Latest Movie News Headlines

The UnPopular Opinion: Looper

Mar. 13, 2013by: Alex Maidy

THE UNPOPULAR OPINION is an ongoing column featuring different takes on films that either the writer HATED, but that the majority of film fans LOVED, or that the writer LOVED, but that most others LOATHED. We're hoping this column will promote constructive and geek fueled discussion. Enjoy!

**** SOME SPOILERS ENSUE****

LOOPER is one of those movies that I feel you almost have to say you like so that your friends won't think you are a moron. It is that combination of intelligent science fiction, indie prowess, and mainstream action that fans latch onto and will not listen to contrary opinion.  While I loved Rian Johnson's previous films, I found myself disappointed with LOOPER.  For all of the talk that he should have been a contender to helm STAR WARS: EPISODE VII, I find this was a bad trial run in the world of science fiction.

The entire problem begins with the opening narration.  To paraphrase the movie ADAPTATION, voice over narration is flaccid, sloppy writing.  In fact, there are various instances throughout the movie where Joseph Gordon-Levitt's Joe recites segments from the opening voice over which leaves you feel like there is no other way to explain what the hell a looper does aside from this canned answer.  There are very few films where the voice over actually benefits the movie and a whole slew where it is a detriment.  LOOPER falls into the latter.

Coming soon!  Die Hard and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull!

The next problem is the future world itself.  In the behind the scenes features, Rian Johnson and Joseph Gordon-Levitt make a case that this world is one that is wholly possible 30 years from now.  That is all well and good fellas, but you fail to explain how or why society has fallen into such disarray.  The city looks futuristic with hovercrafts and blimps in the sky (which reminded me a lot of FRINGE's alternate universe), but no explanation for the wanton violence in the streets and the pervasive poverty.  Sure, time travel was invented and then made illegal, but what the hell else happened that we aren't being told?  I kept telling myself there is a level of suspension of disbelief needed for any science fiction tale, but you also need to be given a little more information about why things are the way they are.

Which begs the question about time travel itself.  LOOPER presents a very isolated scenario where only specific individuals are able to use time travel and for only nefarious purposes.  But, the entire movie hinges on this time travel element making sense, and I am sorry to say that it does not.  The basic structure of a looper killing criminals and then killing his future self 30 years down the line and then being retired works all fine and dandy, I get that.  Even when we see the fate of Paul Dano's Seth as they dismember his 2044 self and we see the results on his 2074 body, the time travel still makes sense.  But, then we get Joe killing himself, retiring, marrying, suffering the loss of his wife and being sent back only not to be killed this time and we hit the problem with the entire story.  At the moment he does not kill himself, the future would have been changed and he never would have retired to Shanghai or married his wife.  The entire movie ends at that moment.  But, we are expected to forgive this complicated scenario by calling it suspension of disbelief?  I don't think so.

This is why Demi Moore should stop getting Botox injections.

And then we have the telekinesis.  At the start of the movie we are told, almost off-handedly, that some people have developed the ability to control things with their minds, but that it is basically just a parlor trick with no real significance.  This is presented in such a way that I rolled my eyes, instantly knowing that mind control was going to play a major part in the final act of the movie.  And, lo and behold, it does.  Not only does the future villain take the form of a precocious and evil-looking Damien wannabe named Cid, but he is an incredibly powerful "level 3" telekinetic.  Which makes me wonder how if this kid is the infamous future villain The Rainmaker that no one knows he has this rare power?  You would think Jeff Daniels' Abe would at least know that this criminal bigwig was one of the friggin X-MEN.  But no, this useful piece of information is unknown to both Future Joe and Future Seth.  Convenient.

The entire third act of LOOPER is a mess.  We are presented with a very intriguing world and concept in the first act of the movie and a thrilling second act where the two Joes face off against each other.  Bruce Willis delivers one of his better performances in a long time, mainly because he doesn't have to carry the entire movie on his own.  Joseph Gordon-Levitt is excellent, but only when he stops trying to imitate Willis and just acts.  The most unforgivable aspect of this movie is that awful Bruce Willis prosthetic make-up which completely takes you out of the story.  Rian Johnson claims that the two actors didn't look like each other so they used the make-up.  Would any of us really have given a shit?  If we are meant to accept the blatant holes in the story, I can deal with two actors not looking identical. 

Emily Blunt holding a boomstick.  This is going right in the spank bank.

The lone bright spot in the movie, acting-wise, is Emily Blunt.  She is playing against her usual type in this film and I found her character enthralling.  I thought she was attractive before, but in LOOPER she is hands down gorgeous.  Maybe it was the gun in her hand, but I hope she takes more roles like this in the future.  I will also say child actor Pierce Gagnon does a great job as Cid.  The child comes across as menacing, innocent, sweet, precocious, and evil throughout his time on screen.  I was left wondering if there would be any way of this kid not growing up to be a villain, even if Joe takes himself out of the equation for his fate.  The kid just seems like bad news, but I would consider that a win for the casting of this role.

In the end, Rian Johnson says this is not a movie where time travel is the main focus, like in the film PRIMER.  That doesn't sit well with me because the entire story hinges on time travel and he brought in PRIMER director Shane Carruth as a consultant on LOOPER.  Every other aspect of this movie, from the cinematography, the use of practical effects (excluding the Bruce Willis face prosthetics), and the overall acting works.  It is a shame it all comes crashing down on itself due to the inconsistent plot holes.  A good time travel story should work as a loop (See PRIMER, TWELVE MONKEYS, etc) and alas, LOOPER does not.

Oh, and if you have any suggestions for The UnPopular Opinion I’m always happy to hear them. You can send along an email to alexmaidy@joblo.com, spell it out below, slap it up on my wall in Movie Fan Central, or send me a private message via Movie Fan Central. Provide me with as many movie suggestions as you like, with any reasoning you'd care to share, and if I agree then you may one day see it featured in this very column!

Source: JoBlo.com

Related Articles

MORE FUN FROM AROUND THE WEB

Strikeback
Not registered? Sign-up!
Or

2:13PM on 03/15/2013
I liked the movie overall, but was kind of dissapointed in the pacing. I mean half the movie takes place on the farm. Maybe it was just my expectations on what the movie was going to be, but I didn't care much for that aspect. The time travel stuff was wonky, but for fucks sake time travel isnt real! Movies can make it anything they want it to be since i IT DOESNT EXIST!
I liked the movie overall, but was kind of dissapointed in the pacing. I mean half the movie takes place on the farm. Maybe it was just my expectations on what the movie was going to be, but I didn't care much for that aspect. The time travel stuff was wonky, but for fucks sake time travel isnt real! Movies can make it anything they want it to be since i IT DOESNT EXIST!
Your Reply:



7:27AM on 03/15/2013
Would like to see Skyfall and Drive in this column.two of the most overrated films
Would like to see Skyfall and Drive in this column.two of the most overrated films
Your Reply:



7:27AM on 03/15/2013
Would like to see Skyfall and Drive in this column.two of the most overrated films
Would like to see Skyfall and Drive in this column.two of the most overrated films
Your Reply:



