Looper

[Poindexter Arachnid]

Obviously not everyone agrees with you. (In fact, you seem to hold a minority opinion.) hence, it's not universal. Obviously a lot of professional reviewers who are well-versed in cinema did not have issues with the mixing of elements that seems so bothersome to you. I didn't really have an issue with it either.

I do agree with you about not having any idea where the movie was going, something that rarely happens with me, and so I could appreciate that aspect as well.

I certainly don't wish to be the contrarian here.

It wasn't the mixing of elements--my complaints stem from the approach and technical aspects. The script needed a bit more polish--the two opening acts went forth at full locomotive speed and ran out of steam once it reached the end of the line.

To me, the third act felt fabricated as opposed to organic segue. The themes and concepts presented are not common in mainstream science fiction, but Johnson didn't really go anywhere with them. Ultimately, he chose the easy way out. The mainstream exit.

Nonetheless, I can understand how Looper is critically lauded.
Upon closer inspection, it is, indeed, a very good movie.
But it should have been great. An instant classic.

 

[MacGuffin]

What an intellectually lazy response.

I think it's appropriate if someone says, "This should be a problem for ANYONE watching this movie -- it universally is wrong," and the reality is that the huge majority of the universe says, "Uh, we actually liked it." There is a discord between someone's claim (speaking for others) and the actual opinion of the others.

This is called projection.

Looper 93%

The Dark Knight Rises 87%

 

[Anew Leaf]

So I finally saw this tonight, and I enjoyed the ride. I did find one part of the plot super irritating to deal with however:

It drove me insane that they suddenly had two different time loops going at the same time.

The parts I really enjoyed:

That kid is so creepy. I wanted to kill him myself just to make the creep factor go away.
The scene with Old Seth losing body parts. Ok, I enjoyed in the sense of the effect that they had on me. It was a brilliant way to show a torture scene without actually seeing torture.
That the concept was simple and not focused on the mechanics of time travel.
That the characters took center stage.
That he dies in the end to save the new woman he loves. I thought that was a delightful new loop around to the same ending but different.

edit: I really hate all of the make-up they added to the kid's face. A: he wasn't attractive and B: he looked just enough different that it bothered me the entire movie.

 

[Mal12345]

Looper was a well-done sci-fi movie, I have no complaints about it. The theme of the movie is dark and the visual presentation is stunning. The sci-fi element blended so well into the plot that it didn't detract from the movie. Even the flying motorcycles were forgivable. The only question I have is, why do they send the old looper to be assassinated by himself 30 years in the past (thus "closing the loop")? This should lead to some awkward moments and so it does when a looper hesitates to kill his future self. The Rainmaker was also portrayed well. The fact that his future self was never seen in the movie was well-thought out. Some critics have bashed the movie's telekinetic element, but I thought it was awesome. So shut up. It is sci-fi after all, you unimaginative narrow-minded dweebs.

 

[swordpath]

Great interview with Emily Blunt (who was in the movie).. but it's got spoilers.
http://www.myspace.com/whats-hot/20...will-ever-see-and-the-proper-way-to-chop-wood

One note is that she talks about Pierce Gagnon, the boy... he's only five, but he's pretty mesmerizing on screen. She describes working with him in detail, and I think it's the funniest thing that the kid could be so "on" when he was being filmed, and then between takes he's just a boy without even a clear big-picture sense of everything in the movie.

Just watched Looper. I liked it. The boy did a great job.

 

[Lark]

Got to say that this film got me into eating steak and scrambled eggs and started me drinking water with my cups of black coffee.

I dont believe that I'd learn either french or chinese though. I liked the woman who was the mom of the rain maker, although she smokes and I'd not find her attractive in person I think.

 

[swordpath]

Got to say that this film got me into eating steak and scrambled eggs and started me drinking water with my cups of black coffee.

I dont believe that I'd learn either french or chinese though. I liked the woman who was the mom of the rain maker, although she smokes and I'd not find her attractive in person I think.

Emily Blunt is a babe. I'd smoke with her (and I quit smoking!)

 

[swordpath]

Got to say that this film got me into eating steak and scrambled eggs and started me drinking water with my cups of black coffee.

I dont believe that I'd learn either french or chinese though. I liked the woman who was the mom of the rain maker, although she smokes and I'd not find her attractive in person I think.

Emily Blunt is a babe. I'd smoke with her (and I quit smoking!)

 

[Ism]

 

[1487610420]

Emily Blunt is a babe. I'd smoke with her (and I quit smoking!)

I've got a cigar she can puff all she wants, if ya know what I mean.

The movie was cool, a bit unbalanced action wise though; kind of slow in the beginning and then rushed in the end, imo.

