Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Tue Sep 02, 2014 3:50 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
LOOPER 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3137
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post LOOPER
Click here for the review of Looper

SPOILERS must be tagged with the "SPOILER" tag!


Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:21 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: LOOPER
James Berardinelli wrote:
Click here for the review of Looper

SPOILERS must be tagged with the "SPOILER" tag!

So everyone who said this was the 4-star film was right. I agree with you, JB- Mr.Gordon-Levitt has been gaining more credibility as an actor with each successive role he's taken (G.I. Joe not withstanding). It's really nice to see a child actor who didn't wind up in a drug-induced spiral into obscurity and/or the obituary of curiosities.


Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:41 pm
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: LOOPER
Called it, just as about 90% of my fellow forum posters did.

And I agree. Screened this one at TIFF, and it was absolutely brilliant. Great acting, brilliant visual effects, excellent writing, tight direction. Overall a wonderful, intelligent experience at the movies.


Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:51 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: LOOPER
James Berardinelli wrote:
Click here for the review of Looper

SPOILERS must be tagged with the "SPOILER" tag!


Is there any chance that "Looper" will enter the Top 100, or does it fall into the latter half of the four-star spectrum, just as last year's "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" did?


Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:28 pm
Profile
Post Re: LOOPER
Pretty excited to check this out this weekend....


Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:07 pm
Post Re: LOOPER
Hoo boy. Just when I thought I couldn't possibly be more excited about this one. Look's like it's gone from a Saturday matinee to a definite Friday night showing. Can't wait.


Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:41 pm
Post Re: LOOPER
Ragnarok73 wrote:
James Berardinelli wrote:
Click here for the review of Looper

SPOILERS must be tagged with the "SPOILER" tag!

So everyone who said this was the 4-star film was right. I agree with you, JB- Mr.Gordon-Levitt has been gaining more credibility as an actor with each successive role he's taken (G.I. Joe not withstanding). It's really nice to see a child actor who didn't wind up in a drug-induced spiral into obscurity and/or the obituary of curiosities.


Oh yeah, I completely forgive him for Angels In The Outfield after the choices he's made more recently! :lol: :lol: :lol:


Last edited by oafolay on Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:13 pm
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 4:52 pm
Posts: 273
Location: North Carolina
Post Re: LOOPER
I gotta see this.


Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:45 am
Profile
Post Re: LOOPER
Quote:
For me, a great film is one in which all the elements are well done. They blend together like a symphony.


I agree...with the second sentence. Therefore, I would ask:

Are the performances essential to the characters and vice-versa?
Is the action essential to both of those things?
Are the humor and romance a fundamental, essential aspect to all of the above?
Are the disturbing questions fundamentally tied into all of the above?

Best time-travel movie of all time could mean anything. I just want to know how perfect the movie is unto itself.


Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:50 am
Assistant Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:44 pm
Posts: 81
Post Re: LOOPER
Holy crap! I was jazzed to see it but now....

_________________
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
-P.J. O'Rourke


Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:43 am
Profile
Post Re: LOOPER
Awesome. It's so rare for a good science fiction movie to come out(at least one that isn't based on an existing property) that when it does, I can't help but get a little giddy. I mean, hell, even Inception was really more of a heist movie than anything. It's also nice to see Joesph Gordon-Levitt getting so many roles in so many stellar movies. I was a fan of him all the way back from when he was on 3rd Rock From The Sun, and to see someone go from a relatively obscure cult TV show to leading man makes me happy.

Oh, and I called this as being the **** movie too, albeit to myself. :)


Wed Sep 26, 2012 3:01 pm
Post Re: LOOPER
This has been one of my more anticipated movies for a while now; I loved Rian Johnson's Brick, and I thought the premise of this one was interesting. James's rave review just cemented it for me.


Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:05 am
Post Re: LOOPER
Quote:
those who fun afoul of the syndicates are hog-tied and sent back in time to 2044

Typo.

Anyway, this is a bit of a sleeper by the sounds of it, since I hadn't even heard of it till the last few weeks. I rarely go to the movies these days, but a genuine quality film will get me out there.


Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:35 am
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 3:26 pm
Posts: 107
Location: Singapore
Post Re: LOOPER
Obviously, I will go and see it when I have the chance but I fundamentally disagree with JB's assertion that time travel is a fantasy trope. It's uniquely science fiction. The fact that most authors and screenwriters don't understand it and so mess up to such an extent it looks like fantasy does not make it a fantasy trope. Secondly, unless we're going to be in a multiverse, determinism says that the younger version cannot die because that induces a paradox. Obviously, in a multiverse, we can have multiple realities and, in some, the younger one can die because that induces a branching into a new reality. However, the fact this is called Looper suggests a deterministic universe so, no matter what happens, the younger version cannot die. More importantly, the older one knows exactly what happened to enable him to survive until a mature age. Without having seen it, I can say no more but, at this point, I'm not optimistic Looper will be any good.


Fri Sep 28, 2012 1:45 am
Profile WWW
Second Unit Director

Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 4:13 am
Posts: 330
Post Re: LOOPER
Saw a midnight showing of this film yesterday, and I would agree it is a pretty great movie. It belongs in the pantheon of engaging time travel movies we've been getting recently, like "Triangle" and "Timecrimes." It's really difficult to discuss this film without going into spoilers. I will say that in my opinion, "Looper" is Bruce Willis' best film since "The Sixth Sense," although his role is secondary to Joseph Gordon Levitt.

I definitely have some question regarding the main plot-line of the film:

[Reveal] Spoiler:
So basically, Old Joe is intent on killing the "Rainmaker." At the end of the movie, however, it is heavily implied that by killing the mother, Joe creates the motive for the boy to become the Rainmaker. If this is the case, then how did the boy become the rainmaker in the timeline where Old Joe's wife is killed? Old Joe hadn't gone back to try to kill the Rainmaker.

Another question I just thought of is that what use would the hospital records for the Rainmaker been to Old Joe in the future? By that point in time, he is probably so removed from his origins that would take an entirely new set of data to track him down.


If these issues do represent lapses in logic, they are minor and won't infringe on your viewing experience. Hopefully, we can have an interesting discussion.


Fri Sep 28, 2012 1:53 pm
Profile
Post Re: LOOPER
Awesome movie. 9.5/10. I loved the thematic stuff, some of which I discuss below.

My two complaints:

[Reveal] Spoiler:
1. I was laughing at the end when The Rainmaker kid made everyone float. It felt too big of a moment. Wish it had been smaller, since the rest of the movie had been. I mean, there were like five shots of the kid looking ANGRY FACE. He kinda looked like my brother as a kid; maybe that's what had me giggling.

2. I wish they could have rigged this movie without bringing mutant stuff into it. Mutant stuff... less interesting to me.


jadedmoviegoer wrote:
[Reveal] Spoiler:
So basically, Old Joe is intent on killing the "Rainmaker." At the end of the movie, however, it is heavily implied that by killing the mother, Joe creates the motive for the boy to become the Rainmaker. If this is the case, then how did the boy become the rainmaker in the timeline where Old Joe's wife is killed? Old Joe hadn't gone back to try to kill the Rainmaker.

Another question I just thought of is that what use would the hospital records for the Rainmaker been to Old Joe in the future? By that point in time, he is probably so removed from his origins that would take an entirely new set of data to track him down.


If these issues do represent lapses in logic, they are minor and won't infringe on your viewing experience. Hopefully, we can have an interesting discussion.


[Reveal] Spoiler:
During the movie, I sensed that the loop of "evil begetting evil" was more thematic than literal. And then on the drive home, I had the same thought you did, about the impossibility of Bruce Willis having originally killed The Rainmaker's mom. I mean, the beginning of the movie directly contradicts this possibility. We see Bruce Willis's past, and him shooting his past self. A version of The Rainmaker whose mother had been shot by Bruce Willis did not exist in Bruce Willis's timeline.

