he grows up without his mother, becomes a monster. It's a circle, a cycle. So he decides to change the cycle by shooting himself. My question is why is that even necessary since HE KNOWS what he's going to do so all he has to do is not do it. The movie Minority Report went into this. Because you know your future, you have the ability to change it. But young Joe doesn't try that.

I also wonder if it's even necessary because old Joe just KILLED everybody at the syndicate. They are all dead it appears. So doesn't that mean no more loopers and wouldn't that in itself change everything?


I love the movie. Especially the ending. The last 20 minutes of the movie are unbelievably fantastic but I do wonder about that.
I guess I'm confused as to how he could stop it with Old Joe standing right there ready to kill Sara in the "present?" Maybe I'm just not understanding what you're saying
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 10-04-2012, 08:29 AM
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.
The answer to all of your questions is because they thought it would be cool
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 10-04-2012, 10:21 PM
This movie was OK. A nudge beyond average due to a couple of breathtakingly executed scenes involving the little boy Sid, Levitt's voice and the comfortable tone of his narration and a solid Bruce Willis. Can't but feel nostalgic seeing him kick-ass and give sound lectures to know-it-alls.

Other than that, I don't know what it is with Ryan Johnson but there's two kinds of cool: the effortless kind (Pulp Fiction, Drive, Miller's Crossing, Terminator 2 if you want a time traveling example) and the other kind...the kind that begs to be noticed. Like a kid who comes to school on his motorbike with a popped collar leather jacket and walks all slow like, but then starts talking and you realize he's got nothing really interesting to say even though he's using these cool-sounding new words he's invented. Plus he thinks he's really really cool. That's Ryan Johnson's cinema to me. I felt it with Brick and now with Looper.

I didn't see the point of having JGL's face CGI-ed to make him look more like Bruce Willis. Countless movies have had two different actors play the same character at different times without the need of having a genetically modified copy-pasted adult face on the younger actor's body. It makes absolutely zero sense to me. Didn't like it from the trailers and I was hoping that it wouldn't be too distracting in the movie. It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be, but it didn't help. Some scenes were like watching an L.A. Noir character and at times he just wasn't believable because we all know what JGL looks like. Why fuck with that? He even kinda looks like a young Bruce Willis. Pair of contacts would of done the job.

The much bigger problem is that nothing really felt genuine in this film apart from Old Joe's efforts

Spoiler:
and those who've seen it all know what happens to that. I felt absolutely nothing for Young Joe when he offed himself at the end. It came as a surprise and it was the only feasible ending to the story - even though there's no telling if the diabolical Sid would have still grown up to be the Rainmaker because the damage could have been done before Sarah was shot in Young Joe's vision, and I'm not gonna believe that vision because of one line that Sarah utters "not if he grows up with his mom" or whatever she said, takes a bit more than that. I had zero sympathy for the character of Young Joe and had so much for the Older version that I find it a little hard to believe they were the same guy


Johnson introduces many things into his version of the future that we are just supposed to swallow, no questions asked: silly looking hats, cannon handguns, silver and gold bricks as currency, names like Rainmaker, the main character wanting to visit (live in?) France ...and I knew the movie was telling me to just be in awe of the coolness of this imagination but it was too much of the desperate kind for me.

At the end of the day, there could of been a much better movie here with the world and the ideas that were brought forward but in Johnson's hands it was like watching that high school kid. It's not worth the price of admission for theaters but I'd recommend it when it comes out on Blu Ray because the action is exciting, there are redeeming qualities in the acting (Blunt being especially good for such a cliched role), Bruce Willis and a great montage sequence near the beginning of the film.

6/10

Last edited by DaMovieMan; 10-04-2012 at 10:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 10-04-2012, 10:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaMovieMan View Post
Spoiler:
I had zero sympathy for the character of Young Joe and had so much for the Older version that I find it a little hard to believe they were the same guy
Isn't this sort of the point (i.e., what would you tell your younger self if you had the chance?)? Young Joe and Old Joe are very different. Young Joe is a junkie and a low-life. It's not until later on in his life that he meets a woman who cleans him up and makes him a better person. Old Joe knows that Young Joe is a piece of shit, and indicates that to him and how it is going to change eventually. That said, I still had a degree of sympathy for Young Joe (trying to save Seth's ass, his relationship with Sara and Cid, hints at his upbringing), so it wasn't like I was hating the guy's guts every moment he was on screen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaMovieMan View Post
Johnson introduces many things into his version of the future that we are just supposed to swallow, no questions asked: silly looking hats, cannon handguns, silver and gold bricks as currency, names like Rainmaker, the main character wanting to visit (live in?) France ...and I knew the movie was telling me to just be in awe of the coolness of this imagination but it was too much of the desperate kind for me.
How is it desperate? It's just a vision of the future. Do we really need endless exposition telling us why all this shit is the way it is?

