home studios equipment staff/friends booking/rates for sale forum contact

Film: Looper

Vote and debate.

Moderators: kerble, Electrical-Staff

Re: Film: Looper

Postby emmanuelle cunt on Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:11 am

I don't remember it. Maybe it's a running (or rather falling. ha! haha! hahahahaha!) joke of the film industry?



And speaking about that: did anyone remember the sound when the flying bike crashed towards the end of the film? Like a high pitched 'something's reducing rev's or running out of electricity' sound? I'm pretty sure I heard in in other films, it could be new Wilhelm's Scream.
caix wrote:^ more like "a manual vagina."
User avatar
emmanuelle cunt
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
 
Posts: 7177
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:05 pm

Re: Film: Looper

Postby placeholder on Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:53 pm

Fun, stupid action movie. I was entertained by it, but I'll likely never watch it again.

It gets really corny in its last third. They seriously telegraph the payoff to the Rainmaker deal. All the Matrix-y slow-motion stuff with the kid was cheesy. All of that kinda soured me on the rest of the movie.

The part where the guy's body was falling apart was pretty effective. Jeff Daniels was very good. I always like hearing "I Want to See the Bright Lights Tonight."

Joseph Gordon-Levitt's terrible Bruce Willis makeup made me think of this:



Just barely NOT CRAP.
User avatar
placeholder
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
 
Posts: 7971
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 2:06 pm

Re: Film: Looper

Postby Adam Sr on Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:37 pm

iembalm wrote:This is a commentary track Rian Johnson has recorded, meant to be listened to in-theater on your mp3 device. Different from the DVD commentary to come.

http://soundcloud.com/rcjohnso/looper-t ... commentary


That he says 'Then it should be sunk up' is pretty funny/cute.
User avatar
Adam Sr
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
 
Posts: 2425
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 1:55 pm

Re: Film: Looper

Postby John W. on Sun Jan 06, 2013 11:10 am

Rented it on iTunes last night and had it on while doing laundry and stuff. I was excited for it at first, but then it sort of ran out of gas toward the fourth quarter. The script writers really liked the word 'farm' didn't they? Still - pretty good, if you can handle a bit of a fizzle as it wears on.
User avatar
John W.
Guardian Diety of the Planet
Guardian Diety of the Planet
 
Posts: 5564
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 6:38 pm
Location: Louisville, KY

Re: Film: Looper

Postby lemur68 on Sun Jan 06, 2013 11:15 am

So his makeup was supposed to look like young Bruce Willis? They did an awful job, because I didn't catch that at all.
big_dave wrote:This is just about finding a dorky selfie on his blogspot?

Jesus, this is the Space Ace by Don Bluth of internet intrigue.
User avatar
lemur68
King Shit of Fuck Mountain
 
Posts: 18283
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:52 am
Location: Columbus, OH

Re: Film: Looper

Postby Earwicker on Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:49 pm

Yeah, I really don't see what all the fuss was about. Was alright.
Can't be arsed rewinding so can anyone explain to me exactly why it is they have to kill themselves to close the loop? I mean aside from as a contrived plot mechanism. Is there a reason someone else couldn't just do it and reduce the chances of some kind spacetimecontinuumwe'regoingtoignoreallthat?
krakabash wrote: we really should look at all the sides of the issue because the Zionist evil is a menace to mankind and peace on earth.
User avatar
Earwicker
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
 
Posts: 2848
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:36 am
Location: House, Newcastle, Great Britain

Re: Film: Looper

Postby Adam Sr on Fri Feb 01, 2013 6:02 pm

Earwicker wrote:Yeah, I really don't see what all the fuss was about. Was alright.
Can't be arsed rewinding so can anyone explain to me exactly why it is they have to kill themselves to close the loop? I mean aside from as a contrived plot mechanism. Is there a reason someone else couldn't just do it and reduce the chances of some kind spacetimecontinuumwe'regoingtoignoreallthat?


