Sept. 29, 2012, 2:24 a.m. CST
Sept. 29, 2012, 2:27 a.m. CST
by Hardboiled Wonderland
I've been spruiking Looper to everyone and anyone who'll listen to me, without hyping the movie too much. Just quietly singing its praises, recommending it as something to keep an eye on. So glad it's blowing people's minds, hopefully Looper puts the boot into remakes and reboots, and inspires more original scifi. I was hoping Source Code would pick up where Inception left off, but it disappointed at the box office. Looper appears to be the one. With Cloud Atlas later, this should give Hollywood a good shake, fingers crossed.
Sept. 29, 2012, 2:30 a.m. CST
.........mind officially blown! I think film of the year for me (so far!) Can't remember the last time a full cinema audience were just completely silent like that at the end of a screening - nobody moved! Thought the time travel stuff was handled quite brilliantly and did not really spot any flaws within it's internal logic. This now joins Back to the Future and Twelve Monkeys as my faviourite Time Travel movies (What is it about Bruce Willis and a time machine that brings out the best in him?) The story is impecable - could never really anticipate where it was going right up to the last minute - complex, mature writing whithout ever being confusing. Can't wait to see this one again to see if the experience is any different when you know where it is headed. The review is completely correct when it says the less you know before hand the better - try to see this soon before you get spoiled in any way about it.
Sept. 29, 2012, 2:30 a.m. CST
by Hardboiled Wonderland
Word is Russell Crowe is still eager to play Roland.
Sept. 29, 2012, 2:33 a.m. CST
by Hardboiled Wonderland
The less you know, the bigger your mind implosion.
Sept. 29, 2012, 2:35 a.m. CST
Sept. 29, 2012, 2:35 a.m. CST
Yes, I just said that.
Sept. 29, 2012, 2:37 a.m. CST
The farm stuff reminded me a lot of the original screenplay for Bladerunner's opening scene.
Sept. 29, 2012, 2:39 a.m. CST
by Count Screwface
Indeed, it was no 12 Monkeys. I enjoyed the shit out of it, though. My friend had a problem with the limbs disappearing on the future guy, stating that he would have lived his whole life with those injuries. I didn't mind that scene; I actually thought it was pretty awesome and disturbing. Just have to suspend disbelief.
Sept. 29, 2012, 3:01 a.m. CST
by Darian Skarica
That is something I heard from several people, and I don't get why people have problem with it. Because it is presented as a rule of time travel in the first 15 minutes, and you have to accept it as it is (for me it would be a problem if they do something like that at the end of the film. Every rule they state at the very beginning is fair play :))
Sept. 29, 2012, 3:17 a.m. CST
Yeah, it definitely makes sense in the context of the film's rules. The movie makes it clear that the future person's existence is in a state of flux when changes to his personal timeline are happening. The past is cloudy, and you don't necessarily realize it has changed unless you deliberately think about it. Whether or not it made sense, it did make for one of the most haunting and disturbing punishments I've ever seen on film.
Sept. 29, 2012, 4:17 a.m. CST
um, no. A very good film, maybe the most entertaining sci-fi since the first Matrix, but once the sheen has worn off after a few months nobody will be comparing it to the all-time greats. There are ideas from other time travel movies switched around, like the kid grows up to be the Rainmaker and old Bruce is out to kill him (which is obviously a spin on Terminator). Like I said very enjoyable, but all this "next-level shit" stuff it ain't.
Sept. 29, 2012, 4:34 a.m. CST
Mediocre cliches make me think.
Sept. 29, 2012, 4:39 a.m. CST
And I'm sorry, I think "Disney's: The Kid" is a better Bruce Willis Time Travel story -- one which is more consistent with itself. This was an ok film, but not exceptional.
Sept. 29, 2012, 4:43 a.m. CST
by No Respectable Gentleman
Again, it just goes to show that everything is relative. And in a year where AVENGERS is "the new RAIDERS", PROMETHEUS is "intelligent sci-fi" and "the 'D' is silent" is one of the great lines ... well, maybe this unexceptional flick does qualify as the film of the year.
Sept. 29, 2012, 4:48 a.m. CST
Am I right in thinking that the film has a number of red herrings or am I just not sharp enough to join the dots? 1) Is the hair brushing by Sara with her fingers at the end just to fuck with our heads as Joe can't logically be Cid i.e. No TK, Old Joe not being the Rainmaker, Cid not looking anything like the Joes. Is it just to highlight the importance of mothers shaping their sons/mess with our noggins? If so I find this a bit of a cheap trick on reflection. 2) Does Joe actually prevent the Rainmaker? How much else would vanish from the present (like old Joe) such as inanimate objects related to changes in the timeline because of young Joe's final choice? The silver is still there spilled on the road. Sara having the watch seems to have some significance. Do all Loopers have the same type of pocket watch? 3) Is Joe having sex with Sara a huge red herring. It never happened in the first loop we see which contains a future with a Rainmaker I kept thinking maybe she'd gotten preggas and this somehow tied into the future or that somehow he was doing the nasty with his own mother! 4) The prostitute/stripper and her kid that Joe is fond of doesn't get killed. Is this meaningless? Could it be that Cid isn't even the Rainmaker and this kid is? This kid might also have powers. Occam's razor would say not but who knows.... 5) If Cid IS the Rainmaker as seems to be the case does he also invent time travel? His gifts seem to extend to being remarkably bright and somebody who can build things. Does young Joe's choice mean time travel is not invented? With regard to 5 - I separate the films into three Loops: A) Everything goes as planned - Young Joe Kills old Joe B) Young Joe gets to the 30 year point and decides to try and escape which essentially gives us the main story we see on screen and could notionally end with Sara dead leading to a vengeful Cid C) Young Joe seeking to negate the outcomes of the Loop 2 I've described above by preventing the existence of an older Joe His Mom Sara didn't get killed in the first loop when old Joe was killed as planned and a Rainmaker existed in that timeline so he may have invented it before the consequences started to ripple through to the future. If i was guessing I'd say that Cid becoming the Rainmaker was inevitable in all three versions of the future that the 3 loops we see presented. He is the inventor of the Looper system but it spirals out of control and he's trying to fix that. Hurts my head. Maybe the film is simply a comment on nature v nuture and our pre-destiny to turn out a certain way?
Sept. 29, 2012, 5:28 a.m. CST
Sept. 29, 2012, 5:29 a.m. CST
Sept. 29, 2012, 6:24 a.m. CST
by Jimmy B
Dude. You have this movie WAY wrong. I'm sorry if I come across as arrogant, I just feel that you've TOTALLY over-analysed the movie, to the point of unnecessarily confusing yourself. Let me try and explain this as slowly as possible. Joe is NOT Cid. End of discussion. There is NO weird incestual time travel fuck. Young Joe HAS NOT travelled through time, ever. How can he be looking at a younger version of himself when he has never travelled through time? How stoned were you when you watched this fucking movie dude????? By the end of the movie, all we know is Young Joe and Old Joe are dead. The silver on the road is proof of nothing. Young Joe killing himself has not altered the past 48 hours. Old Joe still appeared out of thin air, killed a bunch of people, and rolled a car. In my opinion, there is only ONE unanswered question. We don't know whether Cid will still grow up as the Rainmaker or not. Fuck the Stripper's daughter, she's not the Rainmaker. I'm pretty sure this kid being able to rip guys faces off and turn them inside out with his mind bullets is supposed to be a giveaway. The only reason I believe we don't know about Cid's future at the end, is because we are never told whether Sara died in Old Joe's timeline - he obviously didn't kill her, so we don't really find out what the catalyst was that turned Cid into the Rainmaker in the first place. Besides that, stop being an idiot man, go back and watch it without looking for red fuckin herrings. I can't even find one.
