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*

145679

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,977 ✭✭✭Soby


    Otacon wrote: »
    It was talked about. They say killing in the future becomes more difficult due to personal tracking chips and such. When the goons kill his wife, they burn the entire village they were in to try and cover it up.

    So why not leave Bruce there too ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,721 ✭✭✭Otacon


    Soby wrote: »
    So why not leave Bruce there too ;)

    What happens to JGL when he never has to close his own loop?

    Also, we never find out if burning the village works or if it is just an act of desperation to try to cover themselves.

    Finally, as people seem to be quite aware of the existence of loopers and who they are, if they did just kill Bruce, the authorities may have found out who committed the murder more easily.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,973 ✭✭✭Chris_Heilong


    It was a good film, better than if Disney had made it in 1994: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkJu5VX972M


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,569 ✭✭✭✭Tallon


    Rainmaker was killing everyone and leveling cities, I don't think it mattered anymore about killing people in the future as the authorities would know it was him


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,973 ✭✭✭Chris_Heilong


    Tallon wrote: »
    Rainmaker was killing everyone and leveling cities, I don't think it mattered anymore about killing people in the future as the authorities would know it was him

    Then in that case there was no point sending Bruce back in time, they could have just shot him in the head.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,356 ✭✭✭MakeEmLaugh


    It was a good film, better than if Disney had made it in 1994:

    [/URL]

    Ha ha, brilliant!


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,173 CMod ✭✭✭✭The Black Oil


    Bit of a strange film. I hadn't read or heard any press reviews.

    The premise isn't particularly strong, but Willis is really good and I liked Gordon-Levitt a lot too. Reminded me a bit of the Matrix. Favourite part was the diner scene and some of the interaction between JGL and the kid. I think Children of Men was a bit better at depicting its future world. This seemed pretty well put together overall, though.

    The kid was creepy as anything. :eek:


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,940 ✭✭✭Carcharodon


    A decent film to watch at the movies but a Matrix it aint by no means, not even close.
    There is nothing ambiguous or no hidden meanings that people like to make up in this film, some serious nerds out there trying to make something out of nothing.

    The one thing I didn't like about the film is the way the main character had to explain everything that has happened in the past, future etc by narration, I would rather the audience be exposed to that through the characters and storyline itself, just irritates me a bit.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,988 ✭✭✭constitutionus


    i have to concur.

    i enjoyed this film dont get me wrong.

    but its not something i'd rave about like some of the critics have and TBH i feel it falls down between two stools.

    like it cant tell if it wants to be a hard sci/fi film or a pure action one. certainly in terms of pure action/entertainment i got more fun out of resident evil retribution than i did with this (despite the bloody annoying 3d glasses).

    all in all this feels more like a really good episode of "the twilight zone" with a bit of akira thrown in

    it IS fantastically well acted though, i cant fault that at all, and theres some genuinely emotional elements in it. but theres whole swathes were i feel some may nod off as its nowhere near the action fest its being marketed as .

    the "this decades matrix" for instance makes no sence AT ALL.

    Its a good film and i enjoyed it, but i wouldnt go out of my way to see it again and TBH im not sure it would be up most of my friends street either so cant say i'd recomend it to them as i reckon they'd be left cold by it.

    more a film to have a few beers with on DVD if ya ask me

    5/10 from me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,101 ✭✭✭Technocentral


    Enjoyable nonsense, though the
    supernatural kid stuff
    was totally superfluous and annoying, I suppose it was the director's big sop towards the mainstream, overall though some nice future dystopia touches and a pleasing lack of heavy exposition in general, plus I could look at Emily Blunt all day long. It was also a very pleasant surprise to see it projected on 35mm in Savoy 2, I thought they had gone all digital. 7/10. Ps no sequel wanted or needed imo.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,027 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    Whichever critic first made that foolish Matrix comment needs to issue a formal apology. It's an absolutely absurd comparison - could probably argue more similarities between Looper and Chinatown than the Matrix. As Sight & Sound argues, 6% Matrix, max ;)
    Enjoyable nonsense, though the
    supernatural kid stuff
    was totally superfluous and annoying, I suppose it was the director's big sop towards the mainstream, overall though some nice future dystopia touches and a pleasing lack of heavy exposition in general, plus I could look at Emily Blunt all day long. It was also a very pleasant surprise to see it projected on 35mm in Savoy 2, I thought they had gone all digital. 7/10. Ps no sequel wanted or needed imo.

    While I can easily see why people may not have bought into the unexpected 'supernatural' stuff, I don't think 'superfluous' is the right word since, you know, the entire narrative of the film is built around it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,101 ✭✭✭Technocentral


    While I can easily see why people may not have bought into the unexpected 'supernatural' stuff, I don't think 'superfluous' is the right word since, you know, the entire narrative of the film is built around it.

    What I meant was that him coming back and meeting himself and been hunted down etc was more than enough of a story line without the supernatural shiite, I prefer SF to be rooted in science no matter how tenuously, for instance in films like 2001, Blade Runner, Alien, Contact, Gattica and Moon.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,568 ✭✭✭candy-gal1


    Was pleasantly surprised by this tbh, a modernised matrix type movie but one I could actually understand :o:D

    Great acting from the little kid in it too, plus the ending was surprisingly good :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    candy-gal1 wrote: »
    a modernised matrix type movie

    In what way was the movie actually like the Matrix?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,315 ✭✭✭Big Knox


    What I meant was that him coming back and meeting himself and been hunted down etc was more than enough of a story line without the supernatural shiite, I prefer SF to be rooted in science no matter how tenuously, for instance in films like 2001, Blade Runner, Alien, Contact, Gattica and Moon.