I don't think they literally had to kill themselves, if that's what you mean. They had to kill loopers. Since there weren't that many loopers, the odds meant that sometimes they'd literally kill themselves.

If you mean why, necessarily, do loopers have to be killed, then I don't remember. Like you, I thought it was an okay film, but I'm not going to watch it twice.
User avatar
Adam Sr
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
 
Posts: 2425
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 1:55 pm

Re: Film: Looper

Postby Dudley on Sat Feb 02, 2013 12:10 pm

Saw it last night. Was very disappointed - to the point of getting bored in the middle.

I actually thought Levitt did a good job of doing facial Willisisms, but the makeup did make him look odd. If the similarity was that important, they should have cast accordingly. It was distracting.

I thought the director was mining a spent seam, really. There was nothing new or interesting about it, and the elements that stood out all just seemed mannered and a bit vainglorious. If he wanted to do a time-travel thriller, he needed to do a bit more work on getting his theory working, if he wanted to do a noirish character thing, he should have paired back some of the intrusive gimmicky stuff.
Anthony Flack wrote:At the end of the day it's everybody's appreciation of cement that is the winner.
User avatar
Dudley
World's Ideal Leader w/ VersatileTalents
World's Ideal Leader w/ VersatileTalents
 
Posts: 3827
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:31 pm
Location: London

Re: Film: Looper

Postby Earwicker on Sat Feb 02, 2013 3:04 pm

Adam Sr wrote:
Earwicker wrote:Can't be arsed rewinding so can anyone explain to me exactly why it is they have to kill themselves to close the loop? I mean aside from as a contrived plot mechanism. Is there a reason someone else couldn't just do it and reduce the chances of some kind spacetimecontinuumwe'regoingtoignoreallthat?


I don't think they literally had to kill themselves, if that's what you mean. They had to kill loopers. Since there weren't that many loopers, the odds meant that sometimes they'd literally kill themselves.


Pretty sure they were to kill themselves. That's why they had gold strapped to their backs and they were freed from their contracts or something. Another thing, it says they're sent back to be killed because they can't dispose of bodies in the future or some shit, but why don't they just kill them in the future then send the bodies back in time?

Who cares anyway? The more i think about this film the shitter it gets so I'm going to stop thinking about it now.
krakabash wrote: we really should look at all the sides of the issue because the Zionist evil is a menace to mankind and peace on earth.
User avatar
Earwicker
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
 
Posts: 2848
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:36 am
Location: House, Newcastle, Great Britain

Re: Film: Looper

Postby Adam Sr on Sat Feb 02, 2013 3:51 pm

Earwicker wrote:
Adam Sr wrote:
Earwicker wrote:Can't be arsed rewinding so can anyone explain to me exactly why it is they have to kill themselves to close the loop? I mean aside from as a contrived plot mechanism. Is there a reason someone else couldn't just do it and reduce the chances of some kind spacetimecontinuumwe'regoingtoignoreallthat?


I don't think they literally had to kill themselves, if that's what you mean. They had to kill loopers. Since there weren't that many loopers, the odds meant that sometimes they'd literally kill themselves.


Pretty sure they were to kill themselves. That's why they had gold strapped to their backs and they were freed from their contracts or something. Another thing, it says they're sent back to be killed because they can't dispose of bodies in the future or some shit, but why don't they just kill them in the future then send the bodies back in time?

Who cares anyway? The more i think about this film the shitter it gets so I'm going to stop thinking about it now.


Oh yeah, you could be right, there. Also about stopping thinking about it.
User avatar
Adam Sr
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
 
Posts: 2425
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 1:55 pm

Re: Film: Looper

Postby The Flying Ninja on Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:23 pm

Hell, if we're going to analyse the logic, then the very idea of traveling back to the past is probably absurd in the first place.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my basic understanding is that, according to modern physics, time is just the path matter takes as it moves through space. It is not something that has an independent existence, and hence is not like a medium you could travel through. There would be no way to get back to the pattern that matter formed in 1923, for example, without being able to move every atom in the universe to make that pattern again.

