State your unpopular film related opinion - - - Part 12

[CConn]

Yes, and the response Looper got from me was "This concept is cool and Joseph Gordon Levitt did a good job, but the stuff about telekinesis and that little kid were awful."

And that's exactly what I mean. Well not exactly, because the kid didn't bother me, but despite its numerous qualities, like you, it ultimately didn't woo me with its overall delivery or conclusion.

 

[DyeLorean]

If you're making a time travel movie, you must establish the rules in which the story is going to take place. That's basic stuff.
For me, the problem with Looper is that there's wasn't any explanation of how time travel works in that movie. In fact, when they are about to start talking about it, Bruce Willis' character just shuts down any possibility.
I mean, the most interesting thing about time travel is how it works and how is going to affect the story. Looper made a huge mistake on that, and so it lost me completely as a viewer. Is like 'anything can happen' with the telekinesis and the time paradoxes -that they didn't even try to explain-.
Though an interesting concept, I think Looper is an overrated mess.

 

[terry78]

Well, in real life that's what would happen. Not a lot of us would want to delve that deep into it if it's become such a common thing.

 

[CConn]

If you're making a time travel movie, you must establish the rules in which the story is going to take place. That's basic stuff.
For me, the problem with Looper is that there's wasn't any explanation of how time travel works in that movie. In fact, when they are about to start talking about it, Bruce Willis' character just shuts down any possibility.
I mean, the most interesting thing about time travel is how it works and how is going to affect the story. Looper made a huge mistake on that, and so it lost me completely as a viewer. Is like 'anything can happen' with the telekinesis and the time paradoxes -that they didn't even try to explain-.
Though an interesting concept, I think Looper is an overrated mess.

I disasgree entirely. Wasting time establishing fake science is the oldest trope in the book for sci-fi films, and it's quite often the biggest downfall of most flawed efforts in science fiction.

It was an extremely ingenious move to take a thoroughly sci-fi setting and inject into it a thoroughly human story that had an extremely quaint and timeless morale/resonance to it.

 

[DyeLorean]

But we are not watching real life, we are watching a movie. That's a lame excuse and cheating the audience.

 

[terry78]

I think it was a clever hand wave adding some realism to the whole thing. I didn't feel it was a cheat, more like a self aware "we know other movies do this all the time attempting to explain and be all psudeo sciencey...we ain't going that route."

 

[CConn]

But we are not watching real life, we are watching a movie. That's a lame excuse and cheating the audience.

Lol, no. That's ridiculous reasoning.

 

[DyeLorean]

It was an extremely ingenious move to take a thoroughly sci-fi setting and inject into it a thoroughly human story that had an extremely quaint and timeless morale/resonance to it.

I'm ok with all that, but the movie needs to make some sort of sense for you to feel something.

 

[DyeLorean]

What the hell, I'm in the unpopular opinion thread, I'm safe

 

[CConn]

I'm ok with all that, but the movie needs to make some sort of sense for you to feel something.

The emotions and motivations need to make sense.

And they did.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Skyfall was ok. It played up a villain that's hardly in the movie.

 

[Snow Queen]

If you're making a time travel movie, you must establish the rules in which the story is going to take place. That's basic stuff.
For me, the problem with Looper is that there's wasn't any explanation of how time travel works in that movie. In fact, when they are about to start talking about it, Bruce Willis' character just shuts down any possibility.
I mean, the most interesting thing about time travel is how it works and how is going to affect the story. Looper made a huge mistake on that, and so it lost me completely as a viewer. Is like 'anything can happen' with the telekinesis and the time paradoxes -that they didn't even try to explain-.
Though an interesting concept, I think Looper is an overrated mess.

To be fair, if I remember correctly, a deleted scene did explain their Time Travel more.

 

[The Joker]

Skyfall was ok. It played up a villain that's hardly in the movie.

Like Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs. I'd say they both have the same amount of screen time or near around.

 

[titansupes]

Like Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs. I'd say they both have the same amount of screen time or near around.

Silence of the Lambs was well written, though.

 

[The Joker]

Silence of the Lambs was well written, though.

So was Skyfall.

 

[Brain Damage]

Like Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs. I'd say they both have the same amount of screen time or near around.

Hannibal Lecter isn't the main antogonist in Silence of the Lambs, that'd be Buffalo Bill. Between the two of them, there was plenty of villainy throughout that movie.

Having said that, I thought Skyfall made great use of it's villain.

 

[titansupes]

So was Skyfall.

I found the whole thing forced, awkward, stunningly unoriginal and hackneyed. Painful to watch in several instances (not just due to the writing).

 

[Donnie Darko]

The emotions and motivations need to make sense.

And they did.

I will agree that the motivations of the characters made sense, but I think it would've had more of an emotional impact if

Spoiler

Bruce Willis was just killing defenseless kids to prevent the future, as opposed to the main kid having super powers. Whoever decided to keep all of the telekinesis/kid stuff out of the marketing for that movie deserves a raise.

 

[The Joker]

Hannibal Lecter isn't the main antogonist in Silence of the Lambs, that'd be Buffalo Bill. Between the two of them, there was plenty of villainy throughout that movie.

Buffalo Bill probably appears even less than Lecter does.

Having said that, I thought Skyfall made great use of it's villain.

Indeed. Quality over quantity.

I found the whole thing forced, awkward, stunningly unoriginal and hackneyed. Painful to watch in several instances (not just due to the writing).

That's your loss. I feel the exact opposite.

I felt it was far superior to The Dark Knight Rises, too. Especially in the writing department.

 

[Figs]

But we are not watching real life, we are watching a movie. That's a lame excuse and cheating the audience.

The only people it "cheated" are dense.

This movie did NOT need to explain time travel because it was the simple Back to the Future style. You go back in time and change something, it affects the future...boom...done.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

You're both foolishly wrong.

Sure, CConn.

 

[Majik1387]

I should really get around to seeing Looper I guess. I had no idea there was telekinesis in it.

On an unwatched opinion though, I appreciate that it's not going the uber sci-fi route of explaining how time travel works; that's always a bore, especially when the movie ends up ignoring it's own rules.

 

[Schlosser85]

You're both foolishly wrong.

It's not that hard to disagree without being insulting, and I suggest you try learning this.

 

[CConn]

I will agree that the motivations of the characters made sense, but I think it would've had more of an emotional impact if

Spoiler

Bruce Willis was just killing defenseless kids to prevent the future, as opposed to the main kid having super powers. Whoever decided to keep all of the telekinesis/kid stuff out of the marketing for that movie deserves a raise.

Hm, I guess. I dunno. The telekinesis wasn't what really bothered me.

What I couldn't stand was when they abandoned the whole sci-fi crime story to spend pretty much the entire second act stuck on a farm. A pretty boring farm at that. It just didn't do anything for me.

 

[CConn]

Like Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs. I'd say they both have the same amount of screen time or near around.

Except Hannibal didn't bounce between being a legitimate menacing threat and a tongue in check farce of a villain.

To me, it constantly felt like they didn't know what to do with Silva. One minute he was Ledger's Joker, the next he was Hackman's Lex Luthor. It made for a very... Strange villain, IMO.