Looper

[terry78]

I really am starting to see how Rian could work for Flash now. Speed force should be right up his alley.

 

[Kane52630]

Yeah, I can totally see it.

 

[Marvin]

I have some mixed feelings on the film but mostly positive.
One thing I def don't not agree with many about is JGL's impersonation of Willis. It served the purposes of the narrative but to be honest that just didn't scream Willis. It only works in the context that Willis didn't quite act like Willis when he was younger. For example if the narrative called for a freaky friday body switch it would, in my book highlight the weakness of JGL, but like I said, it wasn't exactly a body switch.

When you watch say, Jim Carry do a characterization of some actors during his famous stand up, it just screams james dean/eastwood, etc. That wasn't happening here, it was much much more subtle which is fine, but it doesn't go anywhere to explain the reactions I'm seeing. Apart from being a scumbag, this JGL wasn't all that different from his inception counterpart. If anything the advertising/story screamed it for JGL, to randomly happen upon JGL singular performance in this, I honestly don't see the majority of people seeing Willis under their own power. Which sucks cause like Eastwood, Willis have very bold mannerisms.

That being said it didn't at all affect the film for me. I'm just consistently surprised to hear many people proclaim the opposite about the impersonation. It was serviceable. I do think the impression was at it's strongest when Levitt was first brought to abe. It does make me wonder what a young Willis would have done with the role.

As for the rest of the film, I thought it was pretty neat. Mostly I enjoyed the big time travel debate my pal and I had afterwards.

Strangely enough, this film reminded me of Timecop, except that film may have played by the rules better...including the obligatory farm land ending.

 

[Kane52630]

It's the subtle impersonation that makes it great, he's not over doing it like some would expect.

 

[terry78]

He said he didn't want to go back and look at Willis in his younger days, he more or less wanted to act how Willis of today would have acted as a young guy.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

It's the subtle impersonation that makes it great, he's not over doing it like some would expect.

Yep. I thought JGL's performance was impressive as hell. It was the minor details that sold to me (like his smirk).

 

[Viper81]

For what reason did they have to

Spoiler

torture Seth? The ending establishes that if the younger counterpart is killed, the older disappears. So....why bother?

I also thought that

Spoiler

Kid Blue was Abe. But instead, Kid Blue was pointless. Deleted scene maybe?

About the ending

Spoiler

Why did Cid have a jaw problem because of Bruce's inflicted injury, but Cid couldn't have possibly gotten it from Bruce the first time because he hadn't gone back. Why couldn't JGL just kill Bruce and be a better person? Cid needed him.

Finally, I simply cannot believe

Spoiler

Cid grows up to be Dustin Hoffman and goes on a road trip with his brother Tom Cruise. Mind. Blown.

Spoiler

They explained how they couldn't kill the younger loop because it made too great a ripple. If they kill the younger loop, it creates a paradox...if the older one isn't sent back to initiate that chain of events, then it resets the loop and creates a different timeline (which is why jgl shooting himself resolves the whole problem.

The jaw problem is explained by the loop itself. It's a chicken egg thing, but because time travel was invented, the events of the loops have always happened. There is no "first time" in that regard, because "time travel hasn't been invented yet, but in 30 years it will have been."

 

[Octoberist]

I wished Rian Jonson played his banjo in the film's score!

 

[jonathancrane]

It is hard rating the film, as it is a fraction away from being a ten. My only problem is that makeup artist did a terrible job on JGL, especially on the outdoor sequences, as he looked like Dr. Frank-N-Furter.

 

[redhawk23]

The only parts that looked really off for me were the parts that looked off in the trailer, and in the context of the film, it was from him doing drugs.

I do agree with others though that Kid Blue's character could have had more to do. And his final showdown with the Joes was rather abrupt.

This is amusing.

 

[gohei_]

Oh yes, about the drugs, I thought it was cool that they injected into their eyes just like John's does it in Pitch Black.

 

[bubbadoom]

It is hard rating the film, as it is a fraction away from being a ten. My only problem is that makeup artist did a terrible job on JGL, especially on the outdoor sequences, as he looked like Dr. Frank-N-Furter.