Sept. 29, 2012, 6:43 a.m. CST
by Darian Skarica
A posted this in The Kid's review talkback " So after more than 10 years of reading AICN, I've registered to comment on LOOPER, so that's how much I'm impressed with the movie. And huge spoilers obviously :) As I see it, there are 2 main timelines (plus one that doesn't matter, lets call it null timeline). These timelines start to be different in the moment when old Joe comes back. Everything before that is the same. Before the Event - So Rainmaker accidentally kills his mother. He desperately wants to change that. He hates his mother and think she is a liar. For me it is implied that he created the time machine (tech genius, saying he wants to change what happened), but the story remains the same even if he didn't. The null timeline - Joe lives his life as a Looper, is sent back and killed by young Bruce Willis Timeline Joe. The first timeline - Bruce Willis Timeline Joe - young Joe kills the old insignificant Joe. Now, this is the timeline with the most questions about Rainmaker motives (but as I'll explain in the second timeline it isn't significant for the story). The biggest important thing in this timeline is that he obviously never talked with his mother, and never got the loving connection with her. He grew up to be Rainmaker. Why does he hate Loopers - we'll now go into guessing territory here which I don't like, but "why" really doesn't matter. As i see it he became a monster and a criminal overlord with his motives. If you accept that he created time travel then those motives become more personal. What are they specifically? Doesn't matter. How did he get the jaw? Well, something happened :) The second timeline - JGL Timeline Joe - the old Joe escapes. At some point Young Joe (JGL) comes to the Rainmaker farm. Because of this event the relationship between the Rainmaker and his mother starts to change. She becomes aware that the kid remembers killing his mother, and that he thinks of her as a liar. We come to the end of the movie. Lets start from the moment the kid is holding Bruce Willis in the air. In this moment he finally got real connection with his mother (something that didn't happen in the first timeline). And JGL arrives. He sees the jaw, he understands his hatred towards Loopers. It doesn't matter what happened in the first timeline, the final outcome - Rainmaker becoming Rainmaker - will still stay the same. So he stopped it by sacrificing himself. So, if you draw parallel between Rainmaker and Hitler (you know the question :) would you go back and kill him), the films logic is - whatever you do the final outcome (Hitler becoming Hitler) will stay the same, even if you (AND THIS IS IMPORTANT) didn't caused it in the first place. So, when JGL says it always goes into circle, it doesn't until that point, but it probably would in the future iterations. Why I think he won't become evil Rainmaker this time? What has changed this time? He connected with his mother whose purpose is to help him use his powers for good. P.S. Everyone that is saying that Joe should be Rainmaker. I think that it would be too obvious, because everyone I talked to have said that they thought of it while watching the movie. "
Sept. 29, 2012, 6:49 a.m. CST
Living up to your handle! I agree that there's no way he's Cid and said as much so the hair stroking is 100% a red herring (for idiots admittedly but a red herring none the less). There's a lot of focus on this in the movie about the very sway Joe's mother stroked his hair which seems fairly pointless. During the movie I wondered if there was something to Joe sleeping with Sara and whether she was from the future or even some some such weird shit like Cid was actually her Dad. None of these crazy speculations proved to be true and I don't for a second but into such mad theories walking out of the cinema so the sex scene seems pointless to me in terms of the narrative. It's perfectly believable/understandable from a character perspective that they would hook up but I was thinking alone the lines of John Connor. Again I think this was something of a red herring. Why show the silver on the road after the Joe's are history was where I was at. I guess just to say that Sara had some start up money and that Cid would survive long enough to become the Rainmaker. I have undeniably over thought it but that's because time travel is a headfuck and just about anything is possible. Thanks for replying though!
Sept. 29, 2012, 6:55 a.m. CST
The kid who can make people explode has to be the Rainmaker really but the fact remains that another kid survives with the same date of birth in the same hospital so.....nah even I can't argue this one. Cid is the Rainmaker end of. I agree. That the stripper that Joe has a thing for just happens to be the mother makes you think whilst watching the film that there is more significance to this child than just being born on the same day as the Rainmaker is again a bit of red herring. I wasn't stoned by the way!
Sept. 29, 2012, 7:23 a.m. CST
The script isn't polished. The text doesn't give answers nor has room for answers. The authors don't know and don't care about answers. It's clear we see a script which has gone through substantial rewrites which keeps elements from previous renditions in to cause a sense of the "mend bending" feel. It is why throughout there is the sense that our "hero" is also Cid. Because it's clearly being stated in many scenes in the film -- but then they decided they wanted a sex scene and they went "eww." So they changed plans but kept many references in. That's all. It's not mind bending. It's actually quite poorly written. It's average, it's ok, but not is not great. But when acting like "this is intelligent," my thought is -- especially a day after -- "no, it's not. They didn't know what they were doing nor cared. They just had ideas for cool scenes but didn't know how to do a consistent story with them and found a way so they didn't have to." This is why things just feel odd and different with story shifts.
Sept. 29, 2012, 7:29 a.m. CST
Agreed. At risk of extremejimmy1 bursting a blood vessel I still think there are a number of a red herrings in the script because of rewrites. I'm led to believe an earlier iteration of the script did have Cid as a younger version of Joe and you're right that there are false clues such as the hair stroking left in which now make little or no sense.
Sept. 29, 2012, 7:35 a.m. CST
I just got onto Rotten Tomatoes (as a critic), and I can't believe that some people have given this film a negative review. Even if sci-fi isn't your bag, you need to recognise it's genius. My take: http://thecrat.com/movie-reviews/looper-review-by-adam/
Sept. 29, 2012, 7:49 a.m. CST
Sorry to super spoiler it, but I have to for the sake of discussion: If Young Joe kills himself, the events of the film don't occur. Making up time travel rules where that isn't the case is lazy. I had read that this was supposed to be a smart time-travel film. But simply declaring that paradoxes are allowed to happen without consequence doesn't mean you're smart, it just means you cheated.
Sept. 29, 2012, 7:50 a.m. CST
Sept. 29, 2012, 9:14 a.m. CST
by Frat Boy
SPOILERS, I guess: Saw it yesterday. It lost me a little bit when the tone halfway through the film (Sarah's farm) switches, and it becomes a different movie. It loses quite a bit of momentum at that point, and it doesn't get it back until "Old Joe" takes his revenge on Abe's gang. The pacing was edge of your seat stuff in the first half, and it slows to a crawl afterwards. Also, it just tells a different story at the midway point to the finish that I just wasn't as interested in as the story in the first half. Again, I heartily recommend. Very good movie.