So yeah, I'm going for "the loop is thematic" in this case. And hopefully Joseph Gordon-Levitt's death inspired Emily Blunt to move her son elsewhere, saving her life (if her death was what indeed provoked The Rainmaker to become evil -- which was speculation on Joseph Gordon-Levitt's part) and preventing Hitler from being made. It makes sense to me that Joseph Gordon-Levitt would kill himself for just the chance of a kid not turning to crime, since the absence of his own mother did turn Joseph Gordon-Levitt to crime.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt dying was a selfless act which did three things: (1) made a cool thematic statement about personal responsibility and the cause-and-effect of one's actions, (2) took care of the Bruce Willis running-loop and (3) atoned for his life of crime.

I don't know about the hospital records. I think I missed that part. Had to run to the restroom dammit.


Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:46 pm
Post Re: LOOPER
I pretty much agree with Jamie, good film but it has some flaws that get in the way, it occasionally gets bogged down by the pacing, the sometimes akward sounding dialogue, and the addition of telekinesis, which just dosen't feel like it fits in with the rest of the film. Still this is by far Levitt's best performance and while I did guess most of the twists, the ending did surprise me in a good way, so using JBs rating system, I guess i'd give the film 3 stars.


Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:57 pm
Post Re: LOOPER
3.5 from me and my "nitpicks"...and some are indeed "nitpicky"

[Reveal] Spoiler:
-The cause/effect of injuring a younger self and it instantly affecting the older self is a bit tenuous. Cut off someone's hand; mightn't their older self then have a prosthetic hand?
-I would have liked to learn more about how a Looper knows when to be at the kill spot for a returner. Is it a standing, set time every couple of days or something, or is there some communication from the future somehow?
-Having one of the 3 rainmakers be his stripper girlfriend's kid was a bit TOO big of a coincidence for me.
-Wonder what happens to the poor Looper who dies naturally 2 years before time travel is discovered. Poor sucker is stuck in his contract for 28 years!
-So, objectively, the Loopers are technically bad guys. They work for underworld syndicates and are cold blooded killers. The "Rainmaker" comes in and eliminates the Loopers and takes over the syndicates....to run them or shut them down? Mightn't the Rainmaker objectively be a "good guy" in the original future since he's f-ing up the "bad guy" loopers? On one level I actually like that the movie leaves this ambiguous, but on another would have appreciated a "30 years in the future" epilogue.

-There is a bit of a flaw in the film's central logic in that the central premise is that the Rainmaker comes about due to the loss of his mother, Sara, at a young age. Much like how Joe lost his mother and turned to a life of crime. So in the film, the "first time through", Joe shoots Old Joe as planned and we see his life unspool into the future. And the Rainmaker is still there. But Old Joe never had the chance to shoot Sara, so the movie's central premise falls apart. Unless the timeline change is that Sara is not only alive, but also has knowledge of the future that her son becomes an asshole and takes extra special care to prevent it. Either way, that "30 years in the future" epilogue would have done much to demonstrate that either the future is changeable or that it is all pre-destined and nothing Joe could have done (short of killing Cid) would change that.


Sat Sep 29, 2012 1:32 am
Post Re: LOOPER
johnny larue wrote:
3.5 from me and my "nitpicks"...and some are indeed "nitpicky"

[Reveal] Spoiler:
-I would have liked to learn more about how a Looper knows when to be at the kill spot for a returner. Is it a standing, set time every couple of days or something, or is there some communication from the future somehow?


[Reveal] Spoiler:
I think we saw them getting little slips of paper with times on them. I remember seeing one that said 11:30.


Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:42 am
Post Re: LOOPER
Jaimie wrote:
johnny larue wrote:
3.5 from me and my "nitpicks"...and some are indeed "nitpicky"

[Reveal] Spoiler:
-I would have liked to learn more about how a Looper knows when to be at the kill spot for a returner. Is it a standing, set time every couple of days or something, or is there some communication from the future somehow?


[Reveal] Spoiler:
I think we saw them getting little slips of paper with times on them. I remember seeing one that said 11:30.

Thanks...I must have missed that. Now...where do those slips of paper come from???


Sat Sep 29, 2012 1:35 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr