Looper SPOILERS FROM POST 137

Mickeroo · 30-09-2012 1:34am

fluke wrote: »

Hmm,
it just seemed like young Joe was up to his eyes in ..eyedrops, his older self eventually was weened off of drugs but in the in-between he had done some terrible shit just to keep getting his hands on drugs. Emily Blunt's character (when she pretty much abandoned her son) was living it up in the city getting wasted and whatnot.

Fair point,

had forgotten about Blunt's character's shady past too. Suppose it was a theme of some sort in the film then.

CatFromHue · 30-09-2012 2:32am

I saw it last night on a bit of an impulse really. I did see a trailer for it a few months ago thought it looked good but just saw that one trailer!

I really enjoyed it. The plot was good, the acting was good, and the effects were good. Plus

Emily Blunt in those jeans chopping the tree stump :eek:

CMpunked · 30-09-2012 10:55am

fluke wrote: »

That scene
where the enforcer is slowly split open by the child had the whole cinema gasping

The theatre i was in

was dead silent until you could hear one girl literally whispering "oh my god" and that only arose the tension even more.
Absolutely superb.

Its those moments that i'm really glad I've watched the movie in a communal setting.

krudler · 30-09-2012 11:34am

CMpunked wrote: »

The theatre i was in
was dead silent until you could hear one girl literally whispering "oh my god" and that only arose the tension even more.
Absolutely superb.

Its those moments that i'm really glad I've watched the movie in a communal setting.

that whole sequence was the best part of the movie I thought, loved

the panning shot from outside the house showing the remains of the guy pouring out the window. Its strange seeing a a movie where kids are murdered, you see a child get shot in the face like, granted he lives but still.

pixelburp · 30-09-2012 3:59pm

Saw it this morning (5.90 for cinema tickets tastes good) and it deservers high-praise for what it is: a solid action-thriller with a reasonably clever sci-fi twist and decent characterisation. The one complaint would be that the train comes to a screeching halt when we reach the farm - the pacing completely bottoms out and it all becomes lethargic. So the first and last third are great, the middle needed work.

The revelation about the kid I had suspected as soon he started behaving in that classic 'slightly freaky & knowing child' cinema likes to use for supernatural elements. Between that and the apparently throwaway comments about TK'ers previously, I instantly knew this was a case of an infantile Chekov's Gun

I think like most films that use time travel as its central device, it's a bit pointless trying to work out all the kinks in its logic - the very nature of the concept means it's never going to be watertight & you'll just give yourself a headache trying to work it out - Jeff Daniels' character acknowledges as much in a line that indirectly broke the 4th wall really.

I do wonder if there's deleted scenes or more information on what kind of world Looper was set in: there seemed to be a lot of world-building happening in the background but never directly referenced; for all the future-tech featured, America seemed to be in a pretty bad shape.

The city seemed to be pretty rundown & society appeared fairly harsh, and judging by the cars the oil must have run out. China seemed ok mind you.

googled eyes · 30-09-2012 5:16pm

Looking forward to seeing this. Not sure about the makeup on Gorden-Levitt. Is it something you noticed for the whole film ?

pixelburp · 30-09-2012 5:20pm

googled eyes wrote: »

Looking forward to seeing this. Not sure about the makeup on Gorden-Levitt. Is it something you noticed for the whole film ?

The make-up is distracting, sometimes. Most of the time it just passes you by, and to be fair Levitt's mannerisms and facial ticks are a perfect riff of Willis' so the make-up just embellishes the performance that little bit more...

strandroad · 30-09-2012 6:07pm

googled eyes wrote: »

Looking forward to seeing this. Not sure about the makeup on Gorden-Levitt. Is it something you noticed for the whole film ?

Not so much in the beginning when there is a lot of dark scenes and he does his BW mimicking act brilliantly. Later on there's more daylight and you can see they went overboard with his eyebrows but by then you're more used to his new look.

Very good movie all in all, I for one loved the pacing and that it turned out not to be just a general shootout. Emily Blunt as a

former party animal was wildly unconvincing though, not only she's not up for it as an actress, her character was also presented as too clean cut.

