Looper *SPOILERS FROM POST 137*

johnny_ultimate

Sshhh with all this talk of sequels, they might actually make the damn thing :pac:. I think as a standalone, clever thriller this is perfectly realised with very little need for expansion. I think the sense of mystery and ambiguity in some respects only enhances it. Hopefully Rian Johnson will move onto other things and continue his creative streak, maybe with another fantastic episode or two of Breaking Bad along the way

krudler

Its like The Matrix in that regard, it talks about a bigger expanded world outside of what we see in the film but its self contained too so doesn't really need to go there. But since this is Hollywood and anything remotely successful is treated as a new franchise oppurtunity I wouldnt be the least bit surprised to see more Looper set films.

Mickeroo

It works great as a stand-alone movie I'd rather not see a sequel. If they have to make another though I guess it would focus on the kid maybe, I think bringing Joe back into it again would kind of negate the story of this film too much.

fluke

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Sshhh with all this talk of sequels, they might actually make the damn thing :pac:. I think as a standalone, clever thriller this is perfectly realised with very little need for expansion. I think the sense of mystery and ambiguity in some respects only enhances it. Hopefully Rian Johnson will move onto other things and continue his creative streak, maybe with another fantastic episode or two of Breaking Bad along the way

I really really hope there isn't a sequel. I know if it makes money then yeah they’ll make a sequel but this movie had two strong elements to it –

time travel and mutants

. Whatever they do in a sequel it will simply will be a retread of one or both of those concepts. Oh and

the lead character is dead

, so any connection to the first movie is limited, unless the go down the adventures of Rainmaker route...

I’m so fed up of sequels being made to films that really don’t warrant sequels (Taken for instance). There was a time when I heard a sequel was being made and was excited but now every bloody action/sc-fi/comic book movie is made with the focus on setting itself up for a sequel than in telling a solid story. Okay there are some exceptions that lend themselves to a bigger universe, comic book movies in particular. If this, or Inception or Dredd* don’t get a sequel then I’ll be happy.

*yes I went there

Mickeroo

20 million in it's opening weekend in the states beaten to the top by Hotel Transylvania, what was the budget on this?

don ramo

Mickeroo wrote: »

20 million in it's opening weekend in the states beaten to the top by Hotel Transylvania, what was the budget on this?

$30 million

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looper_%28film%29

i think it will be a financial success:D:D

Mickeroo

don ramo wrote: »

$30 million

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looper_%28film%29

i think it will be a financial success:D:D

Only after seeing your comment in the Dredd thread. I can't believe it only cost 30 million! I would have guessed closer to 100, astounding achievment in fairness.

Banjaxed82

Mickeroo wrote: »

Only after seeing your comment in the Dredd thread. I can't believe it only cost 30 million! I would have guessed closer to 100, astounding achievment in fairness.

I don't know if it's that astounding. It's probably just financially correct. These ridiculous 100 million dollar blockbusters could be shot for half, but its easier to market something when it costs a sh!tload, therefore being a proper BLOCKBUSTER!!

The difference between Looper and 100 million dollar budget is that Looper wasn't shelling out stupid money on superfluous nonsense to inflate the budget. The cloth was well and truly cut according to means.

Mickeroo

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

I don't know if it's that astounding. It's probably just financially correct. These ridiculous 100 million dollar blockbusters could be shot for half, but its easier to market something when it costs a sh!tload, therefore being a proper BLOCKBUSTER!!

The difference between Looper and 100 million dollar budget is that Looper wasn't shelling out stupid money on superfluous nonsense to inflate the budget. The cloth was well and truly cut according to means.

True, I just thought it looked like a much more expensive movie.

krudler

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

I don't know if it's that astounding. It's probably just financially correct. These ridiculous 100 million dollar blockbusters could be shot for half, but its easier to market something when it costs a sh!tload, therefore being a proper BLOCKBUSTER!!

The difference between Looper and 100 million dollar budget is that Looper wasn't shelling out stupid money on superfluous nonsense to inflate the budget. The cloth was well and truly cut according to means.