Sept. 29, 2012, 9:21 a.m. CST
Just saw Looper and wanted to share some comments. IMHO, my favorite character of the movie was CID. He stoled every scene he was in. The special effects showing his powers were well done too. This character was believable, intelligent, well spoken, and intimidating. At times during the movie, I would have preferred seeing him creating mayhem instead of watching the adults shooting big guns and running around. Looper does have all of the ingredients for being a FANTASTIC, MEMORABLE movie like Blade Runner. However, for me, I found there were too many pauses in the film. Too many scenes you wished they had taken them to the next level, but they didn't. Perhaps if they had shaved 20 minutes off and re-edited Looper it would be in better shape. There's potential here for another movie to be told from the Rainmaker's sperspective. Telling what childhood events made him to become the beast of the future. Maybe he would be time-traveling to create the future he would rein. Why not!?! Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon-Lewitt did a commendable job playing their characters. But at times, I found myself bored with their scenes and wanting more. Did not see too much original material here. Looper = C+
Sept. 29, 2012, 9:22 a.m. CST
How could he be seeing himself at age 10 when HE'S IN THE PRESENT, HIS OWN PRESENT. Think about it, you idiot. He's not the one who has gone back in time. Jesus. Try thinking. And that was never a part of this script - you just went there because of other movies you've seen and the director knows that and expects you to think that. So, he SURPRISES you. Get it? He's not interested in that time travel trope, he's interested in talking about how violence begets violence and creates an endless cycle that's hard to stop. That's the "twist". It's not about time travel, it's about human nature. That's what makes the film pretty fucking brilliant. Although, I'm sure, a lot of people will miss the entire point - as you have.
Sept. 29, 2012, 9:22 a.m. CST
by Frat Boy
LOOPER is a mixed bag. The stripper character (Piper Perabo) is one example of a completely unnecessary plot point. Could have been excised altogether and replaced with random unnamed stripper at beginning and never shown again. There was no reason to make her the second parent with a child "Old Joe" seeks to eliminate.
Sept. 29, 2012, 9:24 a.m. CST
So, in other words, you have the attention span of a gnat on a sugar high and could not follow the story when the gunplay stopped. Buy yourself a brain.
Sept. 29, 2012, 9:31 a.m. CST
The whole time with the prostitute was a part of that line of thought which was taken out of the final version. I would also say elements of his talk with Cid show their unity and similarity. I think originally Cid was right, it wasn't his mother he was with, she was lying, which is why she knew about Loopers. She was trying to change him (that's my guess). The attraction he had to his "mother" is as a kid and as an adult (perhaps that would have fixed the "ew" if she wasn't really his mother). But all kinds of elements of their time together represents talk which made them one and the same. They thought and acted alike. They were "orphans." Etc. Just so much seems to be lost in the last rewrite which was being put into the story, and why it feels like a fail at the end. False clues which lead nowhere never are good (when they are front and center and a main part of what we see).
Sept. 29, 2012, 9:34 a.m. CST
Though I think in the original idea that he was Cid, she had a more important role: she represented the way we learned he was Cid. His conversation with her was reflected upon things we see happening around Cid. But then they removed this.
Sept. 29, 2012, 9:35 a.m. CST
Perhaps in the final edition he wasn't sent back in time, however, I did get a sense that the Loopers themselves might have originally been from the future as well. We know Abe is.
Sept. 29, 2012, 9:37 a.m. CST
by Frat Boy
It just seems like we differ on LOOPER. We can disagree and not have a fight. And no, gunplay alone does not make the film. There was gunplay/violence in the slower sections as well. Hell, a man exploded. It was just an issue with an extended cease in momentum when the story shifts to the farm that lost my interest a little. When I realized what the new stakes were, my excitement for the story subsided a bit.
Sept. 29, 2012, 9:44 a.m. CST
by Andrew Coleman
The story isn't really complicated, you're making it complicated. The over all tone is simply that mothers are important. I would actually go on to say that this is an extremely feminist movie in a way. The theme is simple, men left to their own devices destroy and kill without end... Women or mothers help men balance out. Joe is never Cid. I don't know where some of you got this. Go see the movie again. This is never stated or hinted at. I think a lot of you went in expecting Inception type layers and layers. It's not complicated. SPOILERS......... Joe made a choice to end his own life to save Emily Blunt's because he knew how important it was to have a mother. The story he told about his mom was nothing like Emily Blunt's character. He simply saw how he turned out, a greedy killer, so he stepped up and sacrificed himself to possibly save the boys future. The story is about mothers and to not be selfish... That's it! If you go any deeper than that you're making shit up. I loved the movie except I found Cid to be too evil and creepy. Never cared about him. So when Bruce is hunting him down... I was rooting for Bruce. The end though had me cheering. Looper is a fantastic movie.
Sept. 29, 2012, 9:45 a.m. CST
Sept. 29, 2012, 9:47 a.m. CST
Sorry, you're right. That was uncalled for dickishness.
Sept. 29, 2012, 9:47 a.m. CST
The way Cid's hair is being brushed is the same way we are told the hero's hair was brushed by his mother. The talk about Cid not being with his true mother with the hero being an orphan. There are all kinds of places where Cid and our hero think and act alike -- including the way they create a communication network with the frogs. The fact that Cid's "mother" knows who Loopers are is not explained, but it seems to also fit with a previous draft. She was, imo, the attempt to go back in time and change the Rainmaker's life.
Sept. 29, 2012, 9:59 a.m. CST
by Frat Boy
Wasn't Cid already raised with a mother (Sara) in the original timeline when he becomes The Rainmaker anyway? How did having a loving parent change him from being a bad guy? Serious question cuz maybe I missed it. (There was a couple behind me talking and generally being dicks. It was a distraction.)
Sept. 29, 2012, 10:20 a.m. CST
On leaving the cinema I didnt think Cid was Joe but that the whole emphasis on the hair brushing was weird and could be construed as a red herring. I even said that it would take a dummy to think this but it was like a discarded element from a different narrative. You'll have to take my word that I'm not a moron but I can't prove it! Either you didnt read my posts correctly or they were poorly written but I never once said I believed Joe was Cid having finished viewing the entire movie just that there some weird little paths that the film took medown while viewing.
Sept. 29, 2012, 10:24 a.m. CST
I think some people don't understand what is being said: we are not saying that our hero is Cid but that we can see the remnants of scripts which had that as the plan. Many things which don't fit in the film we do have fit with that iteration of thought.
Sept. 29, 2012, 10:30 a.m. CST
Sara does say she was in the city for a while, involved in the drug scene (like many of the Loopers are). Then, suddenly, she came back to be with Cid. And she mysteriously knows about looping. Maybe she closed her loop, got some gold to buy some fancy crop-spraying-drones, and planned to live her next 30 years on the farm. I know they didn't show any female Loopers, but she seemed pretty bad ass with that shotgun of hers. And let me say, I know a lot of us are over-thinking this movie, but that's the fun of it. You don't make a time-travelling-sci-fi-movie without expecting people to pick it apart even days after seeing it. And on the other side of that coin, you shouldn't see a movie like this without it sparking some long-lost over-active imagination you once had, causing you to analyze every scene and come up with some of your own scenarios. It's fun! Intelligent minds don't just stop at the credits...they continue into almost fan-fic territory. Stop being a bunch of naysayers.
Sept. 29, 2012, 10:35 a.m. CST
...for the obvious reason that they don't look alike. In a movie where some (at times distracting) prosthetics are used to make the main characters look alike, you're not going to throw an olive-skinned, brown-eyed kid into the mix and expect the audience to think they are the same people. I think that's just glaring, as is.