I'll be getting a DVD and I hope that if there were any cuts they'll add them as deleted scenes.

What "splitting the guy open" scene is everyone talking about? I didn't notice anything - the kid just roared and we saw explosion from the outside? Did I miss something?

CMpunked · 30-09-2012 6:20pm

mhge wrote: »

What "splitting the guy open" scene is everyone talking about? I didn't notice anything - the kid just roared and we saw explosion from the outside? Did I miss something?

When the Jesse guy gets lifted up in the air his innards seem to be pulled out from inside him and then he seems to start to rip apart as such. It cuts away before it starts getting over the top though.

Would have been easy enough to miss

krudler · 30-09-2012 6:27pm

mhge wrote: »

Not so much in the beginning when there is a lot of dark scenes and he does his BW mimicking act brilliantly. Later on there's more daylight and you can see they went overboard with his eyebrows but by then you're more used to his new look.

Very good movie all in all, I for one loved the pacing and that it turned out not to be just a general shootout. Emily Blunt as a
former party animal was wildly unconvincing though, not only she's not up for it as an actress, her character was also presented as too clean cut.

I'll be getting a DVD and I hope that if there were any cuts they'll add them as deleted scenes.
What "splitting the guy open" scene is everyone talking about? I didn't notice anything - the kid just roared and we saw explosion from the outside? Did I miss something?

Its as

Levitt and Blunt are flying out the door there's a wide shot where the kid is on the stairs and the other guy is levitating on the right, and he starts to burst open from the stomach in slo mo, you dont see him explode fully though

strandroad · 30-09-2012 6:32pm

Thanks guys.

I saw him levitate, but didn't notice the details among the flying debris. Actually I like that they made it subtle enough instead of splashing it in your face!

horgan_p · 30-09-2012 7:39pm

Went to see this today , nice bit of chewing gum for the brain.
couple of scenes didnt add up

like when bruce got sent back a second time and Joe shot him, didnt make sense to me at all.

Also how did Joe

piece together that Sid was going to become the rainmaker through bruce's killing of his mother

I did think it was brave to show

violence towards a child - I was surprised that Willis pulled the trigger

In fairness it isnt Inception and I dont think warrants as much analysis.
I liked it , glad I went during the day at a reduced rate (€5.50).
12 Monkeys was similar though and I thought better.
Just my tuppence.

CMpunked · 30-09-2012 7:46pm

horgan_p wrote: »

Went to see this today , nice bit of chewing gum for the brain.
couple of scenes didnt add up
like when bruce got sent back a second time and Joe shot him, didnt make sense to me at all.

That was

older joes sequence of events.

johnny_ultimate · 30-09-2012 7:53pm

pixelburp wrote: »

I do wonder if there's deleted scenes or more information on what kind of world Looper was set in: there seemed to be a lot of world-building happening in the background but never directly referenced; for all the future-tech featured, America seemed to be in a pretty bad shape.
The city seemed to be pretty rundown & society appeared fairly harsh, and judging by the cars the oil must have run out. China seemed ok mind you.

This was my favourite thing about the film. A lesser film would have provided much more exposition regarding its world, but I loved how convincing the futuristic setting felt. Little details like the vagrant riots, overcrowded streets, tablet telephones, Daniels' comments about future China, retro chic etc... Never discussed in much depth, and why should they be? They're part of the characters' reality, and fill us in on vital backstory without bludgeoning us to death with explanations. It makes for the most convincing sci-fi setting I've seen in a long time: a perfect blend of familiarity and credible differences.

The film isn't entirely free of blunt exposition (would be interesting to see it without the voiceover) but I think Johnson does a much more elegant job at explaining things to the audience than many of his recent peers have. It's the right mix of direct explanations to keep everyone on track, but also welcome in its ambiguity and full of details that are left up to the audience's imagination. Even stretches to the story:

while Joe's character arc is wrapped up nicely, the ending is sufficiently open-ended to leave the survivors fates uncertain

.

SimonTemplar · 30-09-2012 10:11pm

Just back from seeing it a second time and I really enjoyed it again. After a fairly disappointing summer, it is so refreshing to see an engrossing film that doesn't just throw CGI at the screen and treat us like infants.

