Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Looper *SPOILERS FROM POST 137*

Options
24567…10

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Jason Todd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,326 ✭✭✭Jason Todd


    I'm really liking the look of this, but I'm trying to see past the make-up on JGL but can't! :o


  • Options
    #33
    Fuzzytrooper
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 896 Mod ✭✭✭✭Fuzzytrooper


    Possibly the best title for a film for Irish audiences.


  • Options
    #34
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,170 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Fuzzytrooper wrote: »
    Possibly the best title for a film for Irish audiences.

    A lot of people will be dissappointed when they realise it's not about that mad yoke they went to school with.


  • Options
    #35
    e_e
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,464 ✭✭✭e_e


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    extremely unique sci-fi that is of the standard of the greats.
    It's not. Enjoyable enough but also wholly derivative and not as adventurous as it could have been.

    I came away slightly disappointed only because I wanted something great. It's not quite up there with Moon or Inception for me.


  • Options
    #36
    e_e
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,464 ✭✭✭e_e


    Fuzzytrooper wrote: »
    Possibly the best title for a film for Irish audiences.
    The sequel will be called Fecker.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Axwell
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 10,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭Axwell


    Saw this tonight and thought it was very good, decent performances from JGL and Bruce.


  • Options
    #38
    Phony Scott
    Registered Users Posts: 682 ✭✭✭Phony Scott


    Despite a few bits that didn't work for me (namely the CGI work on JGL), overall a very good film and one I look forward to seeing again. Damn it's going to be tough to pick a top ten film list this year. Probably the best year of cinema since... I'm not sure???


  • Options
    #39
    Axwell
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 10,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭Axwell


    There was no CGI work done on JGL, he wore a prosthetic nose and the rest was hours of makeup done every day before filming by Kazuhiro Suji.


  • Options
    #40
    maddragon
    Registered Users Posts: 590 ✭✭✭maddragon


    e_e wrote: »
    The sequel will be called Fecker.

    No, it will be called Langer and they have hired Eddie Hobbs and Dan Boyle to write it. That would be the former TD and not the actual film director of the same name.


  • Options
    #41
    Hurricane Carter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 607 ✭✭✭Hurricane Carter


    Quick question:

    If they person is killed in the past, what happens to their body in the future? Assuming the future is happening at the same time as the past..or is it? Makes sense in my head that it is! :) Is it a dimensional thing?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    grames_bond
    Registered Users Posts: 9,820 ✭✭✭grames_bond


    I really enjoyed this movie - some great moments and great performances by JGL, Bruce and Jeff Daniels!

    Would happily see it again!


  • Options
    #43
    Vokes
    Registered Users Posts: 5,836 ✭✭✭Vokes


    I Am Kong! wrote: »
    Quick question:

    If they person is killed in the past, what happens to their body in the future? Assuming the future is happening at the same time as the past..or is it? Makes sense in my head that it is! :) Is it a dimensional thing?
    Nothing happens? i.e. Their (alive) body is still in the future all the way up to the point in time where they are transported to the past, non?


  • Options
    #44
    Jason Todd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,326 ✭✭✭Jason Todd


    Vokes wrote: »
    Nothing happens? i.e. Their (alive) body is still in the future all the way up to the point in time where they are transported to the past, non?

    Thats what I thought too... they just disappear without leaving a trace. No body to find by the cops so they're just presumed missing?


  • Options
    #45
    Hurricane Carter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 607 ✭✭✭Hurricane Carter


    Vokes wrote: »
    Nothing happens? i.e. Their (alive) body is still in the future all the way up to the point in time where they are transported to the past, non?

    Ah.

    I keep thinking that even though he's transported back to the past (present say, from then to now), even though he's here, is the future still not happening elsewhere with him in it at the same time, given....ah my head hurts!!! :D

    Edit: Forget it, I'm thinking about it as if everything is still happening everywhere in another dimension at the same time as now!