8:18PM on 03/14/2013
The movie was great. As far as unpopular opinions have gone to show the likings of guilty pleasures this movie really shouldn't be referred to as "sloppy" or "lazy". I really enjoyed the pace and acting from the cast, especially Pierce Gagnon. To each their own.
The movie was great. As far as unpopular opinions have gone to show the likings of guilty pleasures this movie really shouldn't be referred to as "sloppy" or "lazy". I really enjoyed the pace and acting from the cast, especially Pierce Gagnon. To each their own.
Your Reply:



4:32PM on 03/14/2013
Eh, I thought it was very, very good. The stuff with the time travel may have had some holes but not enough to ruin my enjoyment of the film. No story is airtight, after all.
Eh, I thought it was very, very good. The stuff with the time travel may have had some holes but not enough to ruin my enjoyment of the film. No story is airtight, after all.
Your Reply:



3:57PM on 03/14/2013
This was definitely a see once and enjoy movie for me. I liked it but couldn't understand why such a big deal was made of it. I read somewhere that this was the best sci-fi movie to come out in years...Really? I honestly think it could have been a direct-to-DVD affair.
This was definitely a see once and enjoy movie for me. I liked it but couldn't understand why such a big deal was made of it. I read somewhere that this was the best sci-fi movie to come out in years...Really? I honestly think it could have been a direct-to-DVD affair.
Your Reply:



2:12PM on 03/14/2013
Well, in all honesty, I liked the movie, but acknowledged that my enjoyment had more to do with how it looked than how it measured up logically. While 12 Monkeys actually tried to take time-travel seriously, this movie used it as a tool, an excuse to get the same guy at two different times in his life running around after himself. What Johnson did right was, after Old Joe comes back, we only ever see the future through his memories, as they begin to fade. Because of one of an infinite variation
Well, in all honesty, I liked the movie, but acknowledged that my enjoyment had more to do with how it looked than how it measured up logically. While 12 Monkeys actually tried to take time-travel seriously, this movie used it as a tool, an excuse to get the same guy at two different times in his life running around after himself. What Johnson did right was, after Old Joe comes back, we only ever see the future through his memories, as they begin to fade. Because of one of an infinite variation of events, Old Joe isn't tied up, and comes back of his own accord. He isn't really concerned about what effect having him running around does.

Where the paradox really hits is, when Young Joe kills himself. Wouldn't that undo anything that Old Joe did? Would Cid and his mother even be in that field?

And nothing was really ever known about the Rainmaker, except perhaps his origins. No one could get close enough to him to know otherwise. I wasn't even sure if Abe knew the Rainmaker, or if he had been sent back prior to the Rainmaker's rise. Since the Loopers were all getting decommissioned.

In the end, it was more of a great big mindfuck, and unlike some, not one to be taken too seriously at that. Which is certainly a reason some people won't like it as much. I enjoyed it in a great big "What If" kind of way.
Your Reply:



10:52AM on 03/14/2013
no
no
Your Reply:



1:19PM on 03/14/2013
so this person just puts NO & he gets a thumbs up?
so this person just puts NO & he gets a thumbs up?
10:50AM on 03/14/2013

I agree totally

Dont get me wrong, I enjoyed this film. But the fact that him traveling back in time and NOT getting killed didnt create a whole new future, yet him shooting himself in the younger form erases the future him, doesnt make sense. The Future Willis that lived is not even part of the time line that JGL was in! So him killing himself shouldnt affect that at all. Also once he killed himself and eliminated the future Willis, we revert back to a timeline where Willis never comes back in time and we
Dont get me wrong, I enjoyed this film. But the fact that him traveling back in time and NOT getting killed didnt create a whole new future, yet him shooting himself in the younger form erases the future him, doesnt make sense. The Future Willis that lived is not even part of the time line that JGL was in! So him killing himself shouldnt affect that at all. Also once he killed himself and eliminated the future Willis, we revert back to a timeline where Willis never comes back in time and we start all over again with JGL being alive and growing old. This is why time travel in general will never work. Also, here is a big F*&k You to time travel that no one ever mentions: Even if time travel is possible, and some theoretical physicists argue it may be, what about the fact that once you travel back in time, the whole universe is a different size and shape, and the earth isnt where it was when you jumped back or forward. Even if you jumped back one second, you would be left floating in space because of the following:
•How fast is the Earth spinning? 0.5 km/sec
•How fast is the Earth revolving around the Sun? 30 km/sec
•How fast is the Solar System moving around the Milky Way Galaxy? 250 km/sec
•How fast is our Milky Way Galaxy moving in the Local Group of galaxies? 300 km/sec

You travel back or forward in time, and you die alone in the vacuum of space....
Your Reply:



1:17PM on 03/14/2013
whew i need a drink after reading that, you don't get out much do you?
whew i need a drink after reading that, you don't get out much do you?
9:08AM on 03/14/2013
I liked the movie up until the kid shows up. It's a major pet peeve of mine when movies have to bring in a kid to help move along the story. Didn't work for Superman Returns & in Looper to me it just changed the whole tone of the movie.
I liked the movie up until the kid shows up. It's a major pet peeve of mine when movies have to bring in a kid to help move along the story. Didn't work for Superman Returns & in Looper to me it just changed the whole tone of the movie.
Your Reply:



12:32AM on 03/15/2013
Shit, I hope you're not looking forward to Iron Man 3...
Shit, I hope you're not looking forward to Iron Man 3...
7:59AM on 03/14/2013
YES. Finally its not just me who thinks this film is riddled with holes.
YES. Finally its not just me who thinks this film is riddled with holes.
Your Reply:



5:50AM on 03/14/2013

BAD ARTICLE

I thought Looper was an interesting and refreshing film with a nice take on time travel. And like so many people before trying to point out the flaws in the movie because of time travel is a seriously flawed argument. No one in this present course of time can explain how time travel works or alternate dimensions this is still theory. Try and use the same argument for Terminator and you would have so many more people slating this column. You cannot argue something that we ultimately don't
I thought Looper was an interesting and refreshing film with a nice take on time travel. And like so many people before trying to point out the flaws in the movie because of time travel is a seriously flawed argument. No one in this present course of time can explain how time travel works or alternate dimensions this is still theory. Try and use the same argument for Terminator and you would have so many more people slating this column. You cannot argue something that we ultimately don't understand.
Your Reply:



3:35AM on 03/14/2013
I agree with the overall idea here - that Looper is overrated because of certain flaws - but not with the choice of all the flaws presented.

I agree 100% with the prosthetic argument; giving JGL a prosthetic means the onus is no longer on the audience to suspend disbelief about his looks, and as such the makeup team must now create a perfect recreation of a younger Willis...which they did not (it was close...but close isn't good enough once you've made that decision). I didn't find the time
I agree with the overall idea here - that Looper is overrated because of certain flaws - but not with the choice of all the flaws presented.