But I will admit that I am not a physicist and so could be mistaken. If anyone more knowledgeable can refute what I've said then I'd be interested to hear about it.

I think this film would probably have suffered if it had gone to the trouble of inventing some sort of phony physics to justify the time travel elements of the story. Maybe it's better to experience films like this as works of surrealism.
User avatar
The Flying Ninja
ben franklin
ben franklin
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:44 pm

Re: Film: Looper

Postby Dudley on Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:13 am

The Flying Ninja wrote:I think this film would probably have suffered if it had gone to the trouble of inventing some sort of phony physics to justify the time travel elements of the story. Maybe it's better to experience films like this as works of surrealism.


I think most people will forgive a film a certain amount of inconsistencies, but then there has to be something else to get stuck into, and I don't think Looper had anything else to offer.

Also, sci-fi, fantasy and horror films have to lay down a set of rules for their film to hold an audience. If you have something invented, like a monster or time travel or whatever, you have to be clear within the world of the film how those things work, what can defeat them, what they can and can't do etc. I think it's much less important whether something in a film can actually happen than if it works consistently within in a film.
Anthony Flack wrote:At the end of the day it's everybody's appreciation of cement that is the winner.
User avatar
Dudley
World's Ideal Leader w/ VersatileTalents
World's Ideal Leader w/ VersatileTalents
 
Posts: 3827
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:31 pm
Location: London

Re: Film: Looper

Postby ImDADA on Fri Feb 08, 2013 6:26 pm

I enjoyed it and didn't see any major inconsistencies within the logic of the film - sending the Loopers to kill themselves was an obvious stretch but not enough to stop me enjoying what was a fun film - it's their chance to cash in on the gold bars, the repercussions for missing the target are extremely high and Loopers are described as short-sighted people, I don't think any rules have been badly broken even if it leaves the plot less than perfect.
Blue.
User avatar
ImDADA
Saint Who Rules w/ Extensive Magnanimity
Saint Who Rules w/ Extensive Magnanimity
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 10:02 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Film: Looper

Postby enframed on Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:30 pm

Started out OK but I got bored towards the end. Rainmaker is a badass name, though, for someone who can do what that kid did.

Not crap, but just barely.
Records for sale.

Those most doomed to repeat history are those who know it best.
User avatar
enframed
King Shit of Fuck Mountain
 
Posts: 16681
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:06 pm
Location: Central Coast, CA

Re: Film: Looper

Postby Dudley on Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:37 pm

As it was the difficulty/impossibility of disposal of the bodies was given as the reason for loopers, it just seems daft that they didn't kill them in the future, and send the bodies back.* A whole lot of trouble and risk would be avoided. And it would be massively cheaper.

Also, it doesn't seem like that great a skill, worthy of all that reward and status. It's not like being a hitman. You turn up at a given time, execute a bound man at point blank range and drop them in a furnace. If they could have just transported the victims back straight into the furnace, the whole looper thing vanishes in a puff of smoke.

Plus it never examined the effect shooting a load of people who are tied up at point blank range would have on someone. It's a really shit profession, with no actual skill or excitement.

*EDIT: as Earwicker has already suggested.
Anthony Flack wrote:At the end of the day it's everybody's appreciation of cement that is the winner.
User avatar
Dudley
World's Ideal Leader w/ VersatileTalents
World's Ideal Leader w/ VersatileTalents
 
Posts: 3827
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:31 pm
Location: London

Re: Film: Looper

Postby ImDADA on Mon Feb 11, 2013 12:04 pm

Yeah, the plot is a bit thin, if you're not prepared to suspend disbelief in the first quarter when it becomes clear the film's going to be vague in service of the set up then you're not really going to enjoy any of it.
Blue.
User avatar
ImDADA
Saint Who Rules w/ Extensive Magnanimity
Saint Who Rules w/ Extensive Magnanimity
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 10:02 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Film: Looper