30 mil is nothing in blockbuster terms, even animated movies easily cost 150 million+ these days. 30 mil is less than some movies marketing budget these days. Looper does look great for its relatively low budget, some decent effects and shots.

Bullseye1

Hoping to see this tonight. Excited by the positive reviews.

Whispered

Really really enjoyed this film. So much so I came looking for this forum to see what others had to say about it

When it ended there was a good few seconds of dead silence in the cinema. Always a good sign I think.

Sir Gallagher

Whispered wrote: »

Really really enjoyed this film. So much so I came looking for this forum to see what others had to say about it

When it ended there was a good few seconds of dead silence in the cinema. Always a good sign I think.

There was silence because there was no music and it felt a little awkward.

I was entertained by this but the more i think about it the more it annoys me. I felt slightly ripped off, i mean, the second half of the film is set on a farm... what an absolute buzzkill after being immersed in that cool futuristic metropolis in the first half.

JGL's CG face was a bit jarring at times but to be honest it was better than his real one.

The parts with the kid, although not the worst child actor, were just a little bit farcical. Although the part where he tripped on the stairs and went mental was cool and pretty freaky.

Another thing which bugged me was that the future seemed like a much nicer place than the present(2044) i thought it would have been better to have shown the future to be completely messed up because of the Rainmaker therefore adding much more weight to how important it was to kill/change this kid for the sake of mankind.

There were some very cool scenes and ideas in Looper but as a whole it just was a bit of a let down.

Unintentional funny moments: When the dad from Raising Hope shows up at the door.

Bruce Willis doing some kind of mid air boogie when Cid goes mental at the end.

Duggy747

Enjoyed it, great first half to the film but it hits the brakes come the farm. A good 20 minutes would have been cut and nothing would have been lost from it.

Ending didn't seem to impress people in the cinema, I thought it was a bit of a let-down considering all that went before it. The lack of music does make it a sort of awkward ending.

There's only so much a film can do on time-travelling that hasn't been done before but this was nicely executed and made it feel somehow fresh.

The bikes should have been removed from the film, added little to it and just looked horrificly bad like the scene with young Joe zipping through the fields on it, looked like cheap TV.

I'm not going to bother talking about the time travel aspect, too early in the morning for me :pac: One thing I'm left with is that, from what I think, Cid would still become the Rainmaker, regardless of what happened to him because he existed in Old Joe's timeline despite he had never been in contact with the kid. The same timeline where he killed his old self and lived out the next 30 years of his life.

Good solid film that's let down in the middle but picks up nicely again towards the end.

krudler

I was listening to the slashfilm podcast talking about it and one of the reviewers made a good point, in the scene where the younger Paul Dano character is being mutilated by the doc and his older self is starting to lose his fingers and nose, wouldnt that mean that the older version would have lived for 30 years with all these mutilations? If they cut up the younger one, he'd still be alive to become the older one and come back but he'd be missing his fingers and nose for years, or is it an alternate timeline? if young Joes memories are affecting old Joes ones its the same principle.

Otacon

krudler wrote: »

I was listening to the slashfilm podcast talking about it and one of the reviewers made a good point, in the scene where the younger Paul Dano character is being mutilated by the doc and his older self is starting to lose his fingers and nose, wouldnt that mean that the older version would have lived for 30 years with all these mutilations? If they cut up the younger one, he'd still be alive to become the older one and come back but he'd be missing his fingers and nose for years, or is it an alternate timeline? if young Joes memories are affecting old Joes ones its the same principle.

Abe - "This time travel crap, just fries your brain like a egg..."

Sad Professor

None of the time travel in the film makes sense. The film is littered with paradoxes. There's no point thinking about it too much.

senordingdong

indough wrote: »

i dont know if im taking this up wrong but it sounds ridiculously contrived. why wouldnt they just kill the person in their present?

This.

don ramo

time travel doesnt exist as of yet, so untill it does everything is a theory, there are probably 100 different theories, but you have to remember you cant cover everyone's theory cause your not working with scientific fact

krudler

senordingdong wrote: »

This.

Rian Johnson addressed this in an interview where he basically said the Loopers have to kill themselves as otherwise they'd have to live for 30 years knowing who their murderer will be, and that would have bigger consequences for the timetravel aspect.

johnny_ultimate

Easiest way to send back a ****load of gold too.

Time travel UPS is a bitch.

fitz

What's melting my brain atm is Sarah running her fingers through Joe's hair in the last scene.
The subtle suggestion of a paradoxical loop is too much to ignore...

phil1nj

krudler wrote: »

Rian Johnson addressed this in an interview where he basically said the Loopers have to kill themselves as otherwise they'd have to live for 30 years knowing who their murderer will be, and that would have bigger consequences for the timetravel aspect.

???? But the loopers do know who there murderer will be, it's themselves (hence closing the loop). They know this information in the past when their contract is terminated via a "golden payday", they then have 30 years or so to live with this information. Surely the problems arise when they don't go through with this (as is seen twice in the movie with BW/JGL and Paul Dano's future self). Or am I missing something here?

I will say this, the more I think about this the less sense it makes. I think the movie is more about possible alternative realities crossing than time-travel. I've seen an interview with the director where he says that everything stems from one deviation in the timeline. I think that is an over simplification and leads to more questions than it answers.

Mickeroo

phil1nj wrote: »

???? But the loopers do know who there murderer will be, it's themselves (hence closing the loop). They know this information in the past when their contract is terminated via a "golden payday", they then have 30 years or so to live with this information. Surely the problems arise when they don't go through with this (as is seen twice in the movie with BW/JGL and Paul Dano's future self). Or am I missing something here?

I will say this, the more I think about this the less sense it makes. I think the movie is more about possible alternative realities crossing than time-travel. I've seen an interview with the director where he says that everything stems from one deviation in the timeline. I think that is an over simplification and leads to more questions than it answers.

If the guys in the future don't close the loops then their timeline would no longer exist as the loopers would never have retired. They have to send the bodies back for this reason.

One thing that confused me though, how do Jeff Daniels & Co. know so quickly when a Looper doesn't kill their mark? I couldn't see any reason they didn't just pretend to have shot their future selves then get the hell out of the city with their gold. Was this explained?

oxygen

Actually Im starting to get this now… I can see now why a looper has to kill himself, thats fine.

Say for example, Bruce Willis is not killed by JGL(his younger self) but by just some random other looper. If JGL finds out who killed Bruce Willis (his older self) he could try to kill that looper (or even all other loopers) causing the time lines to get messed up in a big way.

But there still are couple of other things I don’t get:

1.
I know it’s impossible to dispose of a body in the future but why send a perp back from the future to the past to kill them? Why not have the looper kill the perp in the past. That way the perp would completely vanish, including the effects of any crime he commited. (For example, if he stole money off the gangsters in the future, they would have it back).

2.
Im ok with the changes made to a past self effecting the future self immediately. i.e. when the looper had his fingers cut off in the past, immediately he lost his finger, and it was completely healed over as if it was an old scar. (It wasn’t gushing blood) But when they cut off his foot, immediately he couldn’t drive the car. Why would someone with no foot start to drive a car even? If that is immediately an old scar he presumably has been living with it for years.

phil1nj

Mickeroo wrote: »

If the guys in the future don't close the loops then their timeline would no longer exist as the loopers would never have retired. They have to send the bodies back for this reason.

I understand that but my question was about Krudler's post that the loopers have to kill themselves otherwise they would have to live for 30 years knowing who their killer was. My point was that the loopers knew this already (hence the final payoff). There is a far bigger risk to timelines by them not killing their future selves (hence Abe's concern at having a guy from the future running around in the past when Paul Dano fails to dispatch his future self, which was your point).

Also, this film plays pretty loose and fast with rules of time travel from other sci-fi movies and popular culture (each to their own I suppose). Surely the final scenario should have seen JGL's gun jam or misfire to prevent all of the various paradoxes that will undoubtably occur by taking himslef out early from the equation (e.g. all those people lives cut short by Old Joe killed in the past would surely cause major rifts in the pasts time lines etc). Or maybe I watch too many sci-fi movies:D

Jimdagym

Loved loved loved this. Saw it in Carlow afternoon in an empty screen

Was anyone else watching it and thinking that maybe the rainmaker was a good guy that we were hearing about from a skewed bad guy POV? Closing all the loops is hardly a heinous act.