Sept. 29, 2012, 10:38 a.m. CST
ok...time to throw my bundle of shit onto this crazy theory fire... I think there is a REAL argument to be made that Joe and Cid are one in the same...here's why Stuff Abe says, we know Abe is from the future and came back to the past to run KC and the looper program...we know Abe found Joe and "put a gun in his hand" but we don't know when that happened...there is a very telling exchange where Abe tells Joe, "go to China" and he's VERY concerned with that point...why?? Well because in the future Abe comes from he KNOWS that's where the young Joe he met and saved was...the young Joe that he BROUGHT BACK WITH HIM, he found him in China, and we see in the 30 year span that his words work and Joe actually did go to China...there is also another reason he wants him to go to China...to meet his wife who "saves his life" by preventing him from becoming the rainmaker...but there is already a Rainmaker in the future of old Willis you ask...of course there is because Joe exists there twice...what?? how does he exist there twice?? Well because Young Joe existed in the same time as his infant self because Abe brought him back with him to keep and eye on him prevent him from becoming the rainmaker because Abe comes from the rainmaker future...so he goes back to intercept Joe to make him a Looper to make sure that his business keeps operating...since the Rainmaker is ending the looper program that's bad for business after all.... now another reason I think this can be true is because of the older person receiving the younger person's memories...it happened with old Willis and JGL, but in the scene in the field at the end, it happens with Cid and JGL...Joe's "visions" of the child's future were not visions, they were memories, he remembers escaping the field and riding in the box car, he remembers what that felt like, but he remembers AS Cid because he is Cid...so what he realizes in that moment is that he is destined to become the Rainmaker, so to close the "loop" he kills himself now of course this could all be nonsense but there are too many "clues" or "red herrings" or whatever you wanna call them to just dismiss them...haven't even brought up the hair thing, why even introduce that?? Unless it's simply designed as a red herring to throw you off...but I think Joe being Cid has much better proof than that
Sept. 29, 2012, 10:38 a.m. CST
....the Rainmaker invented time travel is he truly a villian? He knows that getting control of the Looper system and killing them all will save his mom and seriously dent criminal activity in the 2070's. He knows there is a reset button that will erase the reign of terror that is nessesary for the plan to work. I would have loved for it to end with the grownup Sid sitting in a room surrounded by crime lords as everything starts to dissapear while the camera shows a sly smile on his iron jawed face.
Sept. 29, 2012, 10:38 a.m. CST
Again, you are not following the story, seeing in the script all the allusions that they are indeed the same person. Now, that it was decided to not follow that idea, clearly they didn't have to have a kid which looked the same. But this is not to say there are no suggestions left for this theme -- they are all over the film. Which is one of the many problems.
Sept. 29, 2012, 10:45 a.m. CST
I think we're preconditioned now to going into a movie and expecting about a dozen twists in a film like this. Really it's pretty straightforward. Cid isn't Joe. It wouldn't make a lick of sense even given the narrative of framework in the film for that to be the case. Is Sara a looper? I never read an "early draft" but that doesn't come across whatsoever in the final cut. Again I think the film is being overanalyzed to death with all kinds of meaning being read into it. I also think it's overrated. I liked it, but it's not this brilliant piece of sci-fi some are claiming it to be. Too many unlikeable characters, some odd dramatic beats -- definitely worth seeing but not a classic IMO.
Sept. 29, 2012, 10:48 a.m. CST
...your theory made me thing maybe she knew about Loopers because she was possibly a prostitute in the city, not a Looper. She knew Joe was a user going into withdrawal when they met and she knew about the TK coin trick which Seth showed us in the beginning so that, along with your theory, makes me think she'd been into the clubs in the city.
Sept. 29, 2012, 10:54 a.m. CST
Cid and Joe's stories are meant to be paralleled, they're not supposed to be the same person.
Sept. 29, 2012, 11:02 a.m. CST
That's been discussed a couple times already. Please, play attention to what is being said: There are remnants of an earlier script where Cid is Joe. Many scenes which have no place in the current movie nonetheless have words and actions which connect to the theme Cid is Joe. The ending brush of the hair, talk Cid and Joe had about having no mother, etc. We are told she is his mother. Is she really? Even in the final edition, that has not been proved. She claims to be the mother. She took control of Cid. But Cid says she is a liar. Constantly. It's quite possible she isn't his mother, but someone who loved him and someone who would fall in love with her, no matter what iteration of Cid/Joe is there. The young boy loves her but knows she is not his mother. The man loves her and has sex with her. So, we have not seen proof she is his mother, just claims, claims which we have strong reason to believe are not true. She seems to have gone in and taken over. Even in the final script.
Sept. 29, 2012, 11:04 a.m. CST
Until we come into "Cid's mother" it seemed like everyone knew who they were.
Sept. 29, 2012, 11:19 a.m. CST
...maybe slightly above average. The 'light makeup' is actually not light at all, and is very distracting. They should have leave Gordon-Levitt without, is acting would have been enough. Some bad visual fx, some interesting twists, some boring parts... It's a B-movie. A pretty good B-movie. I left entertained, but not excited.
Sept. 29, 2012, 11:23 a.m. CST
I thought it was the most stupid and stereotyped character, and the acting was typical and obvious. I really don't see why you are excited about that performance.
Sept. 29, 2012, 11:56 a.m. CST
I'm pretty sure they made that clear when they deposisted their silver and they had that try which said "looper's bluderbusses here". The only part of the film that bugged me is the killing of old Joe's wife. I thought the whole point of loopers was that they couldn't kill people in the future, and yet they shoot her without cause and they point a gun at old Joe as though they could shoot him right there, when he knows they wont because they have to send him back to the past instead. They set up this whole "killing in the future is impossible" premise and yet they are able to kill his wife without consiquence?
Sept. 29, 2012, 12:37 p.m. CST
by Frat Boy
Ok, please correct me if I am wrong cuz... Isn't the year that Joe (JGL) lives in 2044? If so, then the age of Cid is a bit off. When Joe (BW) deciphers the numbers at the library and shows the birthdate to Joe (JGL), the year that Cid was born is shown to be 2039. Making hime 5 years old, right? Though isn't it stated many times in the film that Cid is supposed to be 10, right? Also, if 5 years old is correct, regarding the first kid that Joe (BW) kills, isn't he way too young to be walking home from school? I tried consulting IMDB for some kind of answer, but it states on there that the year that Joe (JGL) lives in is 2042. Anybody?
Sept. 29, 2012, 12:37 p.m. CST
by the dolphins are in the jacuzzi
Crazy. Now, for the trifecta: if Harry hates it, I'll know it's a classic.
Sept. 29, 2012, 12:49 p.m. CST
I think Sara only told the Looper that visited that her son was 10. This was to through him off track in case he was looking for a 5 year old as well. Remember, she also said she had a husband, which she didn't. As for the kid walking home from school, he was probably dropped off at a bus stop near by and was walking home from there.
Sept. 29, 2012, 12:50 p.m. CST
And there was never an earlier version of the script in which he was. You are simply mistaking deliberately written parallels between the two characters. Joe does not have TK. And again, there was never an earlier version of the script in which he did.
Sept. 29, 2012, 12:50 p.m. CST
by Andrew Coleman
Simple. If Cid was Joe... Why make Cid so obviously dark? Also his eyes are not the same color as Joe's. If he was suppose to be Joe they would have noticed this in the film making process. You guys are way too into all of these things that were not shown to us. You need to look at themes... That is what is in the writing. If the theme wasn't about mothers being important... Why did Joe kill himself? Just to stop Bruce Willies? Nope. He did it because he realized how self-obsessed he had been. When anyone talks about time-travel they ask "Would you go back and kill Hitler?" or Bin Laden etc. Well instead of killing the Hitler in the future he changes the timeline where he has nothing to be angry about. He was raised right by his mother unlike Joe was... Bruce Willis's story about his wife is important. A good woman in your life will fix you... Young Joe sees this connects with Cid because their stories are similar and kills himself to save Cid, Emily Blunt and the future. That's what is important! If he was Cid why have him fuck his mom? Why did young Joe never move anything with his mind ever? Why did Bruce Willis never move anything with his mind? The list of questions is too long to explain how Cid was Joe. That's it... I'm sorry but none of you have given any real evidence to go against this. You're reading too much into it... WHICH IS GOOD! When I was kid I made up back ground stories for Boba Fett... Movies like this make your imagination run wild. It's a good thing.