Boy, were we watching the same movie? He looked pretty damn good to me - pretty much all the time!

 

[Jackasscoley15]

I'm actually fine with Kid Blue's limited screen time. I honestly can't stand the actor who plays him, so the less I see of him, the better.

 

[BritishChap007]

I'm actually fine with Kid Blue's limited screen time. I honestly can't stand the actor who plays him, so the less I see of him, the better.

I don't have a problem with his screen time, I have a problem with his developement. He had no arc and no meaningful purpose.

 

[The Guard]

I thought this was a pretty good movie. A solid, if somewhat generic script in places that had enough great ideas to make it work, and ultimately a well made film that a good cast elevated into something memorable. The film doesn't seem to follow its own internal logic in places (Why didn't the experiences young Joe had remotely impact old Joe's empathy toward the kid?), and I don't really think this is "thinking SciFi" as people have stated. It's a fairly satisfying movie, except for the ending, but that's mostly down to execution. The third act has the requisite third act issues, and its kind of an uneven film as is.

Spoiler

Regarding the end, my girlfriend looked at me and said "Why didn't he just shoot off his hand to make his older self drop the gun?" Probably would have bled out anyway, but still. She also wondered who the hell was narrating if he was dead while telling his own story

 

[terry78]

I thought this was a pretty good movie. A solid, if somewhat generic script in places that had enough great ideas to make it work, and ultimately a well made film that a good cast elevated into something memorable. The film doesn't seem to follow its own internal logic in places (Why didn't the experiences young Joe had remotely impact old Joe's empathy toward the kid?), and I don't really think this is "thinking SciFi" as people have stated. It's a fairly satisfying movie, except for the ending, but that's mostly down to execution. The third act has the requisite third act issues, and its kind of an uneven film as is.

Spoiler

Regarding the end, my girlfriend looked at me and said "Why didn't he just shoot off his hand to make his older self drop the gun?" Probably would have bled out anyway, but still. She also wondered who the hell was narrating if he was dead while telling his own story

^That, my friend, is a story for another day. It's like that urban legend about Citizen Kane where apparently some guy asked Welles

Spoiler

how anyone knew his last word was Rosebud if he died alone

 

[redhawk23]

I thought this was a pretty good movie. A solid, if somewhat generic script in places that had enough great ideas to make it work, and ultimately a well made film that a good cast elevated into something memorable. The film doesn't seem to follow its own internal logic in places (Why didn't the experiences young Joe had remotely impact old Joe's empathy toward the kid?), and I don't really think this is "thinking SciFi" as people have stated. It's a fairly satisfying movie, except for the ending, but that's mostly down to execution. The third act has the requisite third act issues, and its kind of an uneven film as is.

Spoiler

Regarding the end, my girlfriend looked at me and said "Why didn't he just shoot off his hand to make his older self drop the gun?" Probably would have bled out anyway, but still. She also wondered who the hell was narrating if he was dead while telling his own story

Spoiler

As for not just shooting off his hand, it was a split second decision. Would just shooting off his own hand really work? Why wouldnt Bruce just pick it up with his other hand. Its not like he would feel pain.

 

[Marvin]

The more I think about the film the less sense things make. Such as

Spoiler

So if Paul Dano is a freakish amputee now, that's great, he's going to live out a future as looper with no limbs I guess. Anyways he get's sent back as all age appropriate loopers do. In order to get to the exact same point he's at when his future self is loosing limbs that would imply the same events that lead up to him running away still happened. Such as "running away"? Dudes got no limbs. And who's he run from exactly?

Stuff like that lead me to think we're dealing with alternate timeline stuff, with is the messiest sort. Especially when it comes to things like future "selves" receiving new memories and stuff...

 

[kewlmatto]

Stuff like that lead me to think we're dealing with alternate timeline stuff, with is the messiest sort. Especially when it comes to things like future "selves" receiving new memories and stuff...

Yep. I think every time these things happen a tangent universe is created.

