Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Mon Oct 20, 2014 10:03 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
LOOPER 
Author Message
Post Re: LOOPER
4 stars from me. Brilliant as both science fiction and hard-hitting drama. Moral ambiguity abound, indeed the question of whether people really can "change" is up for debate and the movie offers no clear cut answer, which I love.

As for all the nit-picks about the movie, let me just say that time travel and cause-effect-on-the-future by definition is riddled with inconsistencies and paradoxes. It's not going to be perfectly airtight. Any movie that uses it should tread carefully and at least engage the paradoxes. I am reminded of Minority Report, which was about pre-cognition instead of time travel, but the themes are similar.


Sat Sep 29, 2012 1:56 pm
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1583
Post Re: LOOPER
**** no question.

Reminiscent of previous sci-fi films like Blade Runner and Minority Report. But totally original. Brilliant mix of science and drama.

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Sat Sep 29, 2012 4:41 pm
Profile
Post Re: LOOPER
It's great when you get to see an intelligent film done well and be able to say you truly haven't seen anything like it before.

Looper was all around an interesting sci-fi ride. To be honest, I was expecting it to be something else, like Young Joe having to protect his future self from assassination, but then that would have been too conventional and that's not what Rian Johnson was after.

The story moves in different directions many times, and that took me by surprise. By introducing the telekinetic angle, for example, or by not having both Joes team up and become buddies. In fact, you could say that in some ways Old Joe was the villain here, but then again, everything is so morally ambiguous you can't really make up your mind on it.

Many details are left unexplored: how exactly does the future in 2074 work, apparently run by crime syndicates? Why was time travel outlawed? And why exactly do they need to send targets thirty years in the past? The movie only hints at all this, leaving it to the audience to fill in the gaps, which I thought was great.

Great performances all around; Bruce Willis is doing some real acting here! Great to watch.

There's a small little detail I wanted to point out. Not important to the film itself, just something I found amusing, but just in case, I'll tag it as a spoiler:

[Reveal] Spoiler:
Was Jesse the future version of Kid Blue? At the beginning I remember everyone busting his balls about not shooting his other foot off, and at one point Bruce Willis does shoot him in the foot. When Jesse shows up on the farm, Sara stares at his feet as the camera focuses on them, and was it me, or did he have some kind of metal prosthetic in there? It was so quick I didn't get a good look. And since Young Joe did recognize him...

Either that, or I started thinking that maybe Abe was the future Kid Blue. Just something in the way they treated each other.


Sat Sep 29, 2012 7:51 pm
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:35 am
Posts: 2116
Post Re: LOOPER
[Reveal] Spoiler:
My guess is that in the future where Willis's wife dies, someone else went back in time and killed the kid's mother.

Since the people in the future have a time machine, I see no problem with them sending back the time when the execution is planned. It's precisely 30 years (to the exact minute) from when the time machine is activated. Since Willis fought for a few minutes, he came through late.

_________________
Evil does not wear a bonnet!--Mr. Tinkles


Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:00 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:35 am
Posts: 2116
Post Re: LOOPER
neco82 wrote:
Why was time travel outlawed? And why exactly do they need to send targets thirty years in the past?


The events in the movie seem to indicate one reason why time travel was outlawed. Criminal gangs were using it to kill people.

Thirty years was probably arbitrary. They need to send them back to the time where Jeff Daniels was running the operation. The stated purpose was so that the bodies couldn't be identified by advanced forensics. That may be a mistake; your fingerprints wouldn't change over 30 years, and the cops in 2044 would really be wondering why they keep finding all these 60-year-old bodies with the fingerprints of a 30-year-old.

It would be interesting to try someone for a murder when the victim is still alive.

_________________
Evil does not wear a bonnet!--Mr. Tinkles


Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:10 pm
Profile
Post Re: LOOPER
Syd Henderson wrote:
neco82 wrote:
Why was time travel outlawed? And why exactly do they need to send targets thirty years in the past?


The events in the movie seem to indicate one reason why time travel was outlawed. Criminal gangs were using it to kill people.