Sept. 29, 2012, 12:57 p.m. CST
by Frat Boy
Although, I think I remember Joe (BW) saying that The Rainmaker is ten years old at one point in the movie. I could be mistaken, however. Still, great movie.
Sept. 29, 2012, 1:14 p.m. CST
Saw it yesterday. While I applaud the effort and love time travel movies, this one didn't quite make it. It started out great then took a left. It will definitely make you think, but it just doesn't add up. Just my opinion.
Sept. 29, 2012, 1:17 p.m. CST
Sept. 29, 2012, 1:29 p.m. CST
SPOILERS!!!! 1. The TK thing was unnecessary, added nothing to the story. It was enough that the kid was going to grow up to be some evil bad ass crime boss. It seemed to be added just for an excuse to add some neat special effects. 2. Why do they have to close the Loop? No witnesses? They allow the guy to retire and live out the next thirty years of his life in freedom. In all that time he could have told anyone about the crime bosses and about Loopers, but didn't. Suddenly this guy is 60 and he is a threat for some reason? Why? 3. How did Emily Blunt's character know about Loopers? I may have missed something but I don't think this was explained. Seemed they made her character know about Loopers so they could avoid a long, drawn out seen with Levitt trying to convince her. Fair enough I suppose, we have seen that scene too many times in time travel flicks. 4. I liked when it switched to Willis' point of view early on. Willis was GREAT in this film, more personality than his shown in years. He was more McLaine in this than he was in Die Hard 4. So what's my problem? He pretty much disappears when Levitt arrives at the farm. This is also where the film took a downturn for me, thought it was turning out to be something rather special up until that point. Also, turning his character into The Terminator half way through? It would have been fine if he didn't kill any kids, if he was about to kill one lets say, but received the new memory of the kid on the farm killing Raising Hope guy before he went through with it. But as soon as he kills that kid early on, he becomes a more straight forward villain. Worked better when you didn't know who to root for. (Though I understand why they did it, so you would have no doubt he would go through with it at the end, no doubt that Levitt's sacrifice was necessary. Still, I think it made the film altogether less interesting. 5. I would have liked if, similar to how they show Looper's entire life up until the point he is sent back early in the film, they showed the Rainmakers life, and showing how it changed, IF it changed. 6. Do the mob use time travel for anything other than body disposal? You'd think they would. Granted, Jeff Bridge's does mention even the mob don't want to fuck around with the time line too much, but aren't they doing that by dismembering the Looper at the begining? 7. Not really a complaint, but am I the only one that thought Kid Blue would turn out to be Abe's younger self? It would explain their father/son relationship. There are clues. There is one line of dialogue where I'm am certain Abe's voice slips into the same accent as Blue's. And after Young Joe falls on the car, Bruce Willis says something to the effect of "you stupid kid..." and then it immediately cuts to Kid Blue waiting to be reprimanded after losing JGL and the very next line is Jeff Daniels walking into the room saying "you stupid kid..."
Sept. 29, 2012, 1:30 p.m. CST
If Cid was Joe then Joe's memories would change to Cid's. Also, he would maybe have a scar from the bullet that hit Cid.
Sept. 29, 2012, 1:30 p.m. CST
How that horrible piece of film making is 70 on rotten tomatoes is beyond me. Looking forward to this, however. Hoping it doesn't let me down.
Sept. 29, 2012, 1:32 p.m. CST
...No classic I'm afraid. First 30minutes or so are great, after that it loses it's way, and boy does it drag. Not enough Willis either, who is, truth be told, better than he has been in years in this film. I would have enjoyed it more no doubt, if not for the ridiculous over hyping. And I'm surprised the Primer guys consulted on this film, as the time travel logic in this one is incredibly flawed. There should have been more playing around with the pretty fucking cool cause and effect mechanic used in the early part of the film. If you've seen it, you know the awesome scene I'm talking about. Even though it didn't make much sense when you think about it. All in all, ***, but might have snagged **** if not for the hype. Might like it better second time around, with more realistic expectations
Sept. 29, 2012, 1:45 p.m. CST
by Stereotypical Evil Archer
Saying there is only 3 loops is completely the wrong way to think about this movie.
Sept. 29, 2012, 1:50 p.m. CST
You're either crazy or trolling, or a combination of both. The hair thing at the end was just meant to be a nice moment, giving our main character some kind of sweet sendoff into the afterlife. Its also the thing he really likes telling chicks to do when he bangs them, apparently. So its entirely possible that he asked her to do it when they hooked up, and that is how she knew to do it then.
Sept. 29, 2012, 1:56 p.m. CST
by Stereotypical Evil Archer
All of which happened.
Sept. 29, 2012, 2 p.m. CST
why would bruce willis' arrival in the past be late if the time machine is set to a certain time already?
Sept. 29, 2012, 2:07 p.m. CST
But it was overall disappointing. And to be honest, this was the year of the disappointment. Avengers was shallow, Prometheus was nothing special and TDKR just did not end the trilogy in a satisfying way. Looper is one of the better films this year but it has a lot of problems. Its limited budget; the world its set in isn't full realized and its ideas, while great, are executed poorly.
Sept. 29, 2012, 2:17 p.m. CST
You can find a lot of commentary on the ending on many sites which discuss this.
Sept. 29, 2012, 2:26 p.m. CST
When a science fiction movie is made, it's supposed to have something to say about its idea. In this case the idea was time travel. In Twelve Monkeys we saw the inevitability of and horror of fate being unstoppable. In Back to the Future we saw much the opposite, a hopeful message to go along with its fun attitude. In Primer we saw the mind bending consequences and just how scary time travel can be. Looper leaves us with nothing much to say about time travel. It's not particularly hopeful nor ever presented as a great evil, nor yet presents anything as complex as Primer. We're left hanging and don't know what, if anything, the movie wanted to say about it. This leaves us with the characters and their journey. Joseph Gordon Levitt and Bruce Willis are excellent in this film. Willis especially, as he manages both the dramatic end and to pull off the kind of badassery not seen since from him since the Fifth Element. He's right up there with Schwarzenneger in Terminator 2 and Predator in terms of kicking ass here. But despite these great performances we never really see the character of Joe go anywhere. He's the only character we're ever truly invested in. We can't care particularly about the world or any hypothetical antagonist, because we never get to see much of either and don't really know what's going to happen to either in the end. It's a movie all about Joe, a man unsure and unhappy with his life and himself. A man so unsure he can't even belief his own future self. And then he becomes even more conflicted, and then he dies. And that's it. He doesn't die a hero, or tragically, or even with any particular revelation other than he's unhappy with his life. And that's how we end, a kind of shrug. As if Rian Johnson had come up with one really good idea, that of someone's future and past selves going at it, and then didn't know what else to do with it. And so Looper, while good, also manages to disappoint, me at any case. There could have been something to say about time travel, about learning from your mistakes and trying to change your life. But it doesn't do any of this, just ending without ever finishing its own story.
Sept. 29, 2012, 2:32 p.m. CST
... "And then he becomes even more conflicted, and then he dies. And that's it. He doesn't die a hero, or tragically, or even with any particular revelation other than he's unhappy with his life." He didn't kill himself just because he was unhappy with his life, he died to break the cycle. He sacrificed himself for Cid. He could have killed him in the corn field earlier, but didn't, showing he, unlike Old Joe, was not yet irredeemable. And he redeems himself in the end. There WAS a revelation, and he did die something of a hero.
