Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
30-09-2012, 22:11   #106
SimonTemplar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 556
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, Spoiler: 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.
SimonTemplar is offline  
Advertisement
30-09-2012, 22:36   #107
johnny_ultimate
Production Model EVA-02
 
johnny_ultimate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: It's the killer. Do not die.
Posts: 17,994
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.

Last edited by johnny_ultimate; 30-09-2012 at 22:40.
johnny_ultimate is offline  
30-09-2012, 23:26   #108
Mickeroo
Moderator
 
Mickeroo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not here
Posts: 13,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny_ultimate View Post
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.
Mickeroo is offline  
30-09-2012, 23:32   #109
krudler
Registered User
 
krudler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 34,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMpunked View Post
That was Spoiler: older joes sequence of events.
I didn't catch that either at first, but you need Spoiler: 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 Spoiler: show a bigger part of the looper universe outside of Joe, be interesting to see how it begins.
krudler is offline  
01-10-2012, 00:03   #110
don ramo
Registered User
 
don ramo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: dancing on orions belt
Posts: 3,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny_ultimate View Post
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,

Spoiler: 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 :D

i thoroughly enjoyed it and cant wait to see it again on disc
don ramo is offline  
Advertisement
01-10-2012, 00:42   #111
Goldstein
Registered User
 
Goldstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,209
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.
Goldstein is offline  
01-10-2012, 00:59   #112
Josey Wales
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,694
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. Spoiler: 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
Josey Wales is offline  
01-10-2012, 01:13   #113
johnny_ultimate
Production Model EVA-02
 
johnny_ultimate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: It's the killer. Do not die.
Posts: 17,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josey Wales View Post
2. It has been asked before and answered by Johnny_Ultimate but I didn't get that explanation. Spoiler: 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
Spoiler: 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.

Last edited by johnny_ultimate; 01-10-2012 at 01:19.
johnny_ultimate is offline  
(3) thanks from:
01-10-2012, 01:22   #114
Josey Wales
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny_ultimate View Post
Spoiler: 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. Spoiler: 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.
Josey Wales is offline  
Advertisement
01-10-2012, 01:39   #115
charlie_says
Registered User
 
charlie_says's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Galway
Posts: 715
I enjoyed it too. A solid 7.5/10 for me.

Spoiler: 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.

charlie_says is offline  
01-10-2012, 06:37   #116
Hasmunch
Registered User
 
Hasmunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 658
Sawe the film and loved it but i have one or two confusing questions though... Spoiler: Are cid and joe the same person? and if not, why would joe give up his own life just to protect cids future
Hasmunch is offline  
01-10-2012, 08:03   #117
Skerries
Registered User
 
Skerries's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NorthCider to the core ;)
Posts: 4,616
Spoiler: 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
Skerries is offline  
01-10-2012, 09:30   #118
Banjaxed82
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 902
I've just copied and pasted this from another message board. It's regarding a huge plot hole. The guy has a point....

Spoiler: 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?
Banjaxed82 is offline  
01-10-2012, 09:58   #119
tok9
Registered User
 
tok9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,230
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 Spoiler: How does the rainmaker become the rainmaker if Future Joe Kills his Future self?

That sounds ridiculous
tok9 is offline  
01-10-2012, 10:14   #120
Josey Wales
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banjaxed82 View Post
I've just copied and pasted this from another message board. It's regarding a huge plot hole. The guy has a point....

Spoiler: 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 Spoiler: about Bruce Willis' wife being murdered in the future.
Josey Wales is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet