Looper *SPOILERS FROM POST 137*

Jimdagym

homerun_homer wrote: »

I sorta looked at the Rainmaker closing off the Loops as him maybe trying to stop any possibility of someone going back in time to mess with his rise to the top of the mafia/criminal underworld and lessen the chance that someone like Joe would try and change the future.

But he wasn't doing anything to stop / prevent time travel. The only people to time travel were those about to meet a bullet.

stevenmu

I really liked the figure-of-8 loop in the middle where young Joe failed to kill old Joe, but then seemed to die when he fell from the fire escape, causing a paradox and time resetting, and then he did kill old Joe, letting him grow old, and then escape and come back in time. That was done pretty well.

I don't get why him killing himself at the end didn't cause another paradox though.

Fishooks12

Just back from it. Rather good, plenty to like but plenty that didn't really do it for me too.

Some of the cons:

Pretty boring visuals for a film set in the future. Although the last two films I've seen (bar the pretty awful Campaign) were visually stunning (Prometheus, Killing them Softly) so it just looks a bit dull in comparison

Knew very quickly that the child was the "rainmaker"

JGL eyebrows!!

Was unsure why they went half way to fleshing out the character of the young Gatling Gunner, then just seemed to give up. I mean what was the whole dynamic between him and Jeff Daniels character about?

The child could have worked as an instigator, but how are we supposed to feel in anyway satisfied about the ending when we saw none of the damage he would have gone on to do had JGL not took his own life



Not going to go into the paradoxes. Time travel films have a bit of leeway in my book anyway.

Overall an enjoyable experience, but no Primer.

Fishooks12

krudler wrote: »

. Looper does look great for its relatively low budget, some decent effects and shots.

Primer looks ten times better and cost about 20k to make. Looper had enough buck to make it look a lot better than it did for most of the film

johnny_ultimate

Thought the film looked absolutely fantastic TBH. It was meant to be gritty and hardboiled as opposed to shallow futuristic flash. As pretty as the good ship Prometheus is, I don't for a second believe it could actually exist or function. This ugly future? I can see it - in fact I even sort of recognise it. The effects were also used sparingly and efficiently to enhance the world and story, which makes a welcome change.

Not saying it's Samsara or anything, but it's understated, unshowy visuals are IMO one of its strongest assets.

Corholio

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Thought the film looked absolutely fantastic TBH. It was meant to be gritty and hardboiled as opposed to shallow futuristic flash. As pretty as the good ship Prometheus is, I don't for a second believe it could actually exist or function. This ugly future? I can see it - in fact I even sort of recognise it. The effects were also used sparingly and efficiently to enhance the world and story, which makes a welcome change.

Not saying it's Samsara or anything, but it's understated, unshowy visuals are IMO one of its strongest assets.

This.

It's not meant to be the shiny chrome future of other films. There's touches here and there that shows it's the future, and considering the film's tone, the future vision was perfect for the film IMO.

SVG

Saw this today and enjoyed it.

I think a good chunk of my appreciation comes from the fact that it didn't treat me like a moron- it felt smart. Characters with a bit of depth, clever dialogue, some humour. For a film with time travel, it didn't feel too explain-y. The only moment that stood out to me as being very expositiony was that bit where they pass the ad about telekinesis and Paul Dano (wasn't he annoying?) is doing the coin trick.

I kind of wish the stuff about telekinesis had just been cut out. In a film that's already complicated by time travel, all that magic felt like an unnecessary complication. That said, I did like the moment where Emily Blunt talked about how she'd thwart guys' efforts to impress her with their powers.

The setting really did feel like a homage to all those eighties films with dystopias filled with homeless people pushing trolleys. That brattish guy who was chasing Joe was pure spoilt-kid eighties villain, right down to his eyebrows. And I thought this was a great role for Bruce, playing with his eighties/nineties action persona in a clever way. If Rian Johnson wants to go back in time and re-do the Expendables, I'd consider it a great, humanitarian use of time travel.

It had style too. I liked the slapbang edits- some of it felt Edgar Wright-ish. And that montage! Fun, fun, fun. At that stage in the film I was kind of hoping that it would continue in that vein- looping through the future and back (I would like to see that version of the film too). Where it actually went, to the farm, felt very different from the first part of the film. The pace felt completely different. I'm not sure the two parts fit together but Emily Blunt was so good that I was ok with it.

So overall- above average, interesting, clever, fun. Glad I saw it on the big screen.

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Thought the film looked absolutely fantastic TBH. It was meant to be gritty and hardboiled as opposed to shallow futuristic flash. As pretty as the good ship Prometheus is, I don't for a second believe it could actually exist or function. This ugly future? I can see it - in fact I even sort of recognise it. The effects were also used sparingly and efficiently to enhance the world and story, which makes a welcome change.

Not saying it's Samsara or anything, but it's understated, unshowy visuals are IMO one of its strongest assets.