Otacon

Otacon wrote: »

Abe - "This time travel crap, just fries your brain like a egg..."

BTW the reason I posted this earlier is because I believe the director is basically telling us with this line [and one from Bruce later in the movie, where he says something like 'That doesn't matter'], that yes, the time-travel logic is unsound but if you just go with it, you may enjoy the movie more...

Mickeroo

Jimdagym wrote: »

Loved loved loved this. Saw it in Carlow afternoon in an empty screen

Was anyone else watching it and thinking that maybe the rainmaker was a good guy that we were hearing about from a skewed bad guy POV? Closing all the loops is hardly a heinous act.

Fair point, maybe he actually was going all superhero on their asses. Society seems to have degraded quite a bit in the movie though, the loopers didn't exactly strike me as being all that secret/illegal in the movie. They weren't shy of showing off their blunderbusses in public for example, and their HQ even had a basket for them out front.

homerun_homer

I sorta looked at the Rainmaker closing off the Loops as him maybe trying to stop any possibility of someone going back in time to mess with his rise to the top of the mafia/criminal underworld and lessen the chance that someone like Joe would try and change the future.

Jimdagym

homerun_homer wrote: »

I sorta looked at the Rainmaker closing off the Loops as him maybe trying to stop any possibility of someone going back in time to mess with his rise to the top of the mafia/criminal underworld and lessen the chance that someone like Joe would try and change the future.

But he wasn't doing anything to stop / prevent time travel. The only people to time travel were those about to meet a bullet.

stevenmu

I really liked the figure-of-8 loop in the middle where young Joe failed to kill old Joe, but then seemed to die when he fell from the fire escape, causing a paradox and time resetting, and then he did kill old Joe, letting him grow old, and then escape and come back in time. That was done pretty well.

I don't get why him killing himself at the end didn't cause another paradox though.

Fishooks12

Just back from it. Rather good, plenty to like but plenty that didn't really do it for me too.

Some of the cons:

Pretty boring visuals for a film set in the future. Although the last two films I've seen (bar the pretty awful Campaign) were visually stunning (Prometheus, Killing them Softly) so it just looks a bit dull in comparison

Knew very quickly that the child was the "rainmaker"

JGL eyebrows!!

Was unsure why they went half way to fleshing out the character of the young Gatling Gunner, then just seemed to give up. I mean what was the whole dynamic between him and Jeff Daniels character about?

The child could have worked as an instigator, but how are we supposed to feel in anyway satisfied about the ending when we saw none of the damage he would have gone on to do had JGL not took his own life



Not going to go into the paradoxes. Time travel films have a bit of leeway in my book anyway.

Overall an enjoyable experience, but no Primer.

Fishooks12

krudler wrote: »

. Looper does look great for its relatively low budget, some decent effects and shots.

Primer looks ten times better and cost about 20k to make. Looper had enough buck to make it look a lot better than it did for most of the film

johnny_ultimate

Thought the film looked absolutely fantastic TBH. It was meant to be gritty and hardboiled as opposed to shallow futuristic flash. As pretty as the good ship Prometheus is, I don't for a second believe it could actually exist or function. This ugly future? I can see it - in fact I even sort of recognise it. The effects were also used sparingly and efficiently to enhance the world and story, which makes a welcome change.

Not saying it's Samsara or anything, but it's understated, unshowy visuals are IMO one of its strongest assets.

Corholio

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Thought the film looked absolutely fantastic TBH. It was meant to be gritty and hardboiled as opposed to shallow futuristic flash. As pretty as the good ship Prometheus is, I don't for a second believe it could actually exist or function. This ugly future? I can see it - in fact I even sort of recognise it. The effects were also used sparingly and efficiently to enhance the world and story, which makes a welcome change.

Not saying it's Samsara or anything, but it's understated, unshowy visuals are IMO one of its strongest assets.

This.

It's not meant to be the shiny chrome future of other films. There's touches here and there that shows it's the future, and considering the film's tone, the future vision was perfect for the film IMO.