I agree 100% with the prosthetic argument; giving JGL a prosthetic means the onus is no longer on the audience to suspend disbelief about his looks, and as such the makeup team must now create a perfect recreation of a younger Willis...which they did not (it was close...but close isn't good enough once you've made that decision). I didn't find the time travel issues presented in this article to be the main issue of the film. Rather, I found the problem to be rooted in the overall concept: 'Sending people back in time to be killed by assassins in the past.' I'm not sure what happened in the future, but criminals must be super-rich, or super-dumb if they think THAT is an efficient business plan. Why did nobody suggest, "Hey, instead of paying these guys in the past to kill people (that they may decide not to kill...causing us lots of problems), let's just poison these guys then send them back in time, or tie cinder blocks to their feet and send them back in time to an ocean, then keep more money for ourselves!"

I still had fun watching this film, it just had too many major flaws to make a good lasting impression on me. Also what was with that terrible shot of Bruce Willis balding with long hair...
Your Reply:



+1
2:39AM on 03/14/2013
To clarify, I disagree with most of this article. (This used to be a double post. Why isn't there a delete button?)
To clarify, I disagree with most of this article. (This used to be a double post. Why isn't there a delete button?)
Your Reply:



+0
2:35AM on 03/14/2013
I really liked Looper, but the time travel mechanics are are all over the place. The past affects the future, but somehow its in real time? And they have no memory of the change? And it doesn't actually affect their circumstances? Once a guy's legs get chopped off, I feel like his life would be more than just aesthetically altered.
I really liked Looper, but the time travel mechanics are are all over the place. The past affects the future, but somehow its in real time? And they have no memory of the change? And it doesn't actually affect their circumstances? Once a guy's legs get chopped off, I feel like his life would be more than just aesthetically altered.
Your Reply:



2:31AM on 03/14/2013

Point by point

1) Poverty in the future is inevitable. First of all, there's the problem that third world countries have more babies than first world countries so more and more people are being born into poverty. Then there's the fact that the distribution of wealth is the industrialised world is becoming ever more skewed towards the richest having far more money than the poorest people: what happens is that the richest people are insulated from recession so there isn't as much pressure on politicians to
1) Poverty in the future is inevitable. First of all, there's the problem that third world countries have more babies than first world countries so more and more people are being born into poverty. Then there's the fact that the distribution of wealth is the industrialised world is becoming ever more skewed towards the richest having far more money than the poorest people: what happens is that the richest people are insulated from recession so there isn't as much pressure on politicians to keep the econony strong. Instead, the richest people use their lobbyists to pressure governments into reducing their taxes which results in less money for health care and eduaction so you end up with poor, sick, unemployed people everywhere. Wait. This isn't even the future: it already happened.
2. No, the time travel aspect of the story does not make sense, as you yourself point out. As soon as Joe goes back in time he changes his past so that he becomes a wanted man which means that he couldn't have gone on to meet the woman he loved in Shanghai which means he shouldn't even remember her although I suppose that is a moot point. What really bother me though is Seth: if you cut off the legs of young Seth then how does older Seth go back in time? Indeed, if you kill young Seth then older Seth isn't coming back so why did you kill young Seth at all? Similarly, when younger Joe kills himself on the field older Joe disappears as though older Joe never existed but if older Joe never existed then why did younger Joe go on the run with all of his silver and why were that woman and boy standing in the field? Logically without older Joe the whole movie never happened.
Your Reply:



12:50AM on 03/14/2013

NOT A PLOT HOLE! EXPLAINED!

I've heard a lot of people discussing the so-called plot hole created when JGL kills himself. However, there actually is not a plot hole (at least in this regard) in the film. Allow me to explain:
When JGL meets the boy Cid, Cid does not accept Emily Blunt as his mother and says that someday he hopes to get rid of the bad people who killed his real mother (the Loopers are gangsters, or bad people). That is his motivation before he ever encounters Bruce Willis. At the end when Bruce Willis
I've heard a lot of people discussing the so-called plot hole created when JGL kills himself. However, there actually is not a plot hole (at least in this regard) in the film. Allow me to explain:
When JGL meets the boy Cid, Cid does not accept Emily Blunt as his mother and says that someday he hopes to get rid of the bad people who killed his real mother (the Loopers are gangsters, or bad people). That is his motivation before he ever encounters Bruce Willis. At the end when Bruce Willis tries to kill them both and Emily Blunt will not back down. Because she will not abandon Cid during the windstorm (sort of like a King Solomon test I suppose) only then does he finally accept her as his mother. Now if Bruce kills Emily Blunt, Cid will be back to his original motivation: kill the bad people who killed his mother. The means may be different but the motivation and the future victims will be the same. Full circle.
Your Reply:



10:05AM on 03/14/2013
But the truth is that Cid probably killed his own mother and that's why her sister when she became Cid's mother was so afraid of him. As I recall, she said that she really was Cid's mother and that she left the child with her sister and she felt guilty when her sister died, which again suggested that Cid killed her. Thus Cid shouldn't want to "get rid of the bad people who killed his mother" as he was responsible for her death, even if he was too young to remember what happened after the
But the truth is that Cid probably killed his own mother and that's why her sister when she became Cid's mother was so afraid of him. As I recall, she said that she really was Cid's mother and that she left the child with her sister and she felt guilty when her sister died, which again suggested that Cid killed her. Thus Cid shouldn't want to "get rid of the bad people who killed his mother" as he was responsible for her death, even if he was too young to remember what happened after the fact.

Anyway, it's like the "Everything wrong with" video said "Who wants to bet that the kid will grow up to be an asshole anyway?"
1:32AM on 03/15/2013
The plot hole in that scene goes deeper than just Cid, though. Old Joe travels back in time, then Young Joe kills himself to prevent Old Joe from killing Sara. If Young Joe kills himself, he can't grow up to become Old Joe and then travel back in time to inspire Young Joe to commit suicide.
The plot hole in that scene goes deeper than just Cid, though. Old Joe travels back in time, then Young Joe kills himself to prevent Old Joe from killing Sara. If Young Joe kills himself, he can't grow up to become Old Joe and then travel back in time to inspire Young Joe to commit suicide.
-1
12:41AM on 03/14/2013

Agreed

And to top that off. Even if you ignore all of that, the ending is completely stupid.

Rather than killing himself, couldnt he have just blown his hand off causing his older self to drop the gun and fall over in pain, allowing the kid to get away?
And to top that off. Even if you ignore all of that, the ending is completely stupid.