Last edited by Bourne101; 10-04-2012 at 10:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 10-05-2012, 12:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
Isn't this sort of the point (i.e., what would you tell your younger self if you had the chance?)? Young Joe and Old Joe are very different. Young Joe is a junkie and a low-life. It's not until later on in his life that he meets a woman who cleans him up and makes him a better person. Old Joe knows that Young Joe is a piece of shit, and indicates that to him and how it is going to change eventually. That said, I still had a degree of sympathy for Young Joe (trying to save Seth's ass, his relationship with Sara and Cid, hints at his upbringing), so it wasn't like I was hating the guy's guts every moment he was on screen.
Yeah, that's kind of the point and it's definitely one of the interesting parts of the whole story, but Young Joe is the main character here, we experience the film more or less through his eyes and I just didn't really care what happens to him. He tried to save Seth but I was disappointed at how easily he gave up trying, his relationship with Sarah and Sid didn't feel genuine to me, he went from not giving a shit about them (his words) to caring so much.. the hints of his upbringing were too brief and sparse. I didn't hate his guts either but for a main protagonist he wasn't balanced right..too much of the uncaring junkie killer and too little of the savior. Because of this the final scene didn't really affect me apart from being a satisfying end.

Quote:
How is it desperate? It's just a vision of the future. Do we really need endless exposition telling us why all this shit is the way it is?
Of course not, that would be painful, but at least be more subtle about it. For example: he was really pushing the French angle, and if he had explained it just a little bit, through dialogue or action, doesn't matter (seems like Joe never even ended up visiting the place during that 30 year span), it could have added an interesting layer to the character that would of hooked me into sympathizing a bit more. As it stands now it begs the question because it's right there staring you in the face and it's never explained. "He's studying French on a daily basis and really wants to go to France. Just accept it." This is a sign of storytelling weakness for me.

The vision of the future is desperate for me because all those things I mentioned are too cartoony to be taken seriously, and I'm assuming Johnson wants us to take his vision seriously and not mock it. I really believe that Johnson thinks all that shit is really cool. But to me his future felt like a bad parody at times and it messed with the overall tone of the film.

Last edited by DaMovieMan; 10-05-2012 at 12:13 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 10-05-2012, 12:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaMovieMan View Post
"He's studying French on a daily basis and really wants to go to France. Just accept it." This is a sign of storytelling weakness for me.
That was a little nuance that Johnson put in because he wrote the part specifically for Gordon-Levitt (who's a huge Francophile in real life). It was definitely a bigger nod to the actor than the character, but I also thought it worked as a nice little touch to the character and the idea that even though he had some sense of hope and aspiration for his future, it was inevitable that his lifestyle would drift him farther down into drugs and murder. The idea that he had did in fact of dreams for something and even the fact that Older Joe told him to give up and "focus on Mandarin instead" definitely added sympathy to the character as well as more weight to the whole correlation between choices and fate that the film delves into. It's actually one of the reasons I thought the diner scene worked so well...the idea that if your older self told you to not do or consider something you felt so strongly about, would you take the risk anyways?

Last edited by Reckoner; 10-05-2012 at 12:35 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 10-05-2012, 05:35 PM
I felt Johnson's future had a very strong sense of plausibility in it.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 10-06-2012, 12:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
There were some great lines in the film as well, particularly when

Spoiler:
Jeff Daniels says, "I'm from the future... go to China."
Yeah, that was my favorite line in the whole film. Absolutely brilliant.

Quick question:

Spoiler:
I couldn't make out what Garret Dillahunt was telling JGL. Why was Abe always going to be hunting JGL down until his dying day, even if JGL closed his own loop and tried to make things right with him?
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 10-06-2012, 12:35 AM
In-Theater commentary track by the director himself
http://collider.com/looper-commentar...5/#more-200465
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 10-06-2012, 02:59 AM
My full review:

At two various points in Rian Johnson’s Looper, characters mention how complex time travel mechanics can be and how it’s not really all that important to talk about them. I’ll admit that I was tempted to cheer out loud in both of these moments. Sometimes when we watch films we have the tendency to become too obsessed with the details. This leads to nitpicking and often ignores the concept of fiction and the inherent suspension of disbelief, particularly when dealing with genre filmmaking. One of the constant themes in my most recent film reviews is that of the connection. The most important thing to me when watching a film is how I connect to it. I could sit down and make a chart of all of the various events in films like Inception or Primer or Looper, or I can actually allow myself to experience the films in a more pure fashion. Everyone has their own way, of course. My intellect has indeed convinced me to chart out movies before (the aforementioned Primer) or occasionally nitpick a particularly egregious piece of logic, but at the end of the day it is all about the connection. With Looper, writer/director Rian Johnson has made a film that blows past a mere intelectual curiosity into a world of many rich and nuanced connections. Whether or not it all adds up is a moot point to me, particularly because time travel is a nonexistent concept that can only be theorized about. What Looper does, then, is make you believe.