SVG

Saw this today and enjoyed it.

I think a good chunk of my appreciation comes from the fact that it didn't treat me like a moron- it felt smart. Characters with a bit of depth, clever dialogue, some humour. For a film with time travel, it didn't feel too explain-y. The only moment that stood out to me as being very expositiony was that bit where they pass the ad about telekinesis and Paul Dano (wasn't he annoying?) is doing the coin trick.

I kind of wish the stuff about telekinesis had just been cut out. In a film that's already complicated by time travel, all that magic felt like an unnecessary complication. That said, I did like the moment where Emily Blunt talked about how she'd thwart guys' efforts to impress her with their powers.

The setting really did feel like a homage to all those eighties films with dystopias filled with homeless people pushing trolleys. That brattish guy who was chasing Joe was pure spoilt-kid eighties villain, right down to his eyebrows. And I thought this was a great role for Bruce, playing with his eighties/nineties action persona in a clever way. If Rian Johnson wants to go back in time and re-do the Expendables, I'd consider it a great, humanitarian use of time travel.

It had style too. I liked the slapbang edits- some of it felt Edgar Wright-ish. And that montage! Fun, fun, fun. At that stage in the film I was kind of hoping that it would continue in that vein- looping through the future and back (I would like to see that version of the film too). Where it actually went, to the farm, felt very different from the first part of the film. The pace felt completely different. I'm not sure the two parts fit together but Emily Blunt was so good that I was ok with it.

So overall- above average, interesting, clever, fun. Glad I saw it on the big screen.

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Thought the film looked absolutely fantastic TBH. It was meant to be gritty and hardboiled as opposed to shallow futuristic flash. As pretty as the good ship Prometheus is, I don't for a second believe it could actually exist or function. This ugly future? I can see it - in fact I even sort of recognise it. The effects were also used sparingly and efficiently to enhance the world and story, which makes a welcome change.

Not saying it's Samsara or anything, but it's understated, unshowy visuals are IMO one of its strongest assets.

I loved the look of the world, the cobbled together cars with solar panels stuck to them without being all nice and sleek, just exposed wires and panels. The big hats the guys wore in the old Joe time scenes, the glass phones, the flying bikes that werent some super futuristic hovercraft but basically a big rideable jet engine. it all seemed sci fi but grounded in reality. the scene where Blunt and Levitt are running out of the house as the kid is making everything levitate is going to be one of the most remembered shots of the year without a doubt.
I liked how the people appeared from the future too, no extravagant effect, they just appear, no Quantum Leap or BTTF style visuals needed.

Josey Wales

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Primer looks ten times better and cost about 20k to make. Looper had enough buck to make it look a lot better than it did for most of the film

I watched Primer for the first time the other night and that film does not in any way look better than Looper. It was an achievement in itself to get the film made for the money they had but it is a terrible looking film.

Fishooks12

Josey Wales wrote: »

I watched Primer for the first time the other night and that film does not in any way look better than Looper. It was an achievement in itself to get the film made for the money they had but it is a terrible looking film.

All opinion but I think it's one of the most subtly striking pieces of film I've ever seen. Lends a huge part, along with the terrific score, to the eerie atmosphere throughout.

The scene where

He sees himself from a distance is one that really stands out

don ramo

SVG wrote: »

I kind of wish the stuff about telekinesis had just been cut out. In a film that's already complicated by time travel, all that magic felt like an unnecessary complication. That said, I did like the moment where Emily Blunt talked about how she'd thwart guys' efforts to impress her with their powers.

:eek:that was the whole point of the film, its a future where people have a touch of TK, floating lighters and stupid little things, but the whole films purpose is to stop the rainmaker, a person who has very very advanced TK and as you saw can literally tear a house to pieces at will, even as a kid, imagine what he was doing in the future, as a adult and having a grudge on his back cause someone killed his mother, and he also got his jaw blown off at some point so had to get a synthetic one to replace it,

Mr. Loverman

Saw this today in a cool old cinema in Beijing (I've attached a picture of it).

I thought it was "ok".

When it started I had high hopes but overall I felt it was a fairly shallow movie.

