Looper SPOILERS FROM POST 137

johnny_ultimate · 18-10-2012 3:50am

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

Technocentral wrote: »

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.

Technocentral · 18-10-2012 8:43pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

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.

candy-gal1 · 19-10-2012 6:45pm

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

:D

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

Mark Hamill · 20-10-2012 1:09am

candy-gal1 wrote: »

a modernised matrix type movie

In what way was the movie actually like the Matrix?

Big Knox · 20-10-2012 3:55am

Technocentral wrote: »

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!

Optimalprimerib · 20-10-2012 6:35am

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.

nix · 21-10-2012 2:39am

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In what way was the movie actually like the Matrix?

It made the viewers think?

</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

Technocentral · 22-10-2012 4:23pm

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?

don ramo · 22-10-2012 4:40pm

Technocentral wrote: »

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,

Technocentral · 22-10-2012 4:52pm

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..

mathie · 06-11-2012 10:34am

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.

e_e · 06-11-2012 2:46pm

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?

sbsquarepants · 07-11-2012 2:17pm

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:

latenia · 07-11-2012 10:18pm

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?"

B.A._Baracus · 17-11-2012 1:13am

Just watched this tonight .... WTF?!

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:

kaimera · 21-11-2012 10:24am

Watched last night.

Agree that it's not great.

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

expectationlost · 25-11-2012 3:20pm

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

expectationlost · 25-11-2012 3:25pm

expectationlost wrote: »

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

don ramo · 25-11-2012 3:54pm

expectationlost wrote: »

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,

expectationlost · 25-11-2012 5:56pm

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

don ramo · 25-11-2012 7:56pm

expectationlost wrote: »

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

it was the more the fact that the rainmaker was just one person, nobody to dictate terms with, its not like gangs where they eventually come to some sort of arrangement that this is my part of the city and thats yours, and you have a few skirmishes here and there, but if you disagree with the rainmaker hell simply rip you apart with his mind,

without his powers he wouldnt have lasted 10 minutes, these guys had a constant supply of silver and gold to send back to the loopers, they were clearly very powerful people and the rainmaker took them all out in a matter of years by himself, he didnt have to climb up the ladder or any of that ****, he simply walked in and took over,

and also you would have had to witness his ascent to the top if he didnt have the TK, at least with the TK they dont have to explain as much,

i thought it was a very good film, at least it was different from a lot of the stuff you see these days, a lot of studios like to play it safe, making alterations to the directors ideas to appeal to wider audiences, the fact this film was so successful and it was from independent studio can only mean good things ahead,

kunst nugget · 29-11-2012 1:06pm

I've just seen this and I have to say I thought it was one of the most retarded films I've seen in a long time. This and Prometheus struck me the same way. A feeling of meh when the titles rolled followed by building annoyance the next day as thought back more and more on the plot holes that were in the film. I genuinely thought this was a steaming pile of poo.

humanji · 29-11-2012 1:22pm

don ramo wrote: »

it was the more the fact that the rainmaker was just one person, nobody to dictate terms with, its not like gangs where they eventually come to some sort of arrangement that this is my part of the city and thats yours, and you have a few skirmishes here and there, but if you disagree with the rainmaker hell simply rip you apart with his mind,

without his powers he wouldnt have lasted 10 minutes, these guys had a constant supply of silver and gold to send back to the loopers, they were clearly very powerful people and the rainmaker took them all out in a matter of years by himself, he didnt have to climb up the ladder or any of that ****, he simply walked in and took over,

and also you would have had to witness his ascent to the top if he didnt have the TK, at least with the TK they dont have to explain as much,

i thought it was a very good film, at least it was different from a lot of the stuff you see these days, a lot of studios like to play it safe, making alterations to the directors ideas to appeal to wider audiences, the fact this film was so successful and it was from independent studio can only mean good things ahead,

We didn't see Kaiser Sose's ascent in "The Usual Suspects" and that worked pretty well without powers. I really didn't like the TK aspect to it. I liked the film (didn't think it was amazing or anything. Just a good yarn to watch) but I felt that it would have worked better if they use that aspect of it. I think it would have made The Rainmaker a much more powerful character if it was sheer force of will and hate that made him what he became.

Rabidlamb · 10-12-2012 1:56pm

Watched this last Saturday night & thought it a good addition to the genre.
Instead of looking for time travel plot holes I just took it for what it was, an interesting story well told.

A few things I noted:
Why bother killing Jeff Daniels off screen NCFOM style, seemed odd.

Did anyone else think the young Gatt man was going to be revealed as Daniel's younger self.

The sequence where Paul Dano's future self was racing to get to the address while losing body parts was good but surely he knew it was a trap.
In fact there was no reason to be operating on his body at the same address.