Looper wears many hats. It is an amalgam of ideas and genres and even tone. Somehow, though, it all comes together as a fully cohesive unit. The film’s first half is paced in a very tight and propulsive fashion, which leads way to a more reserved second half. Rian Johnson has matured and evolved beautifully as a filmmaker, thanks in no small part to the visual freedom Breaking Bad gives its directors. (Johnson directed the episodes “Fly” and “Fifty-One”) Looper is a prime example of cinematic formalism. The use of camera placement and movement, constructed by Johnson alongside his director of photography Steve Yedlin, is precise and fluid. The camera observes and positions the audience. The film is a textbook example of how to use the camera as a paint brush, enhancing the story and creating a unified tone, even if the film’s content has disparate elements. Johnson is clearly an endlessly inventive man. Looper features a montage that is breathtaking in its pace and construction. Taken out of context it is a massively accomplished piece of work. Taken in context it is just another superb and mystifying element of this diverse film.

In his debut film Brick, Rian Johnson ostensibly crafted his own language. The film used a unique slang that added color and character. In Looper, Rian is once again crafting a language but this is not a linguistic one. This is a language of the future. The future presented in Looper is believable and potent because it seems possible. Technology advances, of course, but class warfare amplifies, crime and violence deepens, and the human race evolves. Farming is more automated than ever and gold and silver are valued more than cash. We see the glamour of the wealthy life and the sometimes tenuous paths one must take to get there and the squalor of the average folk. Drugs are ingested in new fashions. Yet everything seems somehow consistent. If we look back at the past 30 years our technology and society has slowly evolved but not to the extremes often depicted in science fiction. Looper seems somehow grounded in its futuristic society and that allows us to make a strong connection.

As alluded to above the film works in two halves. Looper is intense, suspenseful, and challenging. There are well choreographed and thrilling chases and action beats and fun uses of scifi tropes that are folded into this particular universe in a fascinating way. It wouldn’t be wrong to say that Looper is a cool film. The set design of the nightclubs and the apartments and the nice parts of the city are gleaming and luxurious. Nathan Johnson’s (Rian’s cousin) score utilizes inventive elements that you just don’t see in traditional film scoring, yet it also has an epic quality to it that suits the action beats. This is a flashy and confident product.

Most importantly, Looper is also a shockingly rich, nuanced, and complex film. This is an efficient film that sets up its world and “rules” quickly and amidst the time travel and the action chooses to focus on character. We are shown two versions of the same man: the young and the old. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, adorned with prosthetics that make him look every so slightly more like Bruce Willis, doesn’t impersonate Bruce in the obvious or traditional sense. Joseph uses subtle gestures and vocal intonations, coupled with a different life perspective, to craft a man that feels like he could have been the younger version of the character Bruce plays. It is a complicated and rewarding piece of acting that pays off big time, and frankly I’m not even sure if the prosthetics were needed. By the same token, Bruce Willis is afforded the rare opportunity (for the second time this year after Moonrise Kingdom) to remind audiences that he is much more than just an action star. Old Joe is a man conflicted by pain and love, and he is extremely morally ambiguous. His actions and decisions throughout the film are challenging and puzzling, and this is where the film finds its meat. The film makes us ponder the meaning of our identity and asks if a human being can truly change. If you encountered your old (or young ) self and didn’t like what you saw, would you take the opportunity to try to change it? Would this even work? If the actions of our past inform our future, it would be tempting to get the opportunity to change these actions in order to chart a new future for ourselves. But perhaps the attempt change is moot because our paths our inevitable. This is rich and thoughtful material for a film that was marketed as essentially a shoot ‘em up.

The connection between Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis makes this all work. There is an elongated scene in the film in which they sit opposite each other in a diner (picture above) that speaks to everything that can be wonderful about simplicity. The way these two actors play off each other is inspired. As the film progresses, we are introduced to another element that allows for even more complexity. We meet Sara (Emily Blunt, never better) and her son (a confident and focused young Pierce Gagnon) and spend time with them on their farm. The film turns into a film about mothers and sons and the way this relationship can shape our identity. It’s all about our connections. This all ties beautifully back into the story of Joe (young and old), and makes for a truly surprising finale.