Thirty years was probably arbitrary. They need to send them back to the time where Jeff Daniels was running the operation. The stated purpose was so that the bodies couldn't be identified by advanced forensics. That may be a mistake; your fingerprints wouldn't change over 30 years, and the cops in 2044 would really be wondering why they keep finding all these 60-year-old bodies with the fingerprints of a 30-year-old.

It would be interesting to try someone for a murder when the victim is still alive.


Interesting! I'm actually glad the movie kept these details ambiguous. That is an intriguing idea you put there, trying someone for the murder of a still-alive victim. Just one of the many fascinating possibilities this movie makes you ponder.


Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:19 pm
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:51 pm
Posts: 426
Location: Durham, NC
Post Re: LOOPER
Syd Henderson wrote:
[Reveal] Spoiler:
My guess is that in the future where Willis's wife dies, someone else went back in time and killed the kid's mother.

Since the people in the future have a time machine, I see no problem with them sending back the time when the execution is planned. It's precisely 30 years (to the exact minute) from when the time machine is activated. Since Willis fought for a few minutes, he came through late.



[Reveal] Spoiler:
Saw Lopper last night and loved it. Really good film. I kinda agree with what you said about "someone else could have went back in time and killed Cid's mother". But what reasoning would they have to do this? Older Joe has his reasons, but its hard to say what other reasoning could be.However, the questions still remains, will Sarah's nurture defeats Cid's nature? Its possible that it will, or its possible that Cid will still end up as "The Rainmaker" even with Sarah as a paternal influence; because Cid is still the variable in the equation.

_________________
"I have now come to claim that satisfaction."


Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:29 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:35 am
Posts: 2116
Post Re: LOOPER
JackBurns wrote:
Syd Henderson wrote:
[Reveal] Spoiler:
My guess is that in the future where Willis's wife dies, someone else went back in time and killed the kid's mother.

Since the people in the future have a time machine, I see no problem with them sending back the time when the execution is planned. It's precisely 30 years (to the exact minute) from when the time machine is activated. Since Willis fought for a few minutes, he came through late.



[Reveal] Spoiler:
Saw Lopper last night and loved it. Really good film. I kinda agree with what you said about "someone else could have went back in time and killed Cid's mother". But what reasoning would they have to do this? Older Joe has his reasons, but its hard to say what other reasoning could be.However, the questions still remains, will Sarah's nurture defeats Cid's nature? Its possible that it will, or its possible that Cid will still end up as "The Rainmaker" even with Sarah as a paternal influence; because Cid is still the variable in the equation.


Come to think of it,
[Reveal] Spoiler:
I thought I saw a shot of an alternate timeline where Young Joe shot Old Joe as the latter appeared in the past. There's not a problem outside of that scene. There is a cycle where Old Joe escapes, kills the Rainmaker's mother, the Rainmaker's crew kills Old Joe's wife, Old Joe disables his attackers and goes back in time to kill the Rainmaker, but kills the Rainmaker's mother... And the cycle goes on until Young Joe breaks it by killing himself. Throughout the movie, the loopers in 2044 are changing the past (for instance, when they're cutting off parts of Seth's body), and eventually this has catastrophic consequences.

_________________
Evil does not wear a bonnet!--Mr. Tinkles


Sat Sep 29, 2012 10:49 pm
Profile
Post Re: LOOPER
Syd Henderson wrote:
JackBurns wrote:
Syd Henderson wrote:
[Reveal] Spoiler:
My guess is that in the future where Willis's wife dies, someone else went back in time and killed the kid's mother.

Since the people in the future have a time machine, I see no problem with them sending back the time when the execution is planned. It's precisely 30 years (to the exact minute) from when the time machine is activated. Since Willis fought for a few minutes, he came through late.



[Reveal] Spoiler:
Saw Lopper last night and loved it. Really good film. I kinda agree with what you said about "someone else could have went back in time and killed Cid's mother". But what reasoning would they have to do this? Older Joe has his reasons, but its hard to say what other reasoning could be.However, the questions still remains, will Sarah's nurture defeats Cid's nature? Its possible that it will, or its possible that Cid will still end up as "The Rainmaker" even with Sarah as a paternal influence; because Cid is still the variable in the equation.