Rather than killing himself, couldnt he have just blown his hand off causing his older self to drop the gun and fall over in pain, allowing the kid to get away?
Your Reply:



2:06AM on 03/14/2013
Hypothetically speaking, this may not achieve the desired result. If Joe had shot off his own hand, Future Joe's hand would disappear but he probably would not have felt any pain because for him, that wound healed years ago. Remember when the other future looper's body parts went missing one-by-one, he never showed any sign of pain. So now you have a handless Future Joe who still wants to kill Cid (and will probably find a way to do it), and a handless Present Joe who IS in so much pain he
Hypothetically speaking, this may not achieve the desired result. If Joe had shot off his own hand, Future Joe's hand would disappear but he probably would not have felt any pain because for him, that wound healed years ago. Remember when the other future looper's body parts went missing one-by-one, he never showed any sign of pain. So now you have a handless Future Joe who still wants to kill Cid (and will probably find a way to do it), and a handless Present Joe who IS in so much pain he can't do anything more to stop it.
10:44PM on 03/13/2013
This whole article was just nitpicks and contradictions. It's fine if you dislike something but get your ideas together before you throw a bunch of stupid shit on the Internet.
This whole article was just nitpicks and contradictions. It's fine if you dislike something but get your ideas together before you throw a bunch of stupid shit on the Internet.
Your Reply:



1:41AM on 03/14/2013
That ending would've made me love this movie. And it even pays off on the foreshadowing they set up in the first Act!
That ending would've made me love this movie. And it even pays off on the foreshadowing they set up in the first Act!
+4
9:20PM on 03/13/2013
While I respect your opinion, I couldn't disagree more about it. On nearly every point, I can't help but think you're nitpicking, pulling things out that you claim are bigger problems than they really are. Joe's look didn't really bother me and I think it only bothers people because they know what Joe really looks like, and that ain't it. The prosthetic look great, despite knowing they're fake, but beyond that, Joe does a great job mimicking Willis' typical movie persona and mannerisms. I
While I respect your opinion, I couldn't disagree more about it. On nearly every point, I can't help but think you're nitpicking, pulling things out that you claim are bigger problems than they really are. Joe's look didn't really bother me and I think it only bothers people because they know what Joe really looks like, and that ain't it. The prosthetic look great, despite knowing they're fake, but beyond that, Joe does a great job mimicking Willis' typical movie persona and mannerisms. I actually caught myself being very surprised in how well he managed to capture a lot of what we have come to know about Willis. I also think that the VO was fine. It got some minor information out of the way with a few, quick plot points. There was really no other way to quickly explain all the info we needed to know before getting into the meat of the story. The time travel issues also never bothered me because I just explained them away as alternate universe type stuff. I also found the telekinetic stuff to be pretty damn cool. I certainly suspected it would come into play later on, but it never bothered my because it was so well handled.

The thing that works so well about Looper are it's characters and the grounded nature of the story. The sci-fi does what it's supposed to do and takes a back seat to the characters and their story. There is a true emotional connection here to the characters, something rarely seen in sci-fi these days. This was one of my favorite films last year, and it's because of the characters that it was. And I was one of the skeptical ones before the film who didn't quite think it would work. It blew me out of the water (and I saw the film about a week before it came out and before I caught any reviews of it). Sure, it's got a lot of holes, but most time travel films do. However, Rian's skills as a director, the well written script, and the fantastic acting win out over any holes the film may have.
Your Reply:



7:01PM on 03/13/2013
This is one of the best written 'Unpopular Opinions' in a while, so kudos there. However, I do disagree with a majority of your issues-

First off, just because time travel is what the plot hinges off of (the mcguffin of sorts) why should that be the main focus, as you attest it should be in your final paragraph?

Second, why do we need more information about the world? I don't see how it helps any of your issues about the world.

So, I am a little confused here. You state that the 'lone
This is one of the best written 'Unpopular Opinions' in a while, so kudos there. However, I do disagree with a majority of your issues-

First off, just because time travel is what the plot hinges off of (the mcguffin of sorts) why should that be the main focus, as you attest it should be in your final paragraph?

Second, why do we need more information about the world? I don't see how it helps any of your issues about the world.

So, I am a little confused here. You state that the 'lone bright spot' acting wise is Emily Blunt, but you complement both Willis and Levitt as well. I'm guessing you did like them in it. So, how is there only one 'bright spot'?

Now for something a little more subjective-
A lot of time travel theories and stories revolve around the idea of parallel universes; this is the basic time travel element in play for all of the amazing 'Back To The Future' movies. With that in mind, I took the whole dying/ growing old in China as the original time line. Then the wife dies and Future Joe goes to the past, in a parallel universe, to fix that. This is the reason for Future Joe's memory being 'cloudy' until Young Joe does something; Future Joe's brain is hammered by having two timelines in opposing universes in itself at once.

Maybe that's me reading too much into that, but that is how I took it (hopefully I explained it in a way that makes sense. If not sorry!)
Your Reply:



2:39AM on 03/14/2013
Actually, the first Back to the Future relies on "space-time continuum" mechanics. They didn't switch to alternate timelines until the second movie. The problem with Looper is that is constantly mixes the two in a really weird way. I really liked it despite that, however.
Actually, the first Back to the Future relies on "space-time continuum" mechanics. They didn't switch to alternate timelines until the second movie. The problem with Looper is that is constantly mixes the two in a really weird way. I really liked it despite that, however.
10:11AM on 03/14/2013
No, introducing another time line would not work because it wouldn't explain how Old Joe was able to remember everything that Young Joe did after he did it.
No, introducing another time line would not work because it wouldn't explain how Old Joe was able to remember everything that Young Joe did after he did it.
6:36PM on 03/13/2013
There were small parts I liked about this movie,, but overall I wouldnt put this movie in my top 20. The movie lost its focus and wasnt too sharp middle-towards the end...Joseph Gordon Levitt, I believe tired too hard to act serious and his attitude threw me off, specially when he disliked his own future self.
I agree with points of this UnPopular article, for example...why wasnt there any explanation on this future became the way we see it in the movie? If the main character does not
There were small parts I liked about this movie,, but overall I wouldnt put this movie in my top 20. The movie lost its focus and wasnt too sharp middle-towards the end...Joseph Gordon Levitt, I believe tired too hard to act serious and his attitude threw me off, specially when he disliked his own future self.
I agree with points of this UnPopular article, for example...why wasnt there any explanation on this future became the way we see it in the movie? If the main character does not narrate it, they could have displayed a paragraph introduction on the screen.
Your Reply:



+1
6:12PM on 03/13/2013
I was dissatisfied with Looper so I agree with the message of this article, however I believe you have misinterpreted a few things about the movie.

First of all, be sure to understand that ANY movie, book, story, idea, etc, that involves time travel that goes backward through time will invariably create a story paradox, even if it's very minor and you have to look very hard for it. It's pretty much unavoidable. Lots of time travel movies create paradoxes even if they pretend they aren't,
I was dissatisfied with Looper so I agree with the message of this article, however I believe you have misinterpreted a few things about the movie.

First of all, be sure to understand that ANY movie, book, story, idea, etc, that involves time travel that goes backward through time will invariably create a story paradox, even if it's very minor and you have to look very hard for it. It's pretty much unavoidable. Lots of time travel movies create paradoxes even if they pretend they aren't, so I don't think it's fair to hold Looper to that standard when other time travel movies get a pass.

In regards to Cid-turned-Rainmaker, it seems like maybe you didn't catch the part of the movie where they explained everything you're critiquing. No one in the future knows who the Rainmaker is. Not Future Joe, not Future Seth. No one. That was the entire point of the reveal at the end. Also, since Abe had been living in the present for several years, it's likely he's never even heard of the Rainmaker given that he was the brand new boss of the future.

I also didn't have a problem with JGL's makeup, but personal preferences will vary.