Looper never loses sight of its fun, pulpy science fiction premise while also existing as a wonderfully soulful film and an excellent example of the wonders of film formalism. It has terrific actors like Jeff Daniels and Paul Dano adding heft and personality to roles that could have been thrown away. It looks and sounds terrific, all on a relatively low $30 million budget. Rian Johnson proves with Looper that character and ideas are what it takes to make great science fiction films, not hundreds of millions of dollars and explosions. Looper is at once a kickass and violent romp and a work of love and beauty.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 10-06-2012, 12:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmKing2000 View Post
That was a little nuance that Johnson put in because he wrote the part specifically for Gordon-Levitt (who's a huge Francophile in real life). It was definitely a bigger nod to the actor than the character, but I also thought it worked as a nice little touch to the character and the idea that even though he had some sense of hope and aspiration for his future, it was inevitable that his lifestyle would drift him farther down into drugs and murder. The idea that he had did in fact of dreams for something and even the fact that Older Joe told him to give up and "focus on Mandarin instead" definitely added sympathy to the character as well as more weight to the whole correlation between choices and fate that the film delves into. It's actually one of the reasons I thought the diner scene worked so well...the idea that if your older self told you to not do or consider something you felt so strongly about, would you take the risk anyways?
What risk? The risk of learning French instead of Mandarin? I don't see much conflict there, so there's little risk involved from where I'm standing. Old Joe even says he never regretted learning French, even though he never needed it from what we're shown. And it appears that he did learn Mandarin anyways. I don't see any risk, especially because Young Joe was learning this language (from what you say) because of a nod to the actor playing him.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 10-06-2012, 12:17 PM

Need.........Blu Ray................now.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 10-07-2012, 11:51 AM
Saw it last week with friends. Loved it. JGL is currently one of my favourite actors and I have been looking forward to this ever since I heard about it, and that was a while ago.

I thought it started off really good. The middle perhaps dragged a little but then it got really good again near the end. I have always loved time travel based movies. Even all of them have some sort of plot hole, but thats always the case for time travel movies. Still highly enjoyable and makes you think.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 10-07-2012, 11:53 AM
Sadly, I didn't see it. I'm not allowed to watch R-rated movies. PG-13 films are fine, but not R-rated ones.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 10-07-2012, 12:57 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedt View Post
I watch the trailer of Looper movie. Looper is a 2012 American science fiction action movie.
I saw that shit too. It was real fresh for a 2012 American trailer. Real fresh.


Spoiler:
The actual movie was pretty fucking amazing as well. 9/10
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 10-07-2012, 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Bird View Post
Sadly, I didn't see it. I'm not allowed to watch R-rated movies. PG-13 films are fine, but not R-rated ones.
Poor bird.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 10-07-2012, 08:30 PM
I thought the movie was great, the pacing was tight and fast and I think the film itself did a great job explaining the time travel aspect, it wasn't confusing or hard to follow at all. I thought the end was the high point of the film. JGL was fantastic and he played his character to a T, I felt zero sympathy for him which made the end so much more satisfying. Bruce Willis was good and I really like Emily Blunt, and whoever that little kid was he could play creepy like no other. 9/10
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 10-08-2012, 03:11 PM
I haven't seen it yet so I can't read any of this.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 10-08-2012, 06:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AspectRatio1986 View Post
Need.........Blu Ray................now.
I agree..I would love to find this under my tree at Christmas this year

Looper is easily in my Top 10 of 2012
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 10-09-2012, 05:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon View Post
Spoiler:
I couldn't make out what Garret Dillahunt was telling JGL. Why was Abe always going to be hunting JGL down until his dying day, even if JGL closed his own loop and tried to make things right with him?
Anybody?
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 10-14-2012, 07:49 PM
Just saw it this afternoon and really liked it. I need a little bit longer to gather my thoughts, but it's so nice to see original sci-fi making a comeback.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 10-16-2012, 05:37 PM
HEY GUYS!!!

Spoiler:
Looper was awesome!
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 10-16-2012, 07:05 PM

Coming to Blu-ray on January 1st! Of all the movies I've seen this year, I think this is the one I look forward to seeing again the most.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 10-17-2012, 05:42 AM
I was disappointed with Looper and I'm not sure why.