There are certain moments in the movie that I really like,

especially when Sarah runs to the foot of the stairs after Sid falls. Everyone thinks she is running to catch her son, but then she grabs Joe and pushes him out of the house - a real "WTF" moment because her immediate instinct was to escape quickly knowing the fury her son is about to unleash. Wonderful cinema!

I loved Jeff Daniels' line, "I'm from the future, go to China"

I agree that showing older Joe murdering an innocent child was a brave move, but I think his reaction afterwards of deep pain and regret at what he is forced to do is a good balance. He is not some emotionless killing machine, but someone who is overcome by intense guilt at causing the death of the women he loves.

Let's hope this doesn't make the same mistake as The Matrix and end up producing low quality sequals.

johnny_ultimate · 30-09-2012 10:36pm

How are other cinemas displaying this, out of curiosity? I know most of the city centre cinemas are all digital, but it'd be nice if the suburban and regional cinemas had prints. This looks really great in 35mm: grainy, moody and loyal to its noir influences.

Mickeroo · 30-09-2012 11:26pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

How are other cinemas displaying this, out of curiosity? I know most of the city centre cinemas are all digital, but it'd be nice if the suburban and regional cinemas had prints. This looks really great in 35mm: grainy, moody and loyal to its noir influences.

I'm not too sure, I think I saw it in 35mm but I'm not really sure I'm able to tell the difference tbh

It looked great anyway, and it was on the biggest screen they have. They don't use that screen for 3D movies so I thought it might not be digital.

krudler · 30-09-2012 11:32pm

CMpunked wrote: »

That was
older joes sequence of events.

I didn't catch that either at first, but you need

that event to happen to get the young Joe to the point where he bcomes old Joe and goes back

but I wonder if a sequel ever gets made will it expand on that or

show a bigger part of the looper universe outside of Joe, be interesting to see how it begins.

don ramo · 01-10-2012 12:03am

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

How are other cinemas displaying this, out of curiosity? I know most of the city centre cinemas are all digital, but it'd be nice if the suburban and regional cinemas had prints. This looks really great in 35mm: grainy, moody and loyal to its noir influences.

my local gate in middleton cork was definitely a 35mm print, a lot of black ellipses throughout the show, and it was fairly grainy also

it was a great film, i always like these little sci-fi films, last year was In Time and now this ,this was a much better film though, so many familiar faces right throughout the film also,

i liked that it showed a future where people live more or less the same way as we do now, and the people with money drive nice cars, or hover bikes, which appeared to be a fairly recent invention, cause there werent any flying cars, and people with just enough money still live in **** holes:),

it kinda guessed the kid had a very strong mutation and then guessed he was the one killing people in the future cause with that ability he wouldn't need much help, they tried to put ya off track saying itll probably end up being the strippers kid, cause he knew her, but damn that kid needs serious therapy

i thoroughly enjoyed it and cant wait to see it again on disc

Goldstein · 01-10-2012 12:42am

Highly enjoyable film worthy of the science fiction tag. I was a little apprehensive beforehand as I thought Brick was one of the most pretentious films I've ever watched but he certainly pulled this one off in style. Blunt in particular brought great depth and authenticity to her role and what can you say about that other person! It treats you to some truly stunning moments and memorable shots that I'm delighted I saw on the big screen.

It's not the hard sci-fi of Primer, Timecrimes or Triangle but it's all the better for not venturing down that road concentrating instead on telling its own fresh, original and very human story.

One major negative though:
Hopefully the Blu-ray will have an option to remove the overused tacky lens flare that plagued all of the film's night scenes. It made those scenes jarring to watch and the constant annoyance took me right out of the narrative.

Josey Wales · 01-10-2012 12:59am

Just back from seeing this and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It is always great to see an action film with more than just explosions. I liked the future world and how it wasn't all explained. There was plenty of information given out, you just had to listen for it.

I have two questions though.

1. Anyone know why it took so long to be released. It finished shooting in April 2011 as far as I know.

2. It has been asked before and answered by Johnny_Ultimate but I didn't get that explanation.

We see JGL fail to kill Bruce Willis when he is sent back in time. We then see JGL fall from his apartment balcony and is then presumably killed. The film basically resets and this time we see JGL kill Bruce Willis and go on to become old Joe (Bruce Willis). Then Bruce Willis is sent back a third time and we see the events of his first trip back.