The problem I had with the movie was how the story came to a dead stop once they introduced Emily Blunt and kid on the farm. It just spun it's wheels uselessly for what felt like hours while JGL and Emily crawled around whispering all their dialogue. Boring. Plus the ending was weak (how does a single-shot gun kick up THAT much dust?) I was also turned off by all the child murder, I kind of wish they had come up with a better plot device for Bruce Willis to pursue than that.

Also, it is just me or is it a really stupid idea to have your looper kill his own future self? Why don't they send them back to be killed by a different looper? (i.e.: send Bruce Willis back to be shot by someone OTHER than JGL). That way, there will be no personal connection between the looper and the target, so there's no risk of "letting the loop run".
Your Reply:



10:31AM on 03/14/2013
First of all, neither the original Terminator movie nor Twelve Monkeys had any paradoxes: what happened in the Terminator movie had always happened as we know because Kyle Reese had to be sent back in time and meet Sarah Conner in order for John Conner to be born and in Twelve Monkeys James Cole traveled back in time and met Jeffrey Goines in an insane asylum and made a comment about "Maybe mankind deserves to die" which then set into motion the events which caused the release of the virus in
First of all, neither the original Terminator movie nor Twelve Monkeys had any paradoxes: what happened in the Terminator movie had always happened as we know because Kyle Reese had to be sent back in time and meet Sarah Conner in order for John Conner to be born and in Twelve Monkeys James Cole traveled back in time and met Jeffrey Goines in an insane asylum and made a comment about "Maybe mankind deserves to die" which then set into motion the events which caused the release of the virus in the first place. The point is that these movies both involved a single timeline and nothing was "changed" by going back in time.

Some Star Trek episodes used the single time line approach, namely Assignment: Earth and Time's Arrow. The latter had Data finding his own head and surmising that his head was sent back in time from the future. Ultimately Data did lose his head and the head did get sent to the cave and the head that was found in the cave was used to replace the head he lost. Thus there was only ever one head and a single timeline.

"It is just me or is it a really stupid idea to have your Looper kill his own future self?" I suppose. Thing is the Loopers are trained killers so the idea would be that if you send a Looper back to get killed by himself he won't turn around and attack and kill himself because he would die anyway. In the original script for Looper that was included in an earlier post on Joblo, Old Joe realizes that if he kills Young Joe that he will die but that killing Young Joe is the only way to save his wife. (She wouldn't have died if Young Joe died in 2044 and never went to Shanghai.) Thus Old Joe kills Young Joe, albeit after he explains to Young Joe that he is doing it to save the woman he loves. Unfortunately the first draft was only long enough for a (very) short film and in order to make it feature length they needed more villains.
1:58AM on 04/24/2013
In regards to paradoxes of the Terminator movies, Imma just leave this here: [link] (#5 specifically points out the paradoxical stuff) They did their homework way more than I care to.

In regards to the looper killing his own older self, your scenario isn't viable under normal circumstances. Victims from the future are sent back shackled, hooded, and are killed instantly upon arrival in the past. I think it's safe to assume that when the mob prepares someone to be sent back, they make sure
In regards to paradoxes of the Terminator movies, Imma just leave this here: [link] (#5 specifically points out the paradoxical stuff) They did their homework way more than I care to.

In regards to the looper killing his own older self, your scenario isn't viable under normal circumstances. Victims from the future are sent back shackled, hooded, and are killed instantly upon arrival in the past. I think it's safe to assume that when the mob prepares someone to be sent back, they make sure the target will be unable to fight back. (The only reason Bruce Willis was able to fight back is because he sent himself back, and was not shackled nor hooded. So when JGL sees his face, he knows who it is, thus creating the few seconds of doubt Bruce Willis needs to gain the upper hand and escape. If Bruce Willis had appeared before a different looper, it's less likely there would have been any hesitation.) Therefore, if "letting your loop run" is such a potential problem, it doesn't make sense that the mob would voluntarily arrange for it to occur when they can just use a different looper and avoid the possibility altogether.
+1
5:25PM on 03/13/2013

Agree. Good film that is sadly overrated.

This has probably all been mentioned, but I don't have time to do a big comment read through and just want to share some thoughts. What bugs me is the diner scene in the movie has Bruce Willis literally tells JGL (and the audience) not to worry about the nature of time travel and to just go with the flow as it'll mess everyone's heads up. It was at this point I thought to myself "ah, OK, I get it. You want me to buy into this scenario, but not worry about time travel laws and continuity, OK I
This has probably all been mentioned, but I don't have time to do a big comment read through and just want to share some thoughts. What bugs me is the diner scene in the movie has Bruce Willis literally tells JGL (and the audience) not to worry about the nature of time travel and to just go with the flow as it'll mess everyone's heads up. It was at this point I thought to myself "ah, OK, I get it. You want me to buy into this scenario, but not worry about time travel laws and continuity, OK I will do". But then the ending of the film comes along, and relies entirely on the concept and continuity of time travel to make it work which is exactly what the film told me not to worry about. This is especially annoying when the continuity behind the time travel was so utterly wrong as to completely discredit said ending.

1) The guy at the opening who loses his limbs shows us that separate timelines aren't created when an old Looper comes back through time. The old Looper is not a Looper from a different timeline, otherwise he'd keep his limbs when his younger self was chopped up, as he existed in an alternate timeline where he didn't get cut to ribbons. So because of this, as you say, Willis coming back would've changed JGL's life completely thus negating the need for Willis to come back in the first place and thus just unraveled the whole of time and space (I was willing to let this go after the cafe scene until the ending relied on time travel theories)

2) JGL kills himself to make Willis disappear, thus saving the kid from the harrowing experience of witnessing his mother's death and thus becoming a criminal overlord right? Well actually that doesn't work as the kid is still an evil mastermind in Willis' original timeline where he grew up to get married....a timeline where he closed his loop immediately and an older version of himself never came back in time to threaten the kid and kill his mum. Yet the kid still grew up to be an evil crime lord in that world. So JGL has killed himself for nothing essentially, again negating the meaningfulness of the ending.

3) The entire reason Looper's exist is because these criminals can't get away with killing in the future due to some extreme form of policing in which they are instantly captured....yet the ENTIRE movie revolves around the idea that, in the future, some dudes who work for this Looper organisation just gun down Willis' wife in broad daylight before whisking him off to be sent backwards in time to be killed.

However as you say the performances and cinematography are all very good. The story starts off strong but slows down considerably once JGL gets to the farmhouse. This could've been saved by a strong ending, but instead is unraveled by a contradictory one.
Your Reply:



4:37PM on 03/13/2013

This just in!

A movie that is centered on time-traveling has loop holes! And since we already have time travel in our own reality, we can identify with what would and wouldn't happen regarding bending the time space continuum!
Seriously though, if the acting and story was so horrendous that you couldnt watch it anymore, then fine, by all means don't like the film. But when your main argument is regarding the technicalities of time travel, then go watch a documentary and critique their small defincencies
A movie that is centered on time-traveling has loop holes! And since we already have time travel in our own reality, we can identify with what would and wouldn't happen regarding bending the time space continuum!
Seriously though, if the acting and story was so horrendous that you couldnt watch it anymore, then fine, by all means don't like the film. But when your main argument is regarding the technicalities of time travel, then go watch a documentary and critique their small defincencies instead.
And for the record, Looper was ok. Not my movie of the year but it was a decent rental with a refreshing story (and isn't that what half of us come on here to complain about not having enough of these days, anyways?).
Your Reply:



5:52PM on 03/13/2013
I like you.
I like you.
11:59AM on 05/08/2013
Me too.
Me too.
4:01PM on 03/13/2013
Hate to say, it was the most overrated movie of 2012 in my opinion. So much talent behind and in front of the camera, and a killer concept, yet sadly did not live up to its potential.
Hate to say, it was the most overrated movie of 2012 in my opinion. So much talent behind and in front of the camera, and a killer concept, yet sadly did not live up to its potential.
Your Reply:



5:04PM on 03/13/2013
I agree. Had been waiting all year to see it and well....I left annoyed. The movie sucked. Very upset.
I agree. Had been waiting all year to see it and well....I left annoyed. The movie sucked. Very upset.
3:09PM on 03/13/2013
I guess it's the unpopular opinion because the film is so overrated. I don't think it's a bad movie, just way overhyped. The complete ignoring of the time travel paradox is this film's biggest problem, and denies it genius levels of cool. If a writer doesn't even acknowledge that problem then it's never going to be an especially smart movie. I still enjoyed Looper on various levels, but it got more credit than it deserved.
I guess it's the unpopular opinion because the film is so overrated. I don't think it's a bad movie, just way overhyped. The complete ignoring of the time travel paradox is this film's biggest problem, and denies it genius levels of cool. If a writer doesn't even acknowledge that problem then it's never going to be an especially smart movie. I still enjoyed Looper on various levels, but it got more credit than it deserved.
Your Reply:



2:24PM on 03/13/2013
Oh, look he's using Adaptation to make a point on narration! How kewl of him!

Please...

And am I the only one who thought the make-up was freaking excellent? I mean, it's like people look for thing to complain about just for the sake of it. Of course it's maybe a little distracting because you know it's fucking make-up but it's executed flawlessly.
Oh, look he's using Adaptation to make a point on narration! How kewl of him!

Please...

And am I the only one who thought the make-up was freaking excellent? I mean, it's like people look for thing to complain about just for the sake of it. Of course it's maybe a little distracting because you know it's fucking make-up but it's executed flawlessly.
Your Reply:



2:20PM on 03/13/2013
I agree with some of what you said. I hate the second half of this movie. The first half was awesome. They created a world and premise, with interesting characters, that I could get behind despite the plot-holes and flaws in logic and whatnot. The problem is, they completely abandon all of that in the second half to stay on a farm with these two terrible characters (Blunt and her annoying kid) for the rest of the movie. Complete disappointment and resentment for being mislead about that from
I agree with some of what you said. I hate the second half of this movie. The first half was awesome. They created a world and premise, with interesting characters, that I could get behind despite the plot-holes and flaws in logic and whatnot. The problem is, they completely abandon all of that in the second half to stay on a farm with these two terrible characters (Blunt and her annoying kid) for the rest of the movie. Complete disappointment and resentment for being mislead about that from the trailers. I wanted to see a futuristic action thriller with JGL and Bruce Willis. Not a crappy, horrible melodrama about a mother who gave up her child and has a change of heart. That's why I was rooting for Willis in the latter half of the movie. I hated Cid. Just annoying to look at and listen to. Plus, if JGL hadn't ripped the map in half, Willis might've gone to the farm first (since it was close to where they already were) and got into a fight with Cid or killed him, rather than accidentally killing Piper Perabo's kid looking for The Rainmaker. Not only is it wholly unfair that Piper Perabo had to lose her kid, but it's completely unsatisfying that her presumably innocent child was murdered while Emily Blunt and her more-than-likely evil child got to live in the end. I'm fine with villains winning every now and then but only when they're actually fun to watch. The whole third act, where it was all about the farm and those two annoying people, was not fun to watch.
Your Reply:



5:05PM on 03/13/2013
agreed. farm scene was 40 minutes too long
agreed. farm scene was 40 minutes too long
2:17PM on 03/13/2013

It was good

I like it when you do these Alex. I hear your saying, but I must disagree. You shouldn't need everything to be spelled out for you around every corner. You are right about the make up. They should have gotten someone that either resembles BW, or just not use any make up.
I like it when you do these Alex. I hear your saying, but I must disagree. You shouldn't need everything to be spelled out for you around every corner. You are right about the make up. They should have gotten someone that either resembles BW, or just not use any make up.
Your Reply:



2:11PM on 03/13/2013

i whole-heartily agree

everyone kept saying that the movie was good because it didnt use time-travel as a major plot point but it was a huge plot point. If you want a great science fiction movie that uses time-travel in a small way, watch "The Terminator". That movie did it right, and i think "Looper" tried to create a similar thing but ended up with the exact same thing but with a more convoluted plot. Also, if killing people in the future is such a big no-no, why do they kill Bruce Willis's wife like it was
everyone kept saying that the movie was good because it didnt use time-travel as a major plot point but it was a huge plot point. If you want a great science fiction movie that uses time-travel in a small way, watch "The Terminator". That movie did it right, and i think "Looper" tried to create a similar thing but ended up with the exact same thing but with a more convoluted plot. Also, if killing people in the future is such a big no-no, why do they kill Bruce Willis's wife like it was nothing? Those "everything wrong with (blank) in under 3 minutes" videos on Youtube totally hit the nail on the head with this movie.

I dont know if you've done this one or not for the artilcle but I really liked "Sucker Punch". I didnt see it as shallow but as a story about friendship and mental stability. Anyway, keep up the good work
Your Reply:



2:15PM on 03/13/2013
and $5 says that kid still turns into an asshole
and $5 says that kid still turns into an asshole
2:09PM on 03/13/2013

THANK YOU!