    What a bizarre comment. So much wrong with it I wouldn't even know where to start!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,885 ✭✭✭Optimalprimerib


    I am not 100% sure yet but this has a huge chance to be in my top 10 of all time. Loved every second of it. Didn't want it to end. The story and theme twisted so much it was a completely different movie at the end compared to the start but it was so natural you would barely notice.

    It was also relatively easy to understand compared to the likes of inception. One that I feel will get better the more you watch it.

    Interesting soundtrack as well. Definitely the best movie I have seen in the cinema in the last 5 years.

    It is criminally under shown though. In blanch on opening night they only had 2 showings which is terrible.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,909 ✭✭✭nix


    In what way was the movie actually like the Matrix?

    It made the viewers think? :confused:

    </sarcasm>

    I enjoyed it, and TBH i thought the Kid gave the best performance over everybody else!

    Anytime Levitt was on screen i just couldnt help but stare at his ridic browline :(


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,101 ✭✭✭Technocentral


    Big Knox wrote: »
    What a bizarre comment. So much wrong with it I wouldn't even know where to start!

    Care to mention the supernatural elements in my preferred films then?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭don ramo


    Care to mention the supernatural elements in my preferred films then?
    the TK wasn't supernatural, it was most likely a result of human evolution, accessing more of our brain power or something along those lines, sure everyone bar the rainmaker could only do stupid things like make small objects float, the rainmaker was a further step up the evolutionary ladder,

    gattaca had genetic engineering, something which could also account for the rise in TK in Looper, activating some genetic trait instead of evolving into it,


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,101 ✭✭✭Technocentral


    don ramo wrote: »
    the TK wasn't supernatural, it was most likely a result of human evolution, accessing more of our brain power or something along those lines, sure everyone bar the rainmaker could only do stupid things like make small objects float, the rainmaker was a further step up the evolutionary ladder,

    gattaca had genetic engineering, something which could also account for the rise in TK in Looper, activating some genetic trait instead of evolving into it,

    Dunno, seemed like a spooky brat to me, like the young lad from the Omen type of fella. Though I take your point and at least you elaborate on something, I can't stand the "don't know where to start" posts, total copout, means that you don't have to bother deconstructing someone's argument..


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,093 ✭✭✭mathie


    This film just didn't sit right with me.

    When Young Joe shot himself at the end then that would mean Old Joe wouldn't have travelled back and they wouldn't have got to the stand-off.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,464 ✭✭✭e_e


    mathie wrote: »
    This film just didn't sit right with me.

    When Young Joe shot himself at the end then that would mean Old Joe wouldn't have travelled back and they wouldn't have got to the stand-off.
    Time travel innit?


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    Finally got around to watching this film after much anticipation and i have to say - it's a pile of shíte, i was expecting something truly outstanding from the reviews and it just isn't! Also i'm with the poster who said the whole TK thing was just pointless, the film would have been way better without it. The idea of using time travel to kill enemies 30 years in the past is ridiculous - the mob has no trouble killing enemies in the present and there are a million better, more lucrative uses for time travel. The ending basically contradicts itself. And fúcking blunderbuses??? Really??? The whole film is just stupid!:mad:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,997 ✭✭✭latenia


    There are just too many plot holes, contradictions and gaps in logic for this to be a satisfying viewing experience. Even forgetting about the always problematic time travel vagaries which leave you asking "why didn't they just...?" or "if he did x then surely y?" every two minutes, the very basis of the film doesn't make any sense. Why not just kill the person in the future and send back the body to the middle of the ocean or a volcano? Why be a gangster who has to kill people when you could just send someone back to head to the bookies or buy up lots of stock? Exactly why do they have to "close their loop?"


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,143 ✭✭✭✭B.A._Baracus


    Just watched this tonight .... WTF?! :confused:
    Like its certainly an enjoyable movie. Would even say a good movie. But there is the trailer and then there is the final movie.

    Trailer sets up this nice sci-fi movie about a person being hired to kill people from the future. Which the movie does - only in the first half tho. Then it develops into The Shining or that famous episode of The Twilight Zone.

    Its just feels a bit of a mix 'n mash between different genres. But for anyone who actually buys into the marketing of the movie and references the matrix with this needs their head examined :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,396 ✭✭✭✭kaimera


    Watched last night.

    Agree that it's not great.

    5/10 is generous. If you believe in numerical ratings.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,739 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    are there any interviews where rian addresses why he brough in the tk element?


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,739 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    are there any interviews where rian addresses why he brough in the tk element?

    hmm just reading the some people say the tk is the macguffin,... no cyd was the macguffin


    look at his pitch real http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/watch-rian-johnsons-pitch-reel-for-looper/ not only was the kid not mentioned in the trailer it wasn't mentioned in his pitch he had to find a way out


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭don ramo


    are there any interviews where rian addresses why he brough in the tk element?
    cause it was important for the plot to have TK, the rainmaker mother had TK as did his father most likely, but he developed a much more powerful from of TK, thats the reason he became the rainmaker, cause he was so powerful and had such a bad childhood,

    cause of him cleaning house with the loopers sending so many of them back to close their loops, he rushed it and ended up killing joes wife which pissed joe off to the point of him seeking revenge,


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,739 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    don ramo wrote: »
    cause it was important for the plot to have TK, the rainmaker mother had TK as did his father most likely, but he developed a much more powerful from of TK, thats the reason he became the rainmaker, cause he was so powerful and had such a bad childhood,

    cause of him cleaning house with the loopers sending so many of them back to close their loops, he rushed it and ended up killing joes wife which pissed joe off to the point of him seeking revenge,

    could the story not been pretty much the same without the tk though.... cyd could have grown up and sought revenge without tk, the tk just made him powerful enough to take them all on, but again he still could have tried to kill them all without it


Advertisement