I loved the look of the world, the cobbled together cars with solar panels stuck to them without being all nice and sleek, just exposed wires and panels. The big hats the guys wore in the old Joe time scenes, the glass phones, the flying bikes that werent some super futuristic hovercraft but basically a big rideable jet engine. it all seemed sci fi but grounded in reality. the scene where Blunt and Levitt are running out of the house as the kid is making everything levitate is going to be one of the most remembered shots of the year without a doubt.
I liked how the people appeared from the future too, no extravagant effect, they just appear, no Quantum Leap or BTTF style visuals needed.

Josey Wales

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Primer looks ten times better and cost about 20k to make. Looper had enough buck to make it look a lot better than it did for most of the film

I watched Primer for the first time the other night and that film does not in any way look better than Looper. It was an achievement in itself to get the film made for the money they had but it is a terrible looking film.

Fishooks12

Josey Wales wrote: »

I watched Primer for the first time the other night and that film does not in any way look better than Looper. It was an achievement in itself to get the film made for the money they had but it is a terrible looking film.

All opinion but I think it's one of the most subtly striking pieces of film I've ever seen. Lends a huge part, along with the terrific score, to the eerie atmosphere throughout.

The scene where

He sees himself from a distance is one that really stands out

don ramo

SVG wrote: »

I kind of wish the stuff about telekinesis had just been cut out. In a film that's already complicated by time travel, all that magic felt like an unnecessary complication. That said, I did like the moment where Emily Blunt talked about how she'd thwart guys' efforts to impress her with their powers.

:eek:that was the whole point of the film, its a future where people have a touch of TK, floating lighters and stupid little things, but the whole films purpose is to stop the rainmaker, a person who has very very advanced TK and as you saw can literally tear a house to pieces at will, even as a kid, imagine what he was doing in the future, as a adult and having a grudge on his back cause someone killed his mother, and he also got his jaw blown off at some point so had to get a synthetic one to replace it,

Mr. Loverman

Saw this today in a cool old cinema in Beijing (I've attached a picture of it).

I thought it was "ok".

When it started I had high hopes but overall I felt it was a fairly shallow movie.

The writer was definitely influenced by Akira and Star Wars!

At the end of the movie I felt "is that it?". It seemed unfinished.

So I would give it a 6/10.

I wouldn't bother watching it again.

SVG

don ramo wrote: »

:eek:that was the whole point of the film, its a future where people have a touch of TK, floating lighters and stupid little things, but the whole films purpose is to stop the rainmaker, a person who has very very advanced TK and as you saw can literally tear a house to pieces at will, even as a kid, imagine what he was doing in the future, as a adult and having a grudge on his back cause someone killed his mother, and he also got his jaw blown off at some point so had to get a synthetic one to replace it,

I hope my opinion didn't cause too much alarm!

Yeah, I get that it's his powers that make him dangerous but I just didn't like that element. Could he not just have been smart with a supergrudge? And, yes, it was part of the world of the film but, for me at least, there was enough other stuff going on that it felt superfluous. I know it's kind of stupid but, for some reason, I was ok with how the film dealt with the time travel but when they suddenly say- oh, and 10% of people have magic powers for some reason- I just thought "well that's totally unrealistic!":p

AnonoBoy

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Primer looks ten times better and cost about 20k to make. Looper had enough buck to make it look a lot better than it did for most of the film

While you may very well say Primer was a better film than Looper I don't think it looks better at all.

Primer isn't a film that impresses with visuals at all I didn't think.

johnny_ultimate

Primer certainly looks good in its own small-scale, claustrophobic way: Carruth's perfectionism and insistence on shooting on expensive film ensures that it does have a distinctive visual identity.

Don't know if it even warrants comparison with Looper visually though. Narratively and conceptually, yes, comparisons are inevitable: Carruth is thanked in the credits, after all. But one is a gritty noir sci-fi thriller, the other is a taut, claustrophobic and low-budget arthouse sci-fi. They both do exceptional jobs given their resources. There's plenty of memorably, vivid images in Looper: the telekinesis sequences, the farm surrounded by seemingly endless fields, the diner scene, falling off the balcony, the hideout massacre... Not to mention the film's neatest visual trick, the looping process itself. The opening sequence - where the victim just pops into frame - is a fantastic one, and one of the most satisfyingly visual introductions I've seen in recent times.

senordingdong

krudler wrote: »

Rian Johnson addressed this in an interview where he basically said the Loopers have to kill themselves as otherwise they'd have to live for 30 years knowing who their murderer will be, and that would have bigger consequences for the timetravel aspect.

Yeah. but why would the bad guys not just shoot Joe soap in their own time?

ScrubsfanChris

senordingdong wrote: »

Yeah. but why would the bad guys not just shoot Joe soap in their own time?

Because they're not the ones calling the shots, as to who dies, the people in the future are.

Was JLG's face done by computer graphics or was it make-up? Either way, it was pretty startling - had I not seen posters and knew his name was attached to it, I would have not realized it was him.