I know I give you a lot of flack but this is one of those rare occasions where I not only agree with you but I need this column to exist so that I know I'm not crazy and others feel the same way.
I know I give you a lot of flack but this is one of those rare occasions where I not only agree with you but I need this column to exist so that I know I'm not crazy and others feel the same way.
Your Reply:



2:06PM on 03/13/2013

UGH

While no movie will be universally liked or disliked (the point of this column!), and while you may have genuinely been disappointed with Looper, I just wish you had better reasons. Rian Johnson was overtly obvious and acknowledged the loopholes in the plot with the dialogue during the diner scene. HE'S MAKING FUN OF IT. You can't explain it, you can't explain any time travel movie to the fullest extent. It's all hypotheses that cannot be proven and with every single theory there is an unknown
While no movie will be universally liked or disliked (the point of this column!), and while you may have genuinely been disappointed with Looper, I just wish you had better reasons. Rian Johnson was overtly obvious and acknowledged the loopholes in the plot with the dialogue during the diner scene. HE'S MAKING FUN OF IT. You can't explain it, you can't explain any time travel movie to the fullest extent. It's all hypotheses that cannot be proven and with every single theory there is an unknown that cannot be explained. To assume we know what is right or wrong or what can or cannot be explained is not logical. "But, we are expected to forgive this complicated scenario by calling it suspension of disbelief." YES ITS A TIME TRAVEL SCI-FI MOVIE!! Have fun with it just as Rian Johnson did. "This time travel crap, just fries your brain like a egg... " It indeed does, and how cool is that? PS: JGL's prosthetics look amazing. If this was his first role and you didn't know it was JGL, there would be no issues.
Your Reply:



10:47AM on 03/14/2013
The problem is that time travel either involves alternative time lines or it doesn't and if there are not alternative time lines then there is only one time line. The coolest time travel stories involve a single time line because you have to deal with the idea of somebody traveling back in time and actually fulfilling history so that nothing is actually changed. The laziest time travel stories mix multiple and single time lines so you go back in time and change things but then killing your
The problem is that time travel either involves alternative time lines or it doesn't and if there are not alternative time lines then there is only one time line. The coolest time travel stories involve a single time line because you have to deal with the idea of somebody traveling back in time and actually fulfilling history so that nothing is actually changed. The laziest time travel stories mix multiple and single time lines so you go back in time and change things but then killing your younger self (or father or grandfather) causes you to disappear, which the very paradox that multiple time lines are meant to avoid.
2:03PM on 03/13/2013

Respectfully disagree

I have to respectfully disagree and I'd like to actually address some of the points you bring up. Your article is interesting because a lot of the points you bring up are ones I hadn't considered to be important upon viewing. This isn't a bad thing. If anything, it reinforces the need for a column like this on the site. That being said, I wanted to offer a bit of my own viewpoint on the film:

Much like Children of Men and Blade Runner, I don't think there needs to be explanation as to
I have to respectfully disagree and I'd like to actually address some of the points you bring up. Your article is interesting because a lot of the points you bring up are ones I hadn't considered to be important upon viewing. This isn't a bad thing. If anything, it reinforces the need for a column like this on the site. That being said, I wanted to offer a bit of my own viewpoint on the film:

Much like Children of Men and Blade Runner, I don't think there needs to be explanation as to the state of the future environment. Take Children of Men, for example. The future is bleak and has descended into anarchy. We can surmise that it has something to do with women being infertile, and thereby possibly questioning whether or not we need a government at all since there won't be future generations to watch out for. All of this comes from me trying to piece these ideas together to fill in the cracks that are missing from the story. I haven't read the book, so it may provide more depth that the film on this particular plot point. I think a lot of science fiction leaves those cracks for you to fill. Certainly, this doesn't work in every science fiction story, but for me not explaining how the future got the way it is wasn't a crucial factor for me. The world did seem real enough to me and plausible and I didn't have an issue with any of the spaces the characters inhabited.

As far as time travel is concerned, any, and I mean ANY time travel story must be entered into with a heavy dose of disbelief. In my opinion, La Jetee and 12 Monkeys are the only two time travel stories that I can buy because both of them understand time travel's fundamental rule: you cannot change the past. The Terminator, Back to the Future, Donnie Darko, etc., these films tend to not be nitpicked about the time travel details by most people. I'd say Back to the Future's enjoyment is in its own nostalgia factor and the epic stakes of the trilogy. The Terminator is by far the most absurd time travel plot ever created. Yet these films still resonate and are still important today because the ideas they present are universal and valid to the human experience. I feel Looper does the same thing, but gets a lot of flack for not explaining the time travel aspects. The aforementioned films NEVER explain their time travel elements, and if they do it's usually theoretical and not plausible in any sort of real world scenario (see Back to the Future Part II when Old Biff steals the DeLorean, goes to young Biff with the Sports Almanac in the 50's and then miraculously travels back to the future where Doc and Marty exist and disintegrates).

My point is, time travel is a ridiculous paradox. No film or story is ever going to explain it properly because the mere idea is ludicrous. Primer does its best to give you a plausible what-if scenario, but it's still a what-if. I think citing a time travel film as not explaining its own time travel rules is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. You have to accept the time travel on the films rules unquestionably or else it's unwise to sign up for the journey, in my opinion.

The telekenesis is a stretch in the film, I will admit that. For me though, it served its emotional purpose in the finale and also was part of the catalyst for Joe to change in the end. It was secondary to the character's arc, so to me it worked well. However, I think the suggestion that Daniels' criminal character would know the identity of the Rainmaker isn't necessarily true. Consider the fact that, as Old Joe says, the Rainmaker starts closing the loops. That would suggest that he is trying to eradicate the Loopers for an unknown purpose, also suggesting that the Rainmaker would be an adversary to Loopers, and by association Jeff Daniels' character. We also don't necessarily know when Daniels' character was sent to the past to run Kansas City. It had to have been before the Rainmaker's future "reign of terror" hinted at in the film. Thereby, there's no logical reason that Daniels' character would know anything concerning the Rainmaker. There's plenty left open on that end of the story, but to me Daniels' character had no reason to have known anything about the Rainmaker. If we knew the character's age we could have a better idea of whether or not that's a valid plot hole.

I too would have liked to see information presented in a better way than voice-over narration, but it didn't deter me from the story upon my first or second viewings. I think at its' emotional core, the film offers an abundance of content, which to me outweighs the minor gripes I had with it.

All that being said, I love this column!
Your Reply:



11:07AM on 03/14/2013
Why is The Terminator absurd? Never mind the second and third movies that confuse the issue: what's wrong with the premise of the first movie? Reese always did go back in time to meet Sarah Conner because that is how John Conner is born. There's a closed loop in The Terminator. Despite the title, there's no closed loop in Looper: Joe goes back in time from 2074 which results in him dying in 2044. Wait. What? If he dies in 2044 then how does he go back in time in 2074?
Why is The Terminator absurd? Never mind the second and third movies that confuse the issue: what's wrong with the premise of the first movie? Reese always did go back in time to meet Sarah Conner because that is how John Conner is born. There's a closed loop in The Terminator. Despite the title, there's no closed loop in Looper: Joe goes back in time from 2074 which results in him dying in 2044. Wait. What? If he dies in 2044 then how does he go back in time in 2074?
1:34PM on 03/13/2013
Agree with you.Looper is a bit overrated.it didn't meet my expectations and it disappointed me.even though Rian johnson selected an interesting premise,he couldn't turn it into an exciting movie.and the climax is very silly
Agree with you.Looper is a bit overrated.it didn't meet my expectations and it disappointed me.even though Rian johnson selected an interesting premise,he couldn't turn it into an exciting movie.and the climax is very silly
Your Reply:



1:26PM on 03/13/2013
I thought the movie was a cool piece of a Sci-Fi film. It was good, but I admit that Levitt's prosthetics were distracting and I could have done without them. But what irks me the most is the ending. If he kills himself then how do any of the events in this film take place.