Sept. 29, 2012, 2:36 p.m. CST
Sept. 29, 2012, 2:44 p.m. CST
It's "message" is not about time travel - that's just the genre used to pull you in - the message is about something deeper, the karmic circle of violence. A traumatized boy becomes a killer, a man who loses his wife will kill children to get her back...and Joe sacrifices himself to end the cycle.
Sept. 29, 2012, 2:44 p.m. CST
He isn't even sure of anything himself... which proves my point. Thanks.
Sept. 29, 2012, 3:01 p.m. CST
1) Cid isn't Joe. 2) You're trolling.
Sept. 29, 2012, 3:02 p.m. CST
Was old Joe iredeemable? Wasn't he the future the guy that was supposed to know more than younger him? And did Cid actually end up good? The kid reminded me of Voldemort as a child. And we just watch him go off into the distance, his future unknown but possibly redeemed by a man who's only worth in the end was killing himself. Besides the obvious mess of time travel paradoxes unanswered it's also an unanswered character. The only thing he can do is possibly redeem a kid we don't know a lot about nor do we care about totally. Not exactly a huge tragedy, nor heroic considering Joe seemed none too close to enjoying his life as it was. The point is that Joe never redeems himself. Never ends up anything more than someone unsatisfied and vaguely disgusted with himself. And yet future Joe might have been that man, might have done exactly that. But we never find out, he can't be happy in the future and he can't be happy in the past, and he just dies.
Sept. 29, 2012, 3:07 p.m. CST
No, you are trolling, if anything. Where did I say, in the final film, Cid is Joe? I haven't. Sorry. Follow along if you can.
Sept. 29, 2012, 3:12 p.m. CST
by Frat Boy
They're just spotting inconsistencies and plot holes in the film. Which there are. And that's okay. Doesn't mean write LOOPER off completely. Still a very good movie with great performances.
Sept. 29, 2012, 3:18 p.m. CST
Sept. 29, 2012, 4:24 p.m. CST
Does Old Joe's wife live now that the Joes essentially sacrifices themselves? Does that timeline even happen? I guess not, but then the silver is still in the road, as is the truck, etc... So anyone have any ideas? Maybe she doesnt ever meet him now in the newly created timeline.
Sept. 29, 2012, 4:48 p.m. CST
Old Joe does not show up with a hood. That's the first indication something is different this time.
Sept. 29, 2012, 5:02 p.m. CST
I think you're spot-on. That was my take-away from the movie too. In the end it was the influence of woman that "saved" the man.
Sept. 29, 2012, 5:11 p.m. CST
Well worth the price of the ticket...if you don't like films that make you think and give you something original, don't bother. Sometimes I feel every review should come with that information these days. Movies have come to the point where there are subcultures. I can predict which of my friends will like which movies.
Sept. 29, 2012, 5:13 p.m. CST
There's a set of loops that are connected ... maybe a figure eight :) It goes like this (and you can jump in at any point). OldJoe is sent back to 2044, where he's killed by YoungJoe, in killing him, he gets the big payday, moves to Asia, dopes up all his money, and is forced back into criminal activities (we see all this). He meets his wife (the Asian woman), she straightens him out. The Rainmakers gang busts in grabs OldJoe, shoots his wife, and prepares to send OldJoe back. He opens a can of whoop ass, and travels back on his terms (i.e., no hood or restraints). This time, he's not killed by YoungJoe. He eventually finds the RainMaker and kills Sara/Mom, which creates the evil version of the Rainmaker in the future. OK, now this fills in a few things we don't see, but it's not too hard to connect: YoungJoe kills OldJoe after he kills sara. He takes the money from the car that OldJoe brought to him. He leaves town, relocates to Asia, and through a different set of circumstances, meets the same woman and marries her. The Rainmaker finds him ... and ready for this? Sends him back to 2044 where he's killed by YoungJoe :) The movie interrupts that second loop and YoungJoe kills himself, removing OldJoe too, and there's never a future evil Rainmaker, who sends OldJoe back to 2044 where he begins the original loop (and secondary loop) :D That's my $0.02
Sept. 29, 2012, 5:34 p.m. CST
As fluffyunbound pointed out above, Young Joe killing himself creates a paradox. i.e. If he kills himself in the present he can't grow old and travel back in time - which would give him no reason to kill himself. So he would then grow old and travel back in time - giving him the reason to kill himself. So then he couldn't grow old and travel back in time... But in the context of the film, is this a 'paradox' or a 'loop'? I think we saw such a loop in the film when Young Joe fails to kill Old Joe, goes back to the apartment and falls. We then see Young Joe killing Old Joe, growing old and deciding to hunt down the Rainmaker by traveling back in time where Young Joe fails to kill him. 'Loops' like these could continue forever. So I would have liked one more scene at the end to show that the loop is carrying on. Young Joe standing in the field with his blunderbuss and pocket watch. Tick...tick...tick...
Sept. 29, 2012, 5:43 p.m. CST
Why is that?
Sept. 29, 2012, 6:06 p.m. CST
I'm not pulling it out of nowhere people on Nolan Fans forums were banging on about early versions of the script they had read that were different to what we saw as a conclusion. Maybe they are liars but I suspect not. TBH I've been polite to people calling me an idiot but without repeating myself at length - emphasis on hair stroking, the strippers kid etc there are pieces in the jigsaw puzzle that don't fit and feel like they belong in another narrative. In the filmed versions they merely serve as red herrings. For the last fucking time I DO NOT BELIEVE CID is a younger Joe in the film as presented but there are misleading clues to suggest that it is the case and I believe these originated in another draft or if not are akin to LOST-esque misdirection just to fuck with or heads/prompt debate...If so mission accomplished! I never really get into debates such as these online but it amazes me how people who disagree have to be so fucking rude. Not you slone but some earlier responses to my posts.
Sept. 29, 2012, 7:32 p.m. CST
For God sake atleast puit the spoiler in the hidden part of the comment. ugh...
Sept. 29, 2012, 7:37 p.m. CST
I wouldn't put it on the same level as BLADE RUNNER as far as its place in film history, but man does it have more energy and fun than BR does. And just about any time-travel film has its flaws and nitpicks in its logic and/or formula; even TERMINATOR and BACK TO THE FUTURE can be picked apart. Its fun to debate but not near enough to ruin the film. It's best not to think about it.
Sept. 29, 2012, 7:45 p.m. CST
Not since seeing the Matrix for the first time have I been as blown away by a movie. Wow, just wow.
Sept. 29, 2012, 8:14 p.m. CST
I really don't understand all of the hype behind this movie. I just saw it and, while it is good (thanks in large part to the quality of the acting), it is far from great. I love a good time-travel movie as much as the next person (probably more), but the premise of Looper is actually quite silly, and the entire story kind of falls apart under close examination. Let's just examine the premise of the film (without giving too much away)... why would the people who the Loopers are working for wait thirty years to kill them, when they could do it in the past thus preventing any chance of their secret being revealed? If Time Travel is illegal, why take the risk? Thirty years is a long time to be carrying around a secret (and you know what they say about the only way two people can keep a secret - one of them has to kill the other). The whole telekinesis thing just seems "shoehorned" in and doesn't really serve any purpose except for the end. If you really think about the ending, everything after __'s death would not have occured. So, not only should the silver, truck, etc., not be there, but the entire story falls apart. Every scene in which somebody that was either killed or came into contact with older ___ would not have occured. It is a conceptually flawed movie that features great performances - including from the child. By the way, I know Levitt was trying to do Willis, but did anyone else think that he reminded them of Robert Deniro?