I did enjoy it for the most part, but the middle seemed to drag for me a little. Maybe it was over-hyped and I expected to be blown away, so I guess when you hear endless fantastic reviews, you're always going to be disappointed.. Also, I thought the inclusion of that bad guy who keeps shooting himself in the foot was just pointless, he didn't add anything to the story/ If he was supposed to be comic relief, he failied miserably.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 10-17-2012, 12:33 PM
I was expecting Blade Runner, but got more Firestarter.

I thoroughly enjoyed it, but the dummies from the future should have just zapped them straight into that furnace. Would have saved a heck of a lot'a trouble.

Last edited by viceus; 10-17-2012 at 12:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 10-17-2012, 06:03 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
Coming to Blu-ray on January 1st! Of all the movies I've seen this year, I think this is the one I look forward to seeing again the most.
What an awesome way to bring in 2013!
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 10-21-2012, 05:43 PM
Boxofficemojo currently has Looper as a $100 million success with a $132 million world-wide cume. $57 million domestic, $75 million foreign.

Stoked for the team behind this film
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 10-21-2012, 06:14 PM
^Awesome news...last couple times I visited BoxOfficeMojo they hadn't listed the Foreign totals yet...this things deserves every dollar it gets.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 11-02-2012, 01:07 AM
So that was pretty fucking groovy. I wouldn't say it was epic. It wasn't mind bending, time travel sci-fi. It wasn't The Matrix, Alien, or The Terminator good, but it was damn good.

As has already been said earlier in this thread, the final act makes this flick. Before that, to be honest, it was pretty average. More of the kid and his back story and less of the Looper's back story and this could have been epic IMO.

In the end a 7.5 out of 10. Not in my top 5 of the year and I haven't even seen The Master, Lawless, TDKR, Argo, or End of Watch. Plus, Killing Them Softly isn't even released yet. So in the end I doubt it even cracks my top 10 of the year. It's good but not great.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 11-25-2012, 09:59 PM
Meant to review this some time ago, but did not have time until now....

One of the most enjoyable film trends of the past few years has been the revival of smart sci-fi (District 9, Inception, Moon, etc), a trend that Looper continues. JGL was excellent as ever, and Willis shines in one of his best roles since his Shyamalan days. For me though, the standout was Emily Blunt. Having been used to her in comedic roles, I was really impressed with her dramatic chops and hope she considers other, more serious projects. Given that third film efforts can be iffy, credit must go to Rian Johnson for taking several leaps forward with this effort. I have heard him say that he wants to direct a Game of Thrones episode, and I sincerely hope he gets a chance, as his talents would be very welcome in the Seven Kingdoms.

9/10
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 01-11-2013, 03:49 PM
.

Last edited by SS-Block; 03-31-2014 at 05:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 01-29-2013, 06:10 PM
Saw this on the plane as well. I am not sure what to think. It was just ok to me. It did not move me one way or the other. Not sure what all the good reviews are about. Sure, the concept is original, but completely predictable and boring. I hated the ending with the kid. I was so so on him shooting himself.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 01-29-2013, 11:28 PM
I've seen this movie a few more times since buying it on Blu-Ray and it not only holds up upon re-watches, but I actually love it more. Mind you, the time travel stuff ain't exactly air tight, if you think too deeply about it, you'll notice it doesn't exactly hold up as well to scrutiny the way some other time travel movies do. I know a lot of people didn't care for it, but I thought Deja Vu was actually a movie that does hold up well to scrutiny. Still, that aside, Looper is exciting, solidly acted, and despite the time travel stuff not exactly holding up, I still think it's very well written. Smart and provocative with something to say about the cyclical nature of violence among other things.

I still have a lot of catching up to do, but I'm pretty sure this will end up on my top 10 list for 2012.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 01-30-2013, 04:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
I've seen this movie a few more times since buying it on Blu-Ray and it not only holds up upon re-watches, but I actually love it more. Mind you, the time travel stuff ain't exactly air tight, if you think too deeply about it, you'll notice it doesn't exactly hold up as well to scrutiny the way some other time travel movies do. I know a lot of people didn't care for it, but I thought Deja Vu was actually a movie that does hold up well to scrutiny. Still, that aside, Looper is exciting, solidly acted, and despite the time travel stuff not exactly holding up, I still think it's very well written. Smart and provocative with something to say about the cyclical nature of violence among other things.

I still have a lot of catching up to do, but I'm pretty sure this will end up on my top 10 list for 2012.
I pretty much agree with everything you said about Looper. The logic isn't air tight at all, but in terms of themes and acting the movie really excels. Sometimes I prefer a really meticulous sci-fi film that makes strides to try and stay somewhat logical, like Primer. However, not every film needs that approach to be satisfying. I think Looper's strong story, characters, and themes make up for all the plot holes. Time travel is a tricky business anyways.
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