  • Options
    #46
    tok9
    Registered Users Posts: 7,160 ✭✭✭tok9


    The movie has received excellent reviews so far! Have to say, I'm looking forward to it.

    http://www.metacritic.com/movie/looper


  • Options
    #47
    666irishguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 469 ✭✭666irishguy


    The thing I can't get is when Willis is beamed back to the past, would he not have the memories of seeing himself being beamed back from his younger days and essentially be just be living through it again as his older self....my nose is starting to bleed, guess I've gone too many dreams/layers in. Looks good though.


  • Options
    #48
    paddyismaddy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,364 ✭✭✭paddyismaddy


    this year's matrix :p saw that as a tag line on some tv spot for it


  • Options
    #49
    jaykhunter
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 12,013 Mod ✭✭✭✭jaykhunter


    paddyismaddy wrote: »
    this year's matrix :p saw that as a tag line on some tv spot for it

    Do people still know about the Matrix? The last film came out almost a decade ago now :) and judging by the response to the sequels, probably best not to make the comparisons!


  • Options
    #50
    Phony Scott
    Registered Users Posts: 682 ✭✭✭Phony Scott


    666irishguy wrote: »
    The thing I can't get is when Willis is beamed back to the past, would he not have the memories of seeing himself being beamed back from his younger days and essentially be just be living through it again as his older self....my nose is starting to bleed, guess I've gone too many dreams/layers in. Looks good though.

    I remember there was a website somewhere which explained this very well and I will have a look for it, but
    the older Bruce Willis has to die
    in order for the time travel bit to work, otherwise there is a paradox.


  • Options
    #51
    Josey Wales
    Registered Users Posts: 4,433 ✭✭✭Josey Wales


    jaykhunter wrote: »
    Do people still know about the Matrix? The last film came out almost a decade ago now :) and judging by the response to the sequels, probably best not to make the comparisons!

    Just because the sequels were rubbish doesn't detract from how good the original was.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    corcaigh07
    Registered Users Posts: 6,284 ✭✭✭corcaigh07


    people, can we at least wait until we see the movie, then we can pick holes at the time travel!


  • Options
    #53
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,174 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    Thoroughly enjoyed this - a smart slice of superior entertainment. This isn't exactly Primer in its complexity (although Shane Carruth does get a special thanks ;)), but it manages to build a very engaging thriller around a well-realised central concept. For me its three for three with Johnson now - a consistent purveyor of distinctive and interesting genre films, that both embrace and subvert tradition.

    While elements of the plot may be familiar, it actually manages to impressively reinvigorate some of them
    (particularly the superpowered kid, who enjoys several of the film's most excellent setpieces).
    There's some great directorial moments - absolutely love the opening - and the film builds a convincing futuristic world. Background details - from the social inequality to the vehicles - enhance the world without the need for endless exposition. While there's obviously much explaining to be done concerning the central mind-bending concepts, the near future realised by Johnson is an endearingly bleak and grounded place, and a strong sci-fi setting.

    The film does take on an unusually considered pace during the second act: some bits in the farmhouse felt like they could use more energy. But at the same time there are few wasted scenes
    (I enjoyed how TK initially seemed like a throwaway detail, but became a vital plot point later on)
    and the film's strange pacing allows Johnson to convincingly establish character motivations and relationships. The conflicts are consistently dramatically engaging and ethically curious. Performances are good, although didn't recognise Emily Blunt at all! Knew she looked familiar, but was surprised when the end credits rolled and her name popped up!

    All in all, great fun. While its original concepts are backed-up by an occasionally familiar narrative, this is a strong mix of the traditional and the new. The script has a strong and potentially confusing central idea, but realises it in a wholly accessible and entertaining way. It also has a great ending -
    satisfyingly resolving potential paradoxes while not condescendingly wrapping every single loose end.

    Also, Dun Laoghaire cinema has a glorious 35mm print of this, and it's showing in the well-sized screen one. I highly recommend making the trip if it's within reasonable travelling distance - there's something distinctively cinematic about the cinematography of the film, and was delighted to see it in its original format.