Come to think of it,
[Reveal] Spoiler:
I thought I saw a shot of an alternate timeline where Young Joe shot Old Joe as the latter appeared in the past. There's not a problem outside of that scene. There is a cycle where Old Joe escapes, kills the Rainmaker's mother, the Rainmaker's crew kills Old Joe's wife, Old Joe disables his attackers and goes back in time to kill the Rainmaker, but kills the Rainmaker's mother... And the cycle goes on until Young Joe breaks it by killing himself. Throughout the movie, the loopers in 2044 are changing the past (for instance, when they're cutting off parts of Seth's body), and eventually this has catastrophic consequences.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
You did see that shot of Young Joe shooting Old Joe in the "present". He then goes, picks up his gold, his contract is fulfilled and he goes and lives his life. This is leads into the montage of scenes into the future and also where the central premise of Cid's mother living or dying kind of breaks down. She (in theory) would have been there to raise him (Old Joe being dead) but yet the Rainmaker is still there in the future to kill Old Joe's his wife and tries to have Old Joe killed too. Again...this is somewhat nitpicky and doesn't diminish the quality of the overall movie, but it is a somewhat glaring breakdown in logic that can only explained away with either a) wild theories from the viewer not presented onscreen (like...maybe Cid's mom got hit by a bus a year later) or b) giving the film a deeper meaning such as "it doesn't matter what Young Joe does (kills Old Joe or let's him live), he cannot affect the future on such a large scale as to thwart the rise of the Rainmaker"...again not really spelled out by the filmmaker but could have with an epilogue 30 years into the future .


Sat Sep 29, 2012 11:55 pm
Gaffer

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 1:08 pm
Posts: 28
Post Re: LOOPER
Going to drop spoilers since people shouldn't be reading the thread if they haven't seen the movie.

In order to explain the Rainmaker's appearance you must posit a scenario similar to Terminator. In Terminator, the robot must have failed at least once to kill Sandra Connor in order for John Connor to send back Arnold to protect his mother, otherwise John Connor would not be alive to send him back. Furthermore, in those times the father is not the same person that John Connor sends back to protect his mother as it is in the Terminator we saw. Similarly for Looper, it must be the case that the Rainmaker appears due to some other intervention in another timeline. At that point Old Joe as we know it is created and the movie proceeds as normal.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
My logical sticking points are:
1) The best thing to do with a time machine is send people you want dead into the past to make cleanup easier? Really? Also they seem to have no problem kidnapping people and or killing Old Joe's wife in the future, so it seems unlikely they need a time machine to do their dirty work.

2) The part where what you do to yourself effects your future self is cool but violates the fact that the only way the movie works is with a new timeline every instance of time travel and in that case there should be no effect on your older self since you are not the younger version of him.


Sun Sep 30, 2012 8:59 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1583
Post Re: LOOPER
One thing:

[Reveal] Spoiler:
When Sara tells Joe that her sister was killed, I thought for sure it would be revealed later that Joe or one of the other Loopers had killed her.

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Sun Sep 30, 2012 10:24 am
Profile
Gaffer

Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 3:13 pm
Posts: 42
Post Re: LOOPER
I really enjoyed this movie despite the fact I only heard about it one week ago and decided to go and see it.
Everyone has already discussed the major themes at this point, but I wanted to give props and ask a couple of dumb questions.
First I thought Jeff Daniels did a great job and love that the writers used an actor like him in this role. They could have used a different actor or created a "evil genius" type of bad guy but it would not have been the same.
I also thought that Pierce Gagnon - the little kid Cid - did a wonderful job. I don't know if he is a great little actor or if he is just capable of being a great presence. It is hard to tell at this early an age but I thought he did great.
[Reveal] Spoiler:
I know this will sound like dumb questions but I assumed that Jeff Daniels was the chief of police in 2044 where current Joe is now? I am asking because I kept seeing police (cars and helicopters) but they never seemed to be actually stopping crime only just driving/flying around. So if he isn't are the real police inept or corrupt or both.
But then I thought he is really underground - strip club basement - so I am thinking more like small time crime boss. If he wasn't the police where were the real police in all of this?
Quote:
By introducing the telekinetic angle, for example, or by not having both Joes team up and become buddies.