 

[UniqueMixture]

I enjoyed it and thought it was a fun ride, but I did not like the psychics being introduced randomly in the middle. It's a fun "once off" imo, not nearly as good as 12 monkeys in my opinion which dealt with the same sort of temporal synchronicity aspects that looper did. Also, why the hell is Bruce Willis in so many sci-fi flicks?

 

[swordpath]

The movie was cool, a bit unbalanced action wise though; kind of slow in the beginning and then rushed in the end, imo.

Interesting. I thought the first half was enjoyable and compelling and then when the farm came into play I kind of lost interest.

 

[1487610420]

Interesting. I thought the first half was enjoyable and compelling and then when the farm came into play I kind of lost interest.

I meant less than half, just the slow pace until the timeline split.

 

[Totenkindly]

I enjoyed it and thought it was a fun ride, but I did not like the psychics being introduced randomly in the middle. It's a fun "once off" imo, not nearly as good as 12 monkeys in my opinion which dealt with the same sort of temporal synchronicity aspects that looper did. Also, why the hell is Bruce Willis in so many sci-fi flicks?

I enjoyed both movies, but found 12 Monkeys colder, with the quirk acting as a buffer from me attaching more to the characters. I felt like the characters in Looper were more emotionally accessible and I resonated more with their plight overall, throughout the movie.

 

[sprinkles]

It's cool that it was a "show, don't tell" movie.

Everything ties together if you pay attention. Everything is a foreshadow for something else.

The TK's are introduced at the very beginning. This is a setup to introduce the Rainmaker later on.

The one guy being tortured shows what happens when a loop runs, which gives Young Joe a VERY big and dramatic incentive to kill Old Joe and avoid the Gat Men. This also introduces the Rainmaker which sets the entire premise of the movie and explains why Old Joe breaks his loop after it was already closed once.

The fact that Old Joe was willing to kill children to stop the Rainmaker from being was a big foreshadow to him nearly causing the Rainmaker himself. Old Joe being able to break his loop after it was already closed also predicts what Young Joe will do in the end to break his own loop as well.

 

[Totenkindly]

It's cool that it was a "show, don't tell" movie.

Everything ties together if you pay attention. Everything is a foreshadow for something else.

I totally agree with this, and the thoughtfulness of the movie in this regard makes it pretty "tight" to me as well -- it's why I like it. the pieces were all there, I didn't really notice any glaring "rip-offs" that occurred. I do understand why some people were bothered by the TK thing becoming a prominent part of the plot rather than a background detail, esp if they are not into that kind of thing, but I think the pieces were there early in the movie. And there's a big resonance in Joe's life that is mirrored in the kid's life as well; it is something that Young Joe uses to identify with the kid and ends up contributing to his final choices in the narrative. The cycle repeats itself from life to life.

(I've seen the picture twice, btw. So the second time, I had the luxury of looking at all the details to see what matched up or resonated throughout.)

 

[sprinkles]

I totally agree with this, and the thoughtfulness of the movie in this regard makes it pretty "tight" to me as well -- it's why I like it. the pieces were all there, I didn't really notice any glaring "rip-offs" that occurred. I do understand why some people were bothered by the TK thing becoming a prominent part of the plot rather than a background detail, esp if they are not into that kind of thing, but I think the pieces were there early in the movie. And there's a big resonance in Joe's life that is mirrored in the kid's life as well; it is something that Young Joe uses to identify with the kid and ends up contributing to his final choices in the narrative. The cycle repeats itself from life to life.

(I've seen the picture twice, btw. So the second time, I had the luxury of looking at all the details to see what matched up or resonated throughout.)

Yeah. I also like how there are no technical experts in the movie. I can't stand it when somebody does the explanatory monologue for how everything works, especially when the fact that they know all that stuff in the first place isn't even justified.

It's worse than when the detective has to always tell the forensics analyst to "zoom in... now, enhance." Is that necessary? Just shut up and do it!

 

[UniqueMixture]

I guess for me the TKs had no "purpose" except /insert powerful bad guy. I know they were introduced at the beginning, but you don't know what they are till later. They seemed unnecessary in the story like if he had another reason for accumulating power like some technology or just a lot of hired muscle it would have been more realistic. What I liked about 12 monkeys more was Willis going forward with his mission even though he thought he was insane and knew he would lose everything in the end

 

[sprinkles]

I'm pretty sure that telekinesis is less far fetched than time travel is.

Edit: and actually there's not a lot of difference between technology and mental powers. Both are governed by physics.

Time travel breaks a hell of a lot more rules than TK would though.

 

[Orangey]

Eh, I found the logic of the time travel to be...lacking. Also, the end of the film was a bit stupid and underwhelming. Otherwise, though, it was cool enough, except for JGL's ugly face (why, why, why did they give him chunti eyebrows?)