Master Index of Archived Threads


Looper (2012)

1/2

0 votes

*

0 votes

*-1/2

0 votes

**

1 votes

**-1/2

0 votes

***

1 votes

***-1/2

2 votes

****

0 votes

****-1/2

1 votes

*****

0 votes

Frayed Knot Jan 04 2013 02:44 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 07 2013 02:36 PM

In the future - or actually the future's future since this film takes place in the future about those folks dealing with their future -- the overlords of that time solve the problem of what to do with those who get out of line not by killing them but by using the ability of time-travel to simply 'disappear' them. They solve both that problem and the one about what to do with the body by shipping them back 30 years into the past where assassins, known as 'Loopers', are waiting to execute them. Naturally things do not always go smoothly and hi-jinx ensue when main character Joseph Gordon-Levitt winds up meeting his future self in the form of Bruce Willis.

Mets – Willets Point Jan 04 2013 07:16 PM Re: Loopers (2012)

Original JB would love this.

Edgy MD Jan 04 2013 08:42 PM Re: Loopers (2012)

It's a Gordon Leavitt festival going on.

RealityChuck Jan 12 2013 07:21 PM Re: Looper (2012)

The best time travel film* since 12 Monkeys and maybe best SF films since then. Nice handling of the time paradox issues and, for a change, a film that required some thought to appreciate. I put it on my Nebula Ballot, and will probably give it my vote if it comes up. *Safety Not Guaranteed is a close second.

Frayed Knot Jan 12 2013 09:46 PM Re: Looper (2012)

Yeah, I haven't been a big fan of recent time-shifting movies that I've seen in recent years (Source Code, plus others whose titles I can't think of at the moment) but I did like this one. As RC implied, they seemed to put some thought into the plot and consequences of this one above and beyond just the fact that they were time traveling.

RealityChuck Jan 13 2013 10:11 AM Re: Looper (2012)

I really liked the fact that they didn't overeplain. Their method of tracking down runners, for instance, is shown without explanation and they trust the audience to understand what's going on.

Vic Sage Jan 31 2013 12:21 PM Re: Looper (2012)

they not only don't explain, any time anybody tries to have a "time travel paradox" conversation someone (Jeff Daniels in one scene, and Bruce Willis in another) says something about not wanting to discuss it because it makes their head hurt. Willis even screams "it doesn't matter!" to get the audience to stop trying to figure it out. That being said, what they show does deal intelligently with the paradox issues. my problems with the film are that its "heroes" are stone cold assassins and drug addicts with little remorse. I found it hard to get too involved in their plight. Of course, the payoff deals with that, but it has less punch than it should because Leavitt is such a dick [willis, too, for that matter. just about everyone, really] still an excellent film overall with little reliance on SFX, or wild visuals, or hi-tech stuff that SF films tend to lean on as a crutch for poor storytelling. Good SF can be 2 guys talking in an empty room, with a naked bulb overhead. It took the 1-2 punch of 2001 and STAR WARS to change our expectations for the genre. This film harkens back to a more cerebral approach.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 31 2013 12:24 PM Re: Looper (2012)

I thought it was pretty good as a time travel thingy, but then, it was also a telekenisis thingy. Too many thingies for me.

Vic Sage Jan 31 2013 12:29 PM Re: Looper (2012)

You sound like a girl at a gang bang. Relax sweetheart and take it all in.

El Segundo Escupidor Mar 17 2013 05:07 AM Re: Looper (2012)

Vic Sage wrote: still an excellent film overall with little reliance on SFX, or wild visuals, or hi-tech stuff that SF films tend to lean on as a crutch for poor storytelling. Good SF can be 2 guys talking in an empty room, with a naked bulb overhead. It took the 1-2 punch of 2001 and STAR WARS to change our expectations for the genre. This film harkens back to a more cerebral approach. The biggest disappointment about this film is that YOU thought it was good. It was infested with plot-holes (the biggest being, why the Looper was required to kill his future self, as opposed to, say, anybody else.) All in all, it was the Braden Looper of Sci-Fi movies. That aside, here's an interesting bit of trivia I came across: the script evolved from how the writer thought the introduction of Anakin Skywalker should have been handled in Star Wars Episode 1 (in lieu of midichlorians)

Nymr83 Apr 03 2013 09:17 PM Re: Looper (2012)

I can't believe it took ten posts to get a Braden Looper joke in here.

Edgy MD Apr 03 2013 09:52 PM Re: Looper (2012)

Nah, Willets was on that in Post 2.

Mets – Willets Point Apr 04 2013 03:37 AM Re: Looper (2012)

Edgy MD wrote: Nah, Willets was on that in Post 2. Hard to believe that it was so long ago that it was in the EZBoard days and thus the IGT got eaten by the collapse of EZBoard, but I'm pretty sure it was after Looper blew a save on opening day 2005 that Original JB turned "Looper" into an expletive.

Ceetar Jun 09 2013 07:46 AM Re: Looper (2012)

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I thought it was pretty good as a time travel thingy, but then, it was also a telekenisis thingy. Too many thingies for me. I like this in it hinted at evolution and how society might adapt to mutations and time travel and what not. The villain* so to speak was a more evolved version of it all it seemed, and it touches on the dual path that is often presented with such power to use it responsibly or for evil. I think BioShock Infinite spoiled it for me a bit though (Which is fine, it seems like some of the 'best' stories are video games, not movies, these days) and an aside, I don't know if this is the movie, or Starz, or what, but the volume of the conversations as compared to the action was jarring. I actually ended up putting on the closed captioning.