This part was so fucked up and disturbing, but so GREAT. Gloriously grotesque.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Looper (dir. Rian Johnson; Gordon-Levitt, Willis)
- Thread starter Expendable.
- Start date
- Status
This part was so fucked up and disturbing, but so GREAT. Gloriously grotesque.
TheKaeptain
Banned
Wtf this place become a mind field of spoilers. I'm out until I see it.
Well, it did just come out in wide release today. Go figure.
So they had loopers for the explicit purpose of avoiding having to kill people in the future right? Make kills untraceable?
So they casually just pop Willis' wife in her chest, and act like it's not a big thing?
Then they continue to stuff Willis into the time travel machine anyway?
Then they continue to stuff Willis into the time travel machine anyway?
aparisi2274
Member
Did you see a different movie then all of us??
1.
they did not just casually pop his wife in the chest. they were trying to bind him, she stumbled on it, they shot her because they were startled.
2.
They did not stuff him in the machine. He got into the machine on his own to get away from the guys he just beat up.
2.5.
He also had the plan of killing Rainmaker as a kid, so nothing happens in his own present time/future.
Their clear intention was to stuff him in - and at least in one time line did successfully stuff him in the machine (the one where he turns up with the hood on his head and gets shot).
And the whole point of loopers is to make kills untraceable - why do they still have guns if they have such an elaborate mechanism of killing... and why wouldn't they also bring her along to be 'disposed off' in the past?
I'm pointing out the clear disjunct between the whole premise that they set up and the attitude with which they treated the death of that character.
And the whole point of loopers is to make kills untraceable - why do they still have guns if they have such an elaborate mechanism of killing... and why wouldn't they also bring her along to be 'disposed off' in the past?
I'm pointing out the clear disjunct between the whole premise that they set up and the attitude with which they treated the death of that character.
blindrocket
Member
I think he got into the time machine to kill the rain maker and save his wife. Not to get away from the guys he just beat up / killed.
aparisi2274
Member
I am pretty sure he did what he did, because of the events that led up to that scene. If
he had just kicked the shit out of the guys, and they did not kill his wife, he would have just left town with her. I do not think he would have gotten into the machine otherwise.
blindrocket
Member
I agree,
he wanted to change what had happened. I didn't think he was fleeing those men, though.
BTW, Loved the film. Best flick I have seen all year.
Neuromancer
Member
I thought the middle part kind of dragged and I could have done without the
altogether. Still, very clever concept and I enjoyed it overall.
TK stuff
Kabuki Waq
Member
Great concept...but really you could see the ending coming miles away as it was very similar to movies in the past.
It's funny, the more I think about it, the more holes I pick in the story but I still loved the movie regardless.
One question:
One question:
If something was altered on the younger version of a person, wouldn't the older version then have been aware of that for the last 30 years? For instance, when the message was cut into young Seth's arm, old Seth was surprised to see the scar, but wouldn't he have had the scar for the last 30 years as far as he was concerned since the past was altered and his memories with it? Am I making any sense here?!
This was the only thing that annoyed me when I was actually watching the movie. It just doesn't make sense any way I look at it.
That fucking movie.
Rian Johnson actually came out and introduced the film for us at Arclight. At first he pretended to be the usher, then eventually he told us he was the writer/director. Some people started clapping and he told them to hold the applause until they'd seen the movie.
There was a standing ovation at the end.
Rian Johnson actually came out and introduced the film for us at Arclight. At first he pretended to be the usher, then eventually he told us he was the writer/director. Some people started clapping and he told them to hold the applause until they'd seen the movie.
There was a standing ovation at the end.
djSyndrome
Member
Thought Willis could never top his performance as a time travelling psychopath in 12 Monkeys. Happy to finally be proven wrong.
Just saw it.
Huge fan of Brick, but was not very entertained with this movie. Had some visual flair, to be sure, and interesting premise that was full of potential, but the script and pacing felt so lackluster, lazy, and overall flat-out boring.
Not a waste of time, but certainly not worth 10 bucks.
Huge fan of Brick, but was not very entertained with this movie. Had some visual flair, to be sure, and interesting premise that was full of potential, but the script and pacing felt so lackluster, lazy, and overall flat-out boring.
Not a waste of time, but certainly not worth 10 bucks.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Its a great movie, but I would hardly call it a gamechanger.
I agree. Movie had so much potential up to this point, until the writers decided to completely kill the pacing and stop the movie for a half hour or so.
Yeah, maybe it's just the movie high coming out of the theater and the fact that originals in Hollywood are scarce.