 

[chaseter]

No tangent universes I don't think. [blackout]You can change the past. So when we see Joe kill future Joe (that's when we see Joe's life play out) and then he decides that he doesn't want to die and fights back when he is abducted. But, he still has to go back in time to save his wife. He knows that he can't have a hood on or he will get blasted. It's a loop...a big circle that just keeps going on and on. Had Joe not killed himself at the end, the loop would continue and he would be abducted and sent back in time to be killed by himself even though he may have killed his future self. A bit complicated.[/blackout]

 

[redhawk23]

The more I think about the film the less sense things make. Such as

Spoiler

So if Paul Dano is a freakish amputee now, that's great, he's going to live out a future as looper with no limbs I guess. Anyways he get's sent back as all age appropriate loopers do. In order to get to the exact same point he's at when his future self is loosing limbs that would imply the same events that lead up to him running away still happened. Such as "running away"? Dudes got no limbs. And who's he run from exactly?

Stuff like that lead me to think we're dealing with alternate timeline stuff, with is the messiest sort. Especially when it comes to things like future "selves" receiving new memories and stuff...

Future selves also cascade through muliple universes. They exist as just one probability. Their memories are foggy because certain events become more or less probable. While its improbable that Old Seth would still be there, having run away as a multiple amputee, he still exists as the end result of a possibility. The only thing that completely destroys all the possible scenarios of the future is to just kill the person in the past. [BLACKOUT]Hence the ending.[/BLACKOUT]


Johnson explains a lot of these issues in this interview here.
http://www.slashfilm.com/ten-mysteries-in-looper-explained-by-director-rian-johnson/

He confirms that basically every decision produces alternate timelines but that the film limits its self to following just one thread.

[BLACKOUT]8. Does Joe’s suicide at the end work? Does it end the circle of violence?[/BLACKOUT]

[BLACKOUT]Yes, if you want to think of it that way. Johnson describes Looper‘s story as a very narrow, focused, one-minded view of time travel, but really there are multiple time lines that one could follow if they so choose. As an example, he used the idea of Seth’s limbs being chopped off. “On one level you can say, each time that happens, you’re dropping down to another time line,” Johnson said. “But the character’s experience is just that it’s this way one moment, suddenly that happens and it’s this way.” Meaning, for the sake of the movie Joe’s suicide worked but he’s just one person. You can’t change everything.[/BLACKOUT]

 

[nightwing06]

The fact that the film Looper invigorates the time travel genre is just one of the reasons it deserves high marks.
Based in a dystopian future of the haves and the have absolutely nothing. Joseph "Joe" Simmons (Joseph Gordon-Levitt,),
is a Looper one who terminates those transported from the future for the mob .Loopers who are seemingly living
the good life of collecting silver bars as payment which comes attached to their transported hits, and clubbing drug induced nights.
Then they are faced with closing the loop,meaning terminating your future self,but Joe's future self (Bruce Willis)
has other plans.

Shades of other popular time travel films like The Terminator and Frequency run throughout Looper,also a dash of
X-men is put into the mix.
Even though the prosthetics and contact lenses applied to Levitt are a bit distracting he and Willis are excellent
in the film. I also liked Jeff Daniels moments as Joe's boss, a lieutenant in the Looper organization he expertly channels
The Dude character from The Big Lebowski
There is also an involving subplot with a sugar cane farmer named Sara ( Emily Blunt), who lives with her son Cid (Pierce Gagnon)
and how they figure into the lives of the 2 Joe's.
If that isn't enough there are two love stories at the core of the film.One familial and one romantic.
Director and writer Rian Johnson offers the audience a plate full of style,action,humor and romance and i gladly gobbled it up.
Sale of 1-10 an 8½

 

[Kane52630]

 

[Octoberist]

What I also loved about Looper is the vision of the future. It's like our reality in some areas, but then futuristic in the more urban settings. I like the city too. It has it's own take of the Blade Runner approach.

 

[Octoberist]

I really am starting to see how Rian could work for Flash now. Speed force should be right up his alley.

Thank the maker I'm not alone on this. WB would be stupid not hire Rian.