  • Options
    #54
    cherryghost
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 17,133 Mod ✭✭✭✭cherryghost


    Haven't seen this yet but looking forward to it. Joseph Gordon-Levitt has been truly excellent in all his films in the last 3/4 years so I expect nothing less from him in Looper.


  • Options
    #55
    CMpunked
    Registered Users Posts: 14,600 ✭✭✭✭CMpunked


    Just seen it. Great movie. Time travel is one of those concepts in movies I love and this felt new yet familiar.

    I have a question about the ending though:
    was the final moment with joe lying dead and Sarah stroking his hair implying he was her son?

    I'm fine with that as a plot point, but slightly repulsed by how she got it on with him too. Seems like it was a good choice to kill himself if he would have ever found that out.


  • Options
    #56
    Oafley Jones
    Registered Users Posts: 6,464 ✭✭✭Oafley Jones


    I liked it, kept me fairly engaged although the pacing is somewhat ponderous; the film could benefit from at least 15 minutes of so or cuts - fair bit of restlessness among the - fairly geeky and almost full - audience.


  • Options
    #57
    Oafley Jones
    Registered Users Posts: 6,464 ✭✭✭Oafley Jones


    CMpunked wrote: »
    Just seen it. Great movie. Time travel is one of those concepts in movies I love and this felt new yet familiar.

    I have a question about the ending though:
    was the final moment with joe lying dead and Sarah stroking his hair implying he was her son?

    I'm fine with that as a plot point, but slightly repulsed by how she got it on with him too. Seems like it was a good choice to kill himself if he would have ever found that out.

    No.


  • Options
    #58
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,174 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    CMpunked wrote: »
    Just seen it. Great movie. Time travel is one of those concepts in movies I love and this felt new yet familiar.

    I have a question about the ending though:
    was the final moment with joe lying dead and Sarah stroking his hair implying he was her son?

    I'm fine with that as a plot point, but slightly repulsed by how she got it on with him too. Seems like it was a good choice to kill himself if he would have ever found that out.

    Don't think that interpretation was intended at all :pac:


  • Options
    #59
    CMpunked
    Registered Users Posts: 14,600 ✭✭✭✭CMpunked


    johnny_ultimate wrote: »
    Don't think that interpretation was intended at all :pac:

    Really? Aw. I thought how she
    was rubbing his hair and how he said earlier to the stripper/hooker; "When i was a boy my mom would run her hands through my hair like this".
    The person i went with somewhat agreed how Joe didnt know his upbringing other than being given up a little older than the kid.


  • Options
    #60
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,174 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    CMpunked wrote: »
    Really? Aw. I thought how she
    was rubbing his hair and how he said earlier to the stripper/hooker; "When i was a boy my mom would run her hands through my hair like this".
    The person i went with somewhat agreed how Joe didnt know his upbringing other than being given up a little older than the kid.

    I can actually see how you came to the conclusion, but it would be a completely nonsensical resolution. Even within Looper's world, it doesn't make a lick of sense for
    Joe to have sex with someone and the resulting offspring to be Joe
    :pac: Or if you mean
    a different father
    , it would wreak complete havoc with the timeline - the amount of time travelling necessary to get everyone back to 2044 for no particular reason would be farcical. No, I think the examples you cited are just some of the events that led
    Joe to realise that he had to keep mother and child together
    .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    krudler
    Registered Users Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    Loved it, like people have said it could with being 10-15 mins shorter the scenes
    on the farm dragged a little bit
    but they were necessary to set up the ending.

    One thing I will say though, that kid gives an incredible performance in it, he stole the film. That scene where
    he starts to Hulk up and the mother makes a run for the safe was excellent, came out of nowhere as well.

    Also why do we see
    Bruce Willis going back twice? the first time he appears, turns gets blasted in the back and then lobs the gold at JGL and knocks him out, pov shot, we later see that exact same scene from a different wide cut, but then there's the short scene where Willis appears and he shoots him, I didnt really get it


Advertisement