I was so happy when I realized - when JGL was waiting Bruce Willis' appearance at the farm - that they weren't going with that angle of JGL and Willis being partners. Just about every other movie would have tried this IMHO.
I guess to me this "time travel" is more of a alternate reality shift kind of like Quantum physics. JGL already killed one Bruce Willis - and then became him - later to come back and try to kill the
Rainmaker. But also there is another Bruce Willis who gets away and causes havoc which is the movie we are watching.



I don't know this for sure of course and at this moment don't want to "spend all day diagramming this with straws" in some lonely diner.


Sun Sep 30, 2012 5:12 pm
Profile
Gaffer

Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 3:13 pm
Posts: 42
Post Re: LOOPER
I just came across this. Director Rian Johnson explains 10 questions about Looper.
see link in spoiler.
[Reveal] Spoiler:
http://www.slashfilm.com/ten-mysteries-in-looper-explained-by-director-rian-johnson/


Sun Sep 30, 2012 5:40 pm
Profile
Post Re: LOOPER
Syd Henderson wrote:
JackBurns wrote:
Syd Henderson wrote:
[Reveal] Spoiler:
My guess is that in the future where Willis's wife dies, someone else went back in time and killed the kid's mother.

Since the people in the future have a time machine, I see no problem with them sending back the time when the execution is planned. It's precisely 30 years (to the exact minute) from when the time machine is activated. Since Willis fought for a few minutes, he came through late.



[Reveal] Spoiler:
Saw Lopper last night and loved it. Really good film. I kinda agree with what you said about "someone else could have went back in time and killed Cid's mother". But what reasoning would they have to do this? Older Joe has his reasons, but its hard to say what other reasoning could be.However, the questions still remains, will Sarah's nurture defeats Cid's nature? Its possible that it will, or its possible that Cid will still end up as "The Rainmaker" even with Sarah as a paternal influence; because Cid is still the variable in the equation.


Come to think of it,
[Reveal] Spoiler:
I thought I saw a shot of an alternate timeline where Young Joe shot Old Joe as the latter appeared in the past. There's not a problem outside of that scene. There is a cycle where Old Joe escapes, kills the Rainmaker's mother, the Rainmaker's crew kills Old Joe's wife, Old Joe disables his attackers and goes back in time to kill the Rainmaker, but kills the Rainmaker's mother... And the cycle goes on until Young Joe breaks it by killing himself. Throughout the movie, the loopers in 2044 are changing the past (for instance, when they're cutting off parts of Seth's body), and eventually this has catastrophic consequences.


I don't see specifically why
[Reveal] Spoiler:
Old Joe or anyone else had to have killed Cid's mother in the Old Joe's Wife Dies Timeline. The Rainmaker was shrouded in enough mystery that any number of things could have gone wrong with his upbringing. When Young Joe closes the loop at the end, he's merely stopping the one that would cause Cid's downfall in that timeline at that moment. And also, by leaving all the gold/silver behind, it's going to help Emily Blunt raise Cid to be not-The-Rainmaker.

On the other hand, that interview with Rian Johnson disappoints me a little, because his answer is essentially "well it couldn't have happened, but dramatically it works, so... there you go." I'll still choose my version, I think, but I wish the writer had a little more elegant explanation.


I loved it in the moment, but my brain started pretty soon rebelling against plot holes. But the more I work on it the more I like it. It's... pretty deep, actually. And man was that more emotionally effecting than I was expecting.


Sun Sep 30, 2012 7:27 pm
Post Re: LOOPER
While I liked it and would recommend it to others, I was kind of disappointed. Maybe it's because I've been anticipating this movie for almost a year and maybe it's because the reviews have been so very positive. It just didn't live up to expectations. As far as time travel movies go, I would rank it behind Primer and 12 Monkeys.

I thought the special effects were not well done and clearly done on the cheap, and the futures were not particularly well realized or believable. I'm not sure what Rian Johnson's budget was on this movie, but I think it needed to be double.

That said, it's a cool story, it has some very good dialogue, and the cast is excellent. Compared to The Brothers Bloom, however, I found it to be a step down, honestly. The Brothers Bloom is close to a perfect movie in my book.