Mark Hamill

Sad Professor wrote: »

None of the time travel in the film makes sense. The film is littered with paradoxes. There's no point thinking about it too much.

Of course there is a point in talking about it. Look, the film is at pains to not explain the time travel properly itself (as, imo, it's really just about a shallow selfish guy being forced to change because of meeting his old self and the time travel is just a conceit to make that possible) and so it can be enjoyed despite the flaws in the set up (I did enjoy it a lot, despite those flaws). But that doesn't mean we should excuse or ignore those flaws, almost to the point of encouraging them. We should always expect better and/or more consistent stories as to not is to walk a thin line between interestingly flawed and blandly mediocre. You'd get filmmakers making lazy, bad movies around an interesting idea.
IMO, nearly all of the people who liked it but complained about the pacing in the second half would be way more critical of the time travel if the film had turned out to be an out and out action movie, like the early trailers implied it would be, or if the rest of the story wasn't as interesting as it turned out to be.

CMpunked

Deleted User wrote: »

Was JLG's face done by computer graphics or was it make-up? Either way, it was pretty startling - had I not seen posters and knew his name was attached to it, I would have not realized it was him.

AFAIK it was all make up. Nose, Jaw, eyebrows, even wore contacts to match the specific eye colour.

CMpunked

CMpunked wrote: »

AFAIK it was all make up. Nose, Jaw, eyebrows, even wore contacts to match the specific eye colour.

Whoever did it deserves an Oscar for make-up. It was an absolutely phenomenal change from his boyish good looks to Bruce Willis.

don ramo

senordingdong wrote: »

Yeah. but why would the bad guys not just shoot Joe soap in their own time?

yeah but then joe wouldnt have existed for that 30 years period, and it would have an effect on how things are supposed to happen, thats why their paid so well, they know they will most likely end up killing themselves, but they know that after that they get to live the good life till their sent back to be killed by their younger selfs,

joe decided to change everything,

Tigger

stevenmu wrote: »

I really liked the figure-of-8 loop in the middle where young Joe failed to kill old Joe, but then seemed to die when he fell from the fire escape, causing a paradox and time resetting, and then he did kill old Joe, letting him grow old, and then escape and come back in time. That was done pretty well.

I don't get why him killing himself at the end didn't cause another paradox though.

that isn't what happened

young joe fell then we saw how old joe (who had closed his loop) lived the next 30 years
then we saw old joe watch young joe fall onto a car and then old joe saves young joe by dragging him away

NinjaK

Saw it today, thought it was pretty boring.

johnny_ultimate

Rian Johnson has released his 'theatrical commentary' for this. Can't say I'm particularly keen to go to the cinema and watch the film again with headphones on, but hey: http://soundcloud.com/rcjohnso/looper-theatrical-commentary I listened to the first few minutes and he does seem to go into detail about everything from the funding of the film to the artistic and technical decisions.

So that one guy wearing those Beats headphones in the cinema isn't just rich and completely crazy. He's just rich and a little bit crazy.

CMpunked

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

So that one guy wearing those Beats headphones in the cinema isn't just rich and completely crazy. He's just rich and a little bit crazy.

You'd have to be crazy to buy beats headphones. [/off topic]

Will that theatrical commentary just turn into dvd commentary eventually?

johnny_ultimate

Nope, apparently there'll be a different DVD commentary. This one is, in Johnson's words, "a bit more technical and detailed".

Not that there would be anything stopping you listening to this with the DVD. But that would make you crazier than our friend with the Beats' headphones!

sReq | uTeK

Hi all saw this today and while it was a brilliant movie a few things don't hold up.

The event at the end of the movie is what is meant to have been the catalyst for SID becoming the rainmaker. That's pretty evident. However the story falls down here. Bruce willis has killed himself so he doesn't escape like he does in young joes timeline thus this event never happened at the farm in his timeline so there shouldn't be a rainmaker unless SID is actually destined to be evil all along thus completely negating the need for Joe killing himself at the end of the movie

red dave

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Hi all saw this today and while it was a brilliant movie a few things don't hold up.

The event at the end of the movie is what is meant to have been the catalyst for SID becoming the rainmaker. That's pretty evident. However the story falls down here. Bruce willis has killed himself so he doesn't escape like he does in young joes timeline thus this event never happened at the farm in his timeline so there shouldn't be a rainmaker unless SID is actually destined to be evil all along thus completely negating the need for Joe killing himself at the end of the movie

No its not.

The rainmaker came about in Bruce Willis normal timeline when he had no interaction with sid as a youngster....so the interaction that he actually did have could mean there is no rainmaker at all...or whatever but your point is incorrect.

Goldstein

This $hit is to film what instagram is to photography. A plague that needs to end.

I really enjoyed Looper but whoever decided this was a good idea came close to ruining the entire first half of the film.








...and that's just the trailer.