Sept. 29, 2012, 8:16 p.m. CST
Also, I agree that the key to this movie's brilliance is in its themes, not some hidden timey-wimey mind-fuck. This is a movie about a man who is lost but finds his way again at a key moment, and likely saves many people's lives in the process. The ending is simply beautiful. It's one of the more moving things I've seen in a film in a long time.
Sept. 29, 2012, 8:25 p.m. CST
I agree with everything you said. I felt like I did the first time I saw DARK CITY. So original and so familiar. Really great work from everyone. :D
Sept. 29, 2012, 8:39 p.m. CST
Just don't think about it. The script was butchered up by some wannabe hack that thinks anyone can write time travel stories. There is *one* and only *one* rule to Time Travel stories. 1) You shall not violate the rules surrounding time travel which you setup. And yet, the first half of the film presents one set of rules based on cause/effect(Joe goes back Joe gets shot, time changes as a result), while the back half of the film tries to present the effect(the Rainmaker closing loops because of the events on the farm) before the cause(Willis creating the events on the farm). As a result, this pile of mush falls completely apart. Thats not to say there aren't some good scenes in the wreckage, but lets not pretend this was written by someone who knew what they were doing as it pertains to the genre. He did enough to sell the script and make the movie to cash in, and the explanation you'll find somewhere between this sign post and The Twilght Zone. Cause really, there is no excuse.
Sept. 29, 2012, 8:40 p.m. CST
Jeff Daniel's Abe character and that was the reason Abe kept giving him multiple chances to prove himself. I was a bit relieved that Kid Blue was a separate character, unto himself.
Sept. 29, 2012, 8:41 p.m. CST
Jeff Daniel's character was killed off-camera? I would have liked to see that.
Sept. 29, 2012, 8:43 p.m. CST
They kill them in the future because they had no reason to do so any earlier. Example: No one had a reason to kill Hitler until 1942. In 1912 no one cared. I know its broad strokes but in movie-logic, it works.
Sept. 29, 2012, 9:01 p.m. CST
... the whole subplot with the TK-kid was absolutely needless other than as an excuse to include some CGI shit blowing up Akira-style... The kid didn't need that retarded SUPER TELEKINESIS to make his potential future as a villain more believable and was a giant cock-punch for a movie that seemed pretty sure of itself the rest of the time. As soon as the TK stuff was introduced early on in the film, I got a sinking feeling that a goofy-ass element like that would show up later and sadly, I was right. Other than that, (and the fact that it made no sense as to why the future bad men didn't simply send dead bodies back in time) I really enjoyed it.
Sept. 29, 2012, 9:03 p.m. CST
Damn you Harry.
Sept. 29, 2012, 9:06 p.m. CST
*SPOILERS* enjoyable throughout, i had some guesses through the viewing on what I thought would happen and it ended up being different and better that expected. Loved the sequence with the older Paul Dano's character when he met his fate on the run. I also thought we'd see Jeff Daniel's character's younger self (who obviously must still be alive if his future self is).
Sept. 29, 2012, 9:22 p.m. CST
by Drew DeWindt
I hate time travel movies that mess up and erase the possibilty of the movies events from happening - if young joe kills himself - there is no old joe to send back for him to kill - end of story if you want to ignore this then you also can't shoot young joe in the ear and suddenly have a piece of old joes ear be missing which wasn't missing as he grew older, or you can't - write a message on a young version to have it suddenly appear at the proper moment on the old version or have parts cut off and wind up as old healed wounds on the older version - when they had no wounds a few minutes earlier. I saw no implication that young rainmaker is any relation to joe or that joe has any tech ability or TK ability - only question is how Rainmaker's mom knew what a Looper was - but that is a moot point if young joe doesnt need to go to her home since he wouldnt have had to go anywhere since old joe didnt exist - now if we are entering a new alternate reality. Like Jacob's Ladder - any movie that negates itself truly annoys me like Looper does!
Sept. 29, 2012, 9:36 p.m. CST
Being a looper doesn't require much skill. Old Joe takes out an army of well trained guys. Could young Al be the goofball kid with the large pistol?
Sept. 29, 2012, 9:38 p.m. CST
I figured it's the same way people know about the mob in general. There's a code of silence, but regular people still know what's what.
Sept. 29, 2012, 9:40 p.m. CST
Young Abe could be the goofball kid with the large pistol who was seen as a major fuckup by Abe, but nonetheless was allowed to live.
Sept. 29, 2012, 9:42 p.m. CST
I just felt like I was watching the first Terminator movie with some different settings.
Sept. 29, 2012, 9:42 p.m. CST
Sept. 29, 2012, 9:43 p.m. CST
If the younger version of Joe could alter the physical body of Old Joe by manipulating his own, where is Young Abe and how is Old Abe existing in the "past" and able to stay focus and aware without his memories constantly being edited by the experiences of Young Abe... He obviously couldn't kill Young Abe or even put him in a medically-induced coma .... I think the whole "Kid Blue being Young Abe" angle is another plot-line that came from an early version of the script....
Sept. 29, 2012, 9:46 p.m. CST
There is a Wanted poster for an outlaw dressed in all-black named Bad Bob..... There is a toy figurine of an outlaw on a shelf that looks like "Bad Bob" and there is a hand-drawn picture of the farm and a tractor with two or three "outlaws" dressed in all black........ all of the above are dressed in the same clothing as the hitmen in the Old Joe's future when they come to retrieve him in China........
Sept. 29, 2012, 9:53 p.m. CST
It's a big world. Young Abe could be in Canada or something and never chance running into old Abe. Old Abe would also know where his young self would be and could avoid his younger self.
Sept. 29, 2012, 9:54 p.m. CST
She was probably one of the stripper/prostitutes at the Club Bella Armoure or whatever it was called.... She mentioned that she went off to the city for a couple of years and she was very familiar with the eye-dropper drug that all the Loopers were using.....
Sept. 29, 2012, 10:49 p.m. CST
Good show mate. Totally agree with all your points. Too many wankers are going overboard looking for reasons to pick it apart.
Sept. 29, 2012, 10:57 p.m. CST
by Adam Brindle
...wouldn't the whole scene of the surgeons dismembering young Seth limb by limb and it effecting old Seth cause some sort of problem? I mean, just before he was shot in the head he lost his arms and legs. Wouldn't that cause a massive problem with the events that have led up to old Seth being sent back in time? Also, though i don't recall is being expressly stated, i can imagine they killed young Seth immediately afterwards. This being the same paradox of young Joe killing himself to stop old Joe. I haven't read every single thread post, but i don't recall seeing any topics about this particular thing. Now, i'm not saying i didn't like the movie, i really enjoyed it. I'm just saying that if we are really going to nit pick about the time travel paradox aspect, this should also be mentioned...
Sept. 30, 2012, 12:48 a.m. CST
alright comrades, let's have at it. First of all, this movie was awesome and if you don't think so, you suck. @darth_coolius, the time machine doesn't go back to a certain set time-- it ONLY goes back EXACTLY thirty years from each time it's used. @raskolnikov_was_framed your explanation blew my mind. I am not convinced but I gotta hand it to you, that was a hell of a great argument. I definitely need to see the movie again. @fluffy_unbound You fucked up, dude. You shoulda gone and seen this spoiler-free... I'm not trying to be mean; I know you like smart challenging movies, and I think you would'a loved this if you'd gone in "blind" as I did. Among my thoughts on the film: The guy being dismembered as he runs towards what he knows is his own death is one of the most horrifying things I've seen in a while. Totally fucked-up in a great way. Also the kid flexing his tk was BAD-ASS and if you didn't enjoy that and go OH SHITTTTT then you're a turd.