The writer was definitely influenced by Akira and Star Wars!

At the end of the movie I felt "is that it?". It seemed unfinished.

So I would give it a 6/10.

I wouldn't bother watching it again.

SVG

don ramo wrote: »

:eek:that was the whole point of the film, its a future where people have a touch of TK, floating lighters and stupid little things, but the whole films purpose is to stop the rainmaker, a person who has very very advanced TK and as you saw can literally tear a house to pieces at will, even as a kid, imagine what he was doing in the future, as a adult and having a grudge on his back cause someone killed his mother, and he also got his jaw blown off at some point so had to get a synthetic one to replace it,

I hope my opinion didn't cause too much alarm!

Yeah, I get that it's his powers that make him dangerous but I just didn't like that element. Could he not just have been smart with a supergrudge? And, yes, it was part of the world of the film but, for me at least, there was enough other stuff going on that it felt superfluous. I know it's kind of stupid but, for some reason, I was ok with how the film dealt with the time travel but when they suddenly say- oh, and 10% of people have magic powers for some reason- I just thought "well that's totally unrealistic!":p

AnonoBoy

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Primer looks ten times better and cost about 20k to make. Looper had enough buck to make it look a lot better than it did for most of the film

While you may very well say Primer was a better film than Looper I don't think it looks better at all.

Primer isn't a film that impresses with visuals at all I didn't think.

johnny_ultimate

Primer certainly looks good in its own small-scale, claustrophobic way: Carruth's perfectionism and insistence on shooting on expensive film ensures that it does have a distinctive visual identity.

Don't know if it even warrants comparison with Looper visually though. Narratively and conceptually, yes, comparisons are inevitable: Carruth is thanked in the credits, after all. But one is a gritty noir sci-fi thriller, the other is a taut, claustrophobic and low-budget arthouse sci-fi. They both do exceptional jobs given their resources. There's plenty of memorably, vivid images in Looper: the telekinesis sequences, the farm surrounded by seemingly endless fields, the diner scene, falling off the balcony, the hideout massacre... Not to mention the film's neatest visual trick, the looping process itself. The opening sequence - where the victim just pops into frame - is a fantastic one, and one of the most satisfyingly visual introductions I've seen in recent times.

senordingdong

krudler wrote: »

Rian Johnson addressed this in an interview where he basically said the Loopers have to kill themselves as otherwise they'd have to live for 30 years knowing who their murderer will be, and that would have bigger consequences for the timetravel aspect.

Yeah. but why would the bad guys not just shoot Joe soap in their own time?

ScrubsfanChris

senordingdong wrote: »

Yeah. but why would the bad guys not just shoot Joe soap in their own time?

Because they're not the ones calling the shots, as to who dies, the people in the future are.

Was JLG's face done by computer graphics or was it make-up? Either way, it was pretty startling - had I not seen posters and knew his name was attached to it, I would have not realized it was him.

Mark Hamill

Sad Professor wrote: »

None of the time travel in the film makes sense. The film is littered with paradoxes. There's no point thinking about it too much.

Of course there is a point in talking about it. Look, the film is at pains to not explain the time travel properly itself (as, imo, it's really just about a shallow selfish guy being forced to change because of meeting his old self and the time travel is just a conceit to make that possible) and so it can be enjoyed despite the flaws in the set up (I did enjoy it a lot, despite those flaws). But that doesn't mean we should excuse or ignore those flaws, almost to the point of encouraging them. We should always expect better and/or more consistent stories as to not is to walk a thin line between interestingly flawed and blandly mediocre. You'd get filmmakers making lazy, bad movies around an interesting idea.
IMO, nearly all of the people who liked it but complained about the pacing in the second half would be way more critical of the time travel if the film had turned out to be an out and out action movie, like the early trailers implied it would be, or if the rest of the story wasn't as interesting as it turned out to be.

CMpunked

Deleted User wrote: »

Was JLG's face done by computer graphics or was it make-up? Either way, it was pretty startling - had I not seen posters and knew his name was attached to it, I would have not realized it was him.

AFAIK it was all make up. Nose, Jaw, eyebrows, even wore contacts to match the specific eye colour.