Discotheque
Banned
Great movie, really interesting premise too and they executed it fucking well.
Didn't like the ending though, felt like a copout.
Didn't like the ending though, felt like a copout.
The way it works in the movie is that your memories are slowly changed. It's not instantenous unless you do something really drastic like get your hand cut off. As Willis explained, it's like a merging process and it even seems you can fight it. I think it's more like your mind is conflicted and trying to remember multiple possibilities at the same time.
He might have the memories of cutting himself but he also has the memories of not doing so.
Not really explained. It seems like Loopers are a public secret in that nobody should know about them but everybody does. Doesn't really make sense in the context of the show as people in the future would know what was going on.
Went to the movie with the GF after seeing the overall ratings on RT. Thought it was very good, something different which was nice. The theater however was about 20% capacity for the 9:50pm showing. This might be a movie that catches fire by word of mouth, not expecting a big opening weekend for this after seeing the turnout in our area.
That's right, I remember him talking about that in the diner now. Thanks!
Stellactic
Member
This. Exactly this.
There are so many great things you can do with a plot full of time travel, but it left nothing to your imagination and ended so abruptly. The first half of the movie was excellent, though.
Welll people in the future would probably know about loopers, but I guess they'd be treated like regular assassins. It'd still be really hard to track the syndicates unless you find all their time machines or something >.>
Now that's surprising. Looks a LOT better than that number would indicate.
Phaethon0017
Member
I have not seen this movie, only the trailers. Can someone please clear this up for me?
I don't understand the whole premise of Looper. The mob sends people back in time... to get killed... Is murder impossible in the future? Has Minority Report happened?! Why not just kill someone and dispose of the body?
If it's too much of a spoiler I'm not sure I care. Despite the amazing reviews I can't get around this simple detail.
I don't understand the whole premise of Looper. The mob sends people back in time... to get killed... Is murder impossible in the future? Has Minority Report happened?! Why not just kill someone and dispose of the body?
If it's too much of a spoiler I'm not sure I care. Despite the amazing reviews I can't get around this simple detail.
It's explained in the first two minutes of the movie.
Essentially it's nigh impossible to get rid of a body in 2074, apparently.
Having watched it, I'm not really sure myself.
If you can't get away with murder, I don't see how you can get away sending people back in time using a highly illegal time machine. Seems like it would be easier to find time machines than bodies.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
In the future it is impossible to get rid of a body but possible to build a time machine? Got it.
The Bookerman
Member
Coming from you, that don't mean much.
Garrett 2U
Member
The premise is that the future government has such advanced human tracking systems that hiding a body isn't possible.
Also time traveling is illegal. Only the large mobs have access to the blackmarket tech.
Also time traveling is illegal. Only the large mobs have access to the blackmarket tech.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
This is something I've been thinking about. Best guess:
Someone else's time travel had an effect. For example, we know there was a future where Seth wasn't maimed. Being Joe's best friend, that would have some effect on his life--and it wouldn't take much to change something like a chance encounter with the woman who might end up his wife. Thus, old Joes captured under different situations.
In a time travel movie like this, there needs to be a point of origin on how events started to unfold and repeated. Yes, technically there's no point of origin, it's a chicken and egg kind of thing but for the sake of the audience and the story, it was decided that this particular plot point is the one that can best explain how things 'started'.
If you really need to justify how it all fits into the story, it's usually assumed that once events start into a loop, the point of origin disappeared from the timeline. So technically one can say that old Joe getting captured and killed was the original event that started the loop and once the loop started there's no longer any need for that point of origin. I don't know if that makes sense but that's how I understand it.
Like the film btw, I thought it was pretty good even if the concept has been tackled beforehand by different films (Terminator, 12 Monkeys, etc).
lol
Okay then, carry on with your "actor X looks like character Y and therefore logically is the perfect choice to play him!" line of thought. I'll just continue to laugh at them and remain happy that no Gaffers have jobs as casting agents.
EDIT: in thinking about it, Looper is probably my MOTY as this very moment, but I have a hard time believing it will stay there with Argo, Seven Psychopaths, Cloud Atlas, Skyfall, Silver Linings Playbook, Killing Them Softly and Django all still to come.
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
Cloud Atlas has the most buzz a month ahead of its release, and the striking visuals put together by directors Andy and Lana Wachowski (The Matrix series) and Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run) should be enough to draw some attention.
Unfortunately, reviews are mixed at this point, and the unique narrative structure (six stories in different time frames) is already proving to be a marketing challenge.
I put spoiler just in case. Not sure if it´s really a spoiler.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3534&p=.htm
- Status