I'm confused

johnny_ultimate · 01-10-2012 1:13am

Josey Wales wrote: »

2. It has been asked before and answered by Johnny_Ultimate but I didn't get that explanation.
We see JGL fail to kill Bruce Willis when he is sent back in time. We then see JGL fall from his apartment balcony and is then presumably killed. The film basically resets and this time we see JGL kill Bruce Willis and go on to become old Joe (Bruce Willis). Then Bruce Willis is sent back a third time and we see the events of his first trip back.
I'm confused

He doesn't go back a third time: there's only two versions of events portrayed in the film. The first time Old Joe (who we'll call version 0, we don't see his younger self) is sent back he's killed by Young Joe (version 1). Young Joe then grows up to become Old Joe (1) (the montage sequence). That Old Joe (1) escapes and returns to the past, managing to knock out Young Joe (2) in the process. That scene is shown twice, from two different angles. Young Joe (2) doesn't die when he falls off the balcony, he's pulled away by Old Joe (1). When it cuts to black at the balcony, that's just where it jumps back in time to reveal all the events that led to the balcony scene.

Josey Wales · 01-10-2012 1:22am

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

He doesn't go back a third time: there's only two versions of events portrayed in the film. The first time Old Joe (who we'll call version 0, we don't see his younger self) is sent back he's killed by Young Joe (version 1). Young Joe then grows up to become Old Joe (1) (the montage sequence). That Old Joe (1) escapes and returns to the past, managing to knock out Young Joe (2) in the process. That scene is shown twice, from two different angles. Young Joe (2) doesn't die when he falls off the balcony, he's pulled away by Old Joe (1). When it cuts to black at the balcony, that's just where it jumps back in time to reveal all the events that led to the balcony scene.

I just found an interview by Rian Johnson where he explained this element of the film.

I didn't realise that the first time we see Young Joe face Old Joe is just shown out of sequence.

It makes perfect sense to me know.

charlie_says · 01-10-2012 1:39am

I enjoyed it too. A solid 7.5/10 for me.

That particular scene in Boardwalk Empire "There is nothing wrong with it baby, there is nothing wrong with any of it.." flashed in my head with the final few seconds of Looper.

:pac:

Hasmunch · 01-10-2012 6:37am

Sawe the film and loved it but i have one or two confusing questions though...

Are cid and joe the same person? and if not, why would joe give up his own life just to protect cids future

Skerries · 01-10-2012 8:03am

No, Sid and Joe aren't the same person. Joe gave up his own life life to protect the kid because if old Joe had killed Sarah then the Rainmaker would have come to be but with her around there's a chance that he won't

Banjaxed82 · 01-10-2012 9:30am

I've just copied and pasted this from another message board. It's regarding a huge plot hole. The guy has a point....

The premise of the movie is this: in the future, it's too hard to dispose of bodies. They gloss over it, but basically everyone is "tagged" so they made it really hard for mobsters to kill people and get away with it. This is why the mob of the future uses time travel to send victims back in time to be shot/killed.

Now first off, I don't get why they don't just KILL THE PERSON in the future and send the DEAD BODY back in time. It's never explained, but that's not the whole I'm talking about.

You know from the trailer that Bruce Willis (Old Joe) is sent back in time to be killed by his younger self (Young Joe). Initially this makes sense--the whole premise is no murdering people in the future, send them back in time to be murdered.

Except at one point in the film we do follow Bruce Willis in the future (before he's sent back in time). The world is in a state of chaos because this super villain ("The Rain Maker") is basically going on a killing spree. He has control of the time travel ****, yes, but he is bringing down terror on the entire world. Nobody can stop him--we even hear talk of his mass slaughters.