I thought it was a well directed, acted, and written except for some plot holes film with a cool concept. I also thought the best part of the film was Emily Blunt. Her character was a total badass and she stole every
I thought the movie was a cool piece of a Sci-Fi film. It was good, but I admit that Levitt's prosthetics were distracting and I could have done without them. But what irks me the most is the ending. If he kills himself then how do any of the events in this film take place.

I thought it was a well directed, acted, and written except for some plot holes film with a cool concept. I also thought the best part of the film was Emily Blunt. Her character was a total badass and she stole every scene she was in. She totally played against type and she nailed it.
Your Reply:



9:16AM on 03/14/2013
Sorry I disagree & the subplot inolving her & the kid severely slowed the movie down. Nevermind the fact it takes a whole hour before she appears.
Sorry I disagree & the subplot inolving her & the kid severely slowed the movie down. Nevermind the fact it takes a whole hour before she appears.
1:24PM on 03/13/2013

Disagree.

A) Why does the film need to explain to you why the future is the way it is? MAD MAX didn't explain it to you (although ROAD WARRIOR did). BLADE RUNNER didn't explain it to you. ROBOCOP and countless others didn't explain it to you, they just inserted you into the world. It's not the film's job to explain how every single president following Obama contributed to the current state of society in this futuristic portrayal. You don't need to know everything. Weak point.

B) Your point about
A) Why does the film need to explain to you why the future is the way it is? MAD MAX didn't explain it to you (although ROAD WARRIOR did). BLADE RUNNER didn't explain it to you. ROBOCOP and countless others didn't explain it to you, they just inserted you into the world. It's not the film's job to explain how every single president following Obama contributed to the current state of society in this futuristic portrayal. You don't need to know everything. Weak point.

B) Your point about Future Joe disappearing the second he's not killed could be valid, and be an interesting discussion. However, all time travel movies technically suffer from this plot hole. In JJ Abrams' STAR TREK, wouldn't young Spock eventually grow up and know how to prevent the destruction of Romulus, and therefore keep Nero from being driven to such vengeance that he would go back in time and destroy Vulcan? Wouldn't that mean that Spock Prime would have disappeared the instant he met young Spock? Even the greatest time travel movies possess plot holes... For example, how come George and Lorraine McFly don't recognize their son as that mysterious kid who got them together back in high school? You don't sell me on this argument as being a worthwhile detractor from the tale's quality.

C) Telekinesis is not "mind control." I know, that was probably a typo.
Your Reply:



2:51AM on 03/14/2013
Star Trek uses alternate timelines, yo. Saves it from the brokenness of the space-time continuum.
Star Trek uses alternate timelines, yo. Saves it from the brokenness of the space-time continuum.
11:13AM on 03/14/2013
"Star Trek uses alternat[iv]e timelines"

except when they don't.
"Star Trek uses alternat[iv]e timelines"

except when they don't.
1:13PM on 03/13/2013

Thank god someone said it

The most overrated film in a decade. If joe kills himself then the whole story wouldn't. And don't give me any crap about a parallel timeline, because if that were true, future joe wouldn't have disappeared. He would remained in that timeline even if young joe died.
The most overrated film in a decade. If joe kills himself then the whole story wouldn't. And don't give me any crap about a parallel timeline, because if that were true, future joe wouldn't have disappeared. He would remained in that timeline even if young joe died.
Your Reply:



4:15PM on 03/13/2013
...which is the biggest plot hole in the movie. And people swear up and down this movie is good. It tried too hard to be a 12 Monkeys meets The Terminator and it failed.
...which is the biggest plot hole in the movie. And people swear up and down this movie is good. It tried too hard to be a 12 Monkeys meets The Terminator and it failed.
1:07PM on 03/13/2013
The funniest part about Looper, was the scene when JGL tried to question Bruce Willis about time travel, then Willis is like "listen, we could sit around drawing diagrams all day" Can't tell whether that's lazy writing or just plain wit. I enjoyed Looper though, but I'd also say it's pretty overrated, it's just an action movie to me and far from brilliance.
On a side note:
I really want the next column of the unpopular opinion to be on Killing Them Softly. Boy that was the most disappointing
The funniest part about Looper, was the scene when JGL tried to question Bruce Willis about time travel, then Willis is like "listen, we could sit around drawing diagrams all day" Can't tell whether that's lazy writing or just plain wit. I enjoyed Looper though, but I'd also say it's pretty overrated, it's just an action movie to me and far from brilliance.
On a side note:
I really want the next column of the unpopular opinion to be on Killing Them Softly. Boy that was the most disappointing film I saw last year. So boring and pretentious. I'm pretty sure most liked it because we got to see Brad Pitt with slicked back hair, Ray-Ban's, chewing on gum constantly, and Gandolfini being closest to Tony Soprano...since The Sopranos.
Your Reply:



1:06PM on 03/13/2013

Agreed...

I am with you on this one. There were way to many slow points in this movie that lost me completely. For example, It felt like the one scene where Emily Blunt was smoking in bed lasted for 10 minutes and served no purpose once so ever. It seemed like the movie was trying overly hard to be "artsy". And I hated the whole psychic evil child angle, not good!
I am with you on this one. There were way to many slow points in this movie that lost me completely. For example, It felt like the one scene where Emily Blunt was smoking in bed lasted for 10 minutes and served no purpose once so ever. It seemed like the movie was trying overly hard to be "artsy". And I hated the whole psychic evil child angle, not good!
Your Reply:



1:05PM on 03/13/2013
I like these op ed pieces you guys do. Even though I loved the movie, I get what your talking about. The face make-up for JGL was a little distracting, and I wouldn't mind if they just left JGL to simply be without it would have been better. Other than that, I loved it. And yes, I did find Emily Blunt to be more than her usual self here. Many would disagree because her character is so small and does nothing to satisfy their attractiveness to her, but I found her to be a strong character, and
I like these op ed pieces you guys do. Even though I loved the movie, I get what your talking about. The face make-up for JGL was a little distracting, and I wouldn't mind if they just left JGL to simply be without it would have been better. Other than that, I loved it. And yes, I did find Emily Blunt to be more than her usual self here. Many would disagree because her character is so small and does nothing to satisfy their attractiveness to her, but I found her to be a strong character, and not just a stereotype of hot woman doing nothing.
Your Reply:



12:54PM on 03/13/2013
The big reason I disagree with you is because Emily Blunt is awful int his movie. She does a terrible job to me and I am a fan
The big reason I disagree with you is because Emily Blunt is awful int his movie. She does a terrible job to me and I am a fan
Your Reply:



1:08PM on 03/13/2013
You're insane. Emily Blunt stole this whole movie.
You're insane. Emily Blunt stole this whole movie.
1:57PM on 03/13/2013
I agree with The_Soloist. When the movie ended, one of the my first comments was that Emily Blunt stole the movie and she's developing into quite the actress. While you're entitled to your opinion, and I may not call it insane, I can't see how anyone would think she was awful.
I agree with The_Soloist. When the movie ended, one of the my first comments was that Emily Blunt stole the movie and she's developing into quite the actress. While you're entitled to your opinion, and I may not call it insane, I can't see how anyone would think she was awful.