Postby iembalm on Mon Feb 11, 2013 1:17 pm

I have paid to see far, far worse films than this in the interest of watching Emily Blunt onscreen for a few minutes of escape from my sad, pathetic life.
iembalm
Present-day God
Present-day God
 
Posts: 9417
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:47 am

Re: Film: Looper

Postby cuttheshitmike on Mon Feb 11, 2013 1:24 pm

Looper was a relatively fun, well filmed, fast paced movie. Apparently this kept most everybody from noticing that it's internal logic was totally fucked. I mean, sersiously, the second they shot Bruce Willis' wife (or even showed up with guns to abduct him for that matter) I was just waiting for it to be over. There was no reason AT ALL that they wouldn't have just capped bruce right then and there.

Time travel is SO ILLEGAL that they have to kill literally anyone who knows it exists and the only reason that they use time travel is that murder is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to get away with any other way. That premise is shakey enough, but then they run around threatening to kill people with guns and then have such an itchy trigger finger that they just straight up murder an innocent person?

And then it's all about that kid from the skrillex video somehow?

I'm never watching that again.
cuttheshitmike
baboon
baboon
 
Posts: 710
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:12 pm

Re: Film: Looper

Postby emmanuelle cunt on Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:37 pm

The idea of sending people back in time to get them killed is silly, yes, but I'm cool with accepting it as this is what makes this film possible, just as tons and tons of various ideas in various films and books. There's lots of glorious stuff one can easily dismiss on the basis of its premise being dodgy, seems like a very limiting approach to me. Two plot problems I see in 'Looper' are:
1) Bruce Willis wife got killed without him going back in time and starting the loop so maybe it weren't the Rainman's people doing or maybe the kid became Rainman just because of his nature, not because of any trauma he went through, so the Gordon-Levitt's outlook of the situation just before the credits roll is wrong. But it is a film about time travel and I had to think for a bit whether this is or isn't the case and It's fun to think about it, so I'm cool with that.
2) And a real problem: Bruce Willis' wife getting killed just like that even though entire film bases on the idea that such things just do not happen in the future, and not a single excuse or explanation is given. Everything else was solidly thought through so I guess there might be some kind of explanation, but I don't see how it could work at all.
edit: as the post above says.
caix wrote:^ more like "a manual vagina."
User avatar
emmanuelle cunt
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
 
Posts: 7177
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:05 pm

Re: Film: Looper

Postby andyman on Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:45 pm

Along with the above two posts, this was the weakest ending ever. Sure, nice on the good vs evil, but it FAILED TO MAKE ANY SENSE. And "Mommy loves you = win" was some Omen VII crap entered for reasons of cunting deus ex machina.

But before you even go into that bullshit, why do they send the old loopers back as their younger selves' last hit? And why does that freak the younger loopers out? ALL of them have to die if they're alive in the future, and the order DOESN'T MATTER, so why do they get freaked out by the order, exactly?

And also, how exactly did the Levitt/Willis execution scene come about after Die Hard got away the first time? They just slotted it in there to allow Die Hard to go to China without explaining how it happened.

A lot of wankery, compared to brick.


Addendum: you don't need to explain the advanced physics of time travel. You do, however, need to explain why characters make their decisions, including their uses of time travel, otherwise they stop making sense.

Jeff Daniels was great. "Why the fuck France?"

Levitt just spent most of the film doing Bruce Willis' famous "Eh? Hmmm?" face, while wearing too much lipstick.
User avatar
andyman
Humankind's Greatest Musical Genius
Humankind's Greatest Musical Genius
 
Posts: 4046
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:31 am
Location: Cambridge

PreviousNext

Return to Crap / Not Crap

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot], kokorodoko, rayword45, Yahoo [Bot] and 17 guests