The Rain Maker decides he wants to "close the loops" of all the loopers in the past by hunting them down in the future and sending them back in time to be killed. Here's where it falls apart. In the future it's supposed to be really hard to kill people, hence this whole send them back in time plot. But not only do we hear that the Rain Maker is killing a bunch of people in the future, we see it. Hell, even Old Joe has been killing people. And when the Rain Maker's goons show up to snatch Old Joe, they shoot and kill his wife. Despite the present-moment murder, they still for some reason want to send Old Joe back in time to be killed. THE ****? They have no problem killing anyone else AT THIS POINT in the future, so why are they going through this whole charade of rounding up Old Joe alive to send him back in time? Just shoot him. You just shot his wife, so shoot him too.

In summary:
1. Before the Rain Maker came to power, the looper program made sense. They needed a way to dispose of bodies, so they sent them in the past.
2. The Rain Maker comes to power and kills whoever he wants, rendering the time travel body-dispenser completely insignificant, yet for some reason they still want to send Old Joe back in time.

I've run this by everyone else who has seen the film, and it's usually met with a blank stare as they think it through before eventually admitting it makes absolutely no sense. What did they do with they wife's body they just killed? What about all the people they show getting killed on TV?

tok9 · 01-10-2012 9:58am

Saw it last night and loved it.

From what I could gather a lot of people thought that Cid and Joe were the same person.

The one thing that I can't get my head around is this

How does the rainmaker become the rainmaker if Future Joe Kills his Future self?

That sounds ridiculous

Josey Wales · 01-10-2012 10:14am

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

I've just copied and pasted this from another message board. It's regarding a huge plot hole. The guy has a point....
The premise of the movie is this: in the future, it's too hard to dispose of bodies. They gloss over it, but basically everyone is "tagged" so they made it really hard for mobsters to kill people and get away with it. This is why the mob of the future uses time travel to send victims back in time to be shot/killed.

Now first off, I don't get why they don't just KILL THE PERSON in the future and send the DEAD BODY back in time. It's never explained, but that's not the whole I'm talking about.

You know from the trailer that Bruce Willis (Old Joe) is sent back in time to be killed by his younger self (Young Joe). Initially this makes sense--the whole premise is no murdering people in the future, send them back in time to be murdered.

Except at one point in the film we do follow Bruce Willis in the future (before he's sent back in time). The world is in a state of chaos because this super villain ("The Rain Maker") is basically going on a killing spree. He has control of the time travel ****, yes, but he is bringing down terror on the entire world. Nobody can stop him--we even hear talk of his mass slaughters.

The Rain Maker decides he wants to "close the loops" of all the loopers in the past by hunting them down in the future and sending them back in time to be killed. Here's where it falls apart. In the future it's supposed to be really hard to kill people, hence this whole send them back in time plot. But not only do we hear that the Rain Maker is killing a bunch of people in the future, we see it. Hell, even Old Joe has been killing people. And when the Rain Maker's goons show up to snatch Old Joe, they shoot and kill his wife. Despite the present-moment murder, they still for some reason want to send Old Joe back in time to be killed. THE ****? They have no problem killing anyone else AT THIS POINT in the future, so why are they going through this whole charade of rounding up Old Joe alive to send him back in time? Just shoot him. You just shot his wife, so shoot him too.

In summary:
1. Before the Rain Maker came to power, the looper program made sense. They needed a way to dispose of bodies, so they sent them in the past.
2. The Rain Maker comes to power and kills whoever he wants, rendering the time travel body-dispenser completely insignificant, yet for some reason they still want to send Old Joe back in time.

I've run this by everyone else who has seen the film, and it's usually met with a blank stare as they think it through before eventually admitting it makes absolutely no sense. What did they do with they wife's body they just killed? What about all the people they show getting killed on TV?

Some of that is addressed here by the director. Particularly the plot point

about Bruce Willis' wife being murdered in the future.

Burning Eclipse · 01-10-2012 10:50am

Really enjoyed this I have to say. Only popped up on my radar about a month ago, but I was looking forward to seeing it since then. Strong performances by most of the cast, and the kid was excellent. JGL has a really impressive resume over the last 4/5 years. Find him to be a thoroughly dependable actor.

Also, it's always great to see Garret Dillahunt in anything. He is a quality actor (phenomenal in Deadwood).

Looper *SPOILERS FROM POST 137*

Comments

Looper SPOILERS FROM POST 137