Sun Sep 30, 2012 10:39 pm
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 431
Post Re: LOOPER
The budget of the movie is listed at 30 million so a little on the low end but the effects are used sparingly which is okay as sometimes the CGI takes over and the story is left behind.I have to agree with Darth that it was just okay and might use the word overrated. Maybe it was because I could not shake the been there and done that feeling from other better movies like 12 Monkeys,Terminator 2,Inception and TimeCop. By the second half especially when Emily Blunt appears I was getting kind of bored. I would say Inception is a brilliant blend of scifi and drama that I watched twice to understand everything. This movie is not in that need to repeat category.Decent effort but no Star Wars as one reviewer tried to compare it to.


Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:39 pm
Profile
Post Re: LOOPER
oakenshield32 wrote:
The budget of the movie is listed at 30 million so a little on the low end but the effects are used sparingly which is okay as sometimes the CGI takes over and the story is left behind.I have to agree with Darth that it was just okay and might use the word overrated. Maybe it was because I could not shake the been there and done that feeling from other better movies like 12 Monkeys,Terminator 2,Inception and TimeCop. By the second half especially when Emily Blunt appears I was getting kind of bored. I would say Inception is a brilliant blend of scifi and drama that I watched twice to understand everything. This movie is not in that need to repeat category.Decent effort but no Star Wars as one reviewer tried to compare it to.

I'd certianly rather rewatch this film then Star Wars, but otherwise I agree with you.


Mon Oct 01, 2012 6:54 pm
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 791
Location: Hobart Australia
Post Re: LOOPER
3 stars and 1/2 for me. The movie was smart and entertaining with superb acting from Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon-Levit and even the slow moments were not boring because Emily Blunt. the story relatively original (some elements of Terminator thou) but the ending..
[Reveal] Spoiler:
..Surprising but shocking at the same time. It left me a bit unsettle after I left the Cinema lol

_________________
The pen is truly mightier than the sword
The Joker (Batman - 1989)


Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:32 am
Profile WWW
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 4:46 pm
Posts: 72
Post Re: LOOPER
So I was a little disappointed in the movie, possibly because I read James' review and was expecting great things. I was bored for a significant portion of it, particularly during the beginning (it didn't really get going for me until Seth showed up at Young Joe's apartment) and a good chunk of the time Young Joe was at Sarah's house. I thought the themes were interesting, though, and the acting was superb; on the whole I would give it three stars.

For people who are caught up in time loop paradoxes, here's the solution I came up with in the theater; tell me why it doesn't work:

[Reveal] Spoiler:
In the future where Young Joe kills Old Joe, Sarah was killed by the vagrant who Young Joe chases off near when he first arrives. I know the vagrant is holding a sign, and what not, but that doesn't make him harmless. Sarah was in a pretty vulnerable position when Young Joe saved her; the desperate vagrant could easily have taken her shotgun and killed her, especially since she wasn't too keen on using it.

So this way, Sarah is killed in both the future where Young Joe kills Old Joe and where Young Joe allows Old Joe to kill Sarah. The only future in which she is saved is the one in where Young Joe shoots himself.


Tue Oct 02, 2012 4:21 am
Profile
Post Re: LOOPER
Machiara wrote:
[Reveal] Spoiler:
In the future where Young Joe kills Old Joe, Sarah was killed by the vagrant who Young Joe chases off near when he first arrives. I know the vagrant is holding a sign, and what not, but that doesn't make him harmless. Sarah was in a pretty vulnerable position when Young Joe saved her; the desperate vagrant could easily have taken her shotgun and killed her, especially since she wasn't too keen on using it.

So this way, Sarah is killed in both the future where Young Joe kills Old Joe and where Young Joe allows Old Joe to kill Sarah. The only future in which she is saved is the one in where Young Joe shoots himself.

That's a very nice solution. I like it!

Also, Rian Johnson took the time to answer some questions about the movie over at Slashfilm:

http://www.slashfilm.com/ten-mysteries- ... n-johnson/
http://www.slashfilm.com/film-video-int ... ore-140643


Wed Oct 03, 2012 12:05 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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