If Emily Blunt was that annoyed with the tree stump why not get the young lad to rip it out with his mind.

indough · 10-12-2012 7:33pm

I watched this again over the weekend and it doesn't really hold up to repeat viewing at all, too many niggling little problems really. Firstly, the logic behind it crumbles under the slightest degree of analysis - i don't expect time travel stories to be entirely consistent but this particular one makes no sense. Actually it's almost insulting how glibly the writer blatantly informs the audience that they shouldn't worry about little things like a story's internal consistency. Then there is the lazy info dump narration that runs over the course of the first 10-15 mins or so (possibly even more). I gave this a pass before as it's a complicated enough scenario to set up but it could and should probably have been handled better. Also in regard to the kid, although a great performance, what an annoying little prick. I just wanted him to die a horrible death. There were also too many loose ends and red herrings, for example, the odd relationship between the boss and the inept looper (all build up and no pay off), the relationship between protagonist and the prostitute/stripper or whatever she was, which would have been a throwaway red herring if it had just gone nowhere, but to add to the oddness of it all we have the coincidence of her child being one of the targets, which again ends up going nowhere really

It's a shame really because I thought it was a decent enough effort the first time I watched it.

indough · 10-12-2012 7:34pm

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Did anyone else think the young Gatt man was going to be revealed as Daniel's younger self.

i did think that but instead it was just a wasted opportunity

bullvine · 14-01-2013 11:38am

I watched it, I enjoyed it but its somewhat over-rated.

I am sure this has been answered already but why did the assassins kill old Joe's wife so easily in the future when its meant to be virtually impossible to dispose of a body and then go to the bother of sending him back to be killed. Sort of defeats the purpose. Why didn't they just kill him as well?

Also, the time travel paradox thing, really just shows what a masterpiece the original Terminator was, no film since has managed to merge the time travel conflict issues so well, watching Looper just made me feel that it just wasn't original.

Sad Professor · 14-01-2013 11:44am

bullvine wrote: »

Also, the time travel paradox thing, really just shows what a masterpiece the original Terminator was, no film since has managed to merge the time travel conflict issues so well

Twelve Monkeys.

bullvine · 14-01-2013 12:09pm

Also, the targeting of three children to be executed, why didn't they just get the terminator to do it.

tok9 · 14-01-2013 2:13pm

Sad Professor wrote: »

Twelve Monkeys.

Absolutely love that movie.

Zubeneschamali · 28-01-2013 9:58am

Just caught this on DVD last night having avoided this thread and watched no trailers. It looked great and was well played, but the plot: dear, oh dear, what a heap of inconsistent nonsense.

There was a steady level of WTF? throughout, but having JGL narrate the ending was just too much.

kdevitt · 28-01-2013 10:30am

Rabidlamb wrote: »

The sequence where Paul Dano's future self was racing to get to the address while losing body parts was good but surely he knew it was a trap.
In fact there was no reason to be operating on his body at the same address.

Of course he knew it was a 'trap'. He was going there to be shot. The longer he left it, the more parts they cut off his present self, leaving him more and more mutilated for the 30 year period before he gets sent back.

The more pertinent question would be, why didn't he kill himself years ago given he was missing legs, hands, tongue etc, in which case the future self would have just disappeared (a la Bruce Willis at the end). That said, the doc may have kept him alive for the 30 year period, but who knows.

There are a lot of parts which don't stand up to investigation - for what its worth I really enjoyed the movie though.

ping123 · 28-01-2013 11:46am

I have to say I really liked this film, though I think you have to have your head screwed on to understand whats happening in it!

Zubeneschamali · 28-01-2013 12:01pm

ping123 wrote: »

I think you have to have your head screwed on to understand whats happening in it!

Nah, the plot is summed up by Bruce in the diner yelling at his younger self not to ask about time travel because it doesn't matter.

krudler · 28-01-2013 1:49pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Nah, the plot is summed up by Bruce in the diner yelling at his younger self not to ask about time travel because it doesn't matter.

and he's right, time travel movies are always full of plot holes, goes with the territory, even BTTF has them, so you accept the time travel mechanic in whatever way its used in the movie's universe and go with it.

paulieeye · 28-01-2013 4:33pm

krudler wrote: »

and he's right, time travel movies are always full of plot holes, goes with the territory, even BTTF has them, so you accept the time travel mechanic in whatever way its used in the movie's universe and go with it.

the terminator was only developed because skynet sent a terminator back to the 80's

kunst nugget · 28-01-2013 4:49pm

krudler wrote: »

and he's right, time travel movies are always full of plot holes, goes with the territory, even BTTF has them, so you accept the time travel mechanic in whatever way its used in the movie's universe and go with it.

But the problem with looper is that it creates paradoxes and does nothing to stick to any form of logic to explain them. It's like the film makers thought the had a smart idea for a storyline but were too dumb or lazy that flesh out the idea and have it make sense even within it's own universe.

bullvine · 28-01-2013 4:52pm

I liked the film but its definitely over-rated, personally, I think Donnie Darko handled the time travel paradox better than any other movie.

senordingdong · 03-02-2013 12:11am

While I enjoyed the premise and execution of the film, the dubstep soundtrack and constant barrage of intense noises really hindered my enjoyment of it.

It felt really over the top and obnoxious.

Looper *SPOILERS FROM POST 137*

Comments

Looper SPOILERS FROM POST 137