Sept. 30, 2012, 12:57 a.m. CST
The scenes in the cane fields with all the matter floating about is seriously evocative of Akira. I was just waiting for someone to scream out "Tetsuoooooooo"
Sept. 30, 2012, 1:01 a.m. CST
When Young Joe gets discovered at the farm and gets shot with saltpepper, Old Joe looks at his RIGHT shoulder and sees a new scar appear from said saltpepper shooting. Later on, when getting patched up, Young Joe is wounded on his LEFT shoulder, and his right shoulder is perfectly fine. Otherwise, this is a film I will see again to get more of it. It is a HARD film to watch and many deeply disturbing moments and events take place that cannot be fully appreciated the first time around...
Sept. 30, 2012, 1:12 a.m. CST
by Dr. Chim Richalds
Apparently I'm missing out on the greatness of this film, because I only found it moderately interesting. The TK and time travel elements didn't mesh very well, in my opinion, and the paradoxes were handled in a sloppy fashion (The mob doesn't kill young loopers whose older selves escape because it is afraid of time paradoxes, yet will intentionally change history by mutilating the young loopers in order to make the old loopers turn themselves in? How did the end of the movie affect everything that came before?). I also agree that some people are analyzing this film way too much and coming up with some pretty kooky theories. I honestly have no idea how anyone could think Joe and Cid are one and the same. Blunt's character probably knows of loopers because of her wild days in the city and because it didn't look like the loopers made much effort to keep their jobs a secret.
Sept. 30, 2012, 1:53 a.m. CST
When Young Joe first encounters Old Joe and gets knocked out, he wakes up with a note that tells him to "Catch a train and run." However, after we see the 30 year montage and it catches back up to this point, Old Joe knocks him out but keeps walking. Who left the note in Young Joe's pocket and when?
Sept. 30, 2012, 2:17 a.m. CST
Because it really felt like a greatest hits of time travel as Rian Johnson flailed away at coming up with a cohesive story mashed up of elements ripped wholesale from other stories. Akira, Terminator, Back To The Future, Twelve Monkeys, the list goes on. And I get so tired of so-called 'artists' that have to ape other films from start to finish(and do it badly), and try to call that an 'original' script. About the only thing original here is the core conceit, and its so fucking ludicrous that simple questions of 'Why would they send a looper back to kill himself? Use someone else and then pay him when done?' or 'Why didn't they just send back the corpses pre-packaged to minimize any timeline effects?' cause the whole thing to collapse in a ball of 'WTF'? As I said before, if you're not an intelligent person and a sheeple and can't think for yourself.. the whole thing makes 'absolutely perfect sense'. Oh, and the verbal blow jobs of people giving JGL for 'becoming Bruce Wills' is malarchy. JGL looked absolutely nothing like Bruce Willis. He did try to mimic some visual ticks, and they tried to reshape his face, but the whole way i didn't for the moment buy that this was a young Bruce Willis. Now, Day-Lewis as Lincoln from the preview before the film, now thats a transformative performance.
Sept. 30, 2012, 2:25 a.m. CST
The performance of the kid rocked the house. Any scene he was in he just stole wholesale. I didn't for one second doubt he could grow up to be one bad ass motherfucker and pulling that off with a kid probably younger than 10 without it turning campy is not easy.
Sept. 30, 2012, 2:26 a.m. CST
ba da dum.
Sept. 30, 2012, 5:32 a.m. CST
I get the themes of violence begets violence, enjoyed the view of the future with the solar panels on beat up cars and the performances all round so enjoyed the ride but the film has little details that are very deliberately included yet seem to serve no purpose. Cid is woken by his mother by a squeeze of the foot. Joe likes women in his life to mimic the things his mother did for him like the hair stroking with the pro (Weird Joe!) We very clearly see Joe's future wife squeeze his foot to wake him up - maybe he asked for this too. Like the hair stroking it implies that Cid is Joe. He definitely isn't on review of the overall movie so why include that? Yes the film is about the importance of mothers and partners as caregivers to shape men's lives but the misdirection as a result of these little moments is a cheap slight of hand in my book. They insinuate that an even more complex narrative is at play when it's not. Looper was on the 2010 black list - Has anybody here actually read that script or an earlier iteration that varies on what we see in the film?
Sept. 30, 2012, 6:53 a.m. CST
not that you deserve t, you condescendng cunt. Ever wonder why you're basically friendless? Someone who doesn't understand something then arrogantly claiming they're too smart for it is about as unappealing as it gets. **People in the future, all they know about time travel is to be afraid of it. So they’re trying to keep it as tight as possible. So the initial reason they set it up this way was to keep the causality loop as tight as possible** Johnson said. Because, for example, if someone else kills your older self and you have to exist with your own murderer for 30 years, what’s stopping you for murdering them or doing something to screw everything else up? **Every bit of evidence is gone from that loop when you kill yourself** --from slashfilm
Sept. 30, 2012, 7:15 a.m. CST
My God, this has to be the most over-analysed film of all time!!! Without any justification whatsoever!! I saw this last night and I really, really liked it. Great film. Who cares if it uses some ideas from other films/shows (Terminator and Akira, most obviously). It uses them well, it's thought-provoking and it's entertaining. To read this talkback, however, you'd think it was much more complex than it is. There's no chance I'll remember all of the points made above but here goes: (1) I have seen repeated reference to the Rainmaker being the inventor of time travel. That is never suggested!! In fact, the loops are being closed as - it is specifically stated - once the Rainmaker "came out of nowhere" the "first thing he did" was start to close all of the loops. So...time travel was being abused before he took charge, and no one had heard of him before his sudden ascendance, hence he is NOT the inventor of a technology that predates his first appearance; (2) Joe is Cid? No he isn't. Joe gives a very specific history of how he lost his mother. It has parallels to Cid's story IF Cid becomes The Rainmaker (i.e. he sees Sarah shot dead and is left without a mother's guidance) but it is still entirely different from Joe's story. They are just not possibly the same - there is NO hint that younger Joe has time travelled, no hint of even slight 'TK' (let alone the apocalyptic TK possessed by Cid, they look entirely different - even down to eye colour - and HIS STORY IS DIFFERENT!!! The only connection is the hair stroking. Which is done by a third party - how can a third party's actions prove something about the receiving party!?! (3) Following on, the parallel is designed to justify Young Joe's realisation of what will make The Rainmaker - not his powers but the bad things that happen to him (injury, death of mother, isolation, who knows what other influence [just as Young Joe has Abe]). Just as Sarah says, last time Cid did not have her to guide him. He puts a stop to that by saving Sarah the only way he can - he is too far to hit Old Joe with the Blunderbuss so he kills himself instead. He does so to stop Cid's future mirroring his own, so parallels are required to explain/justify this. (4) As far as 'does Cid now not become The Rainmaker' is concerned, the answer is "who knows?". There are many other things that could still make Cid a monster but it isn't for the filmmakers to track his whole life. They are dealing with what made him The Rainmaker in the original timeline - he saw his mother (Sarah, not her sister who was killed by a cabinet falling on her as a result of a 'psychic tantrum) shot, he received an injury that resulted in a prosthetic jaw (I assume this was the result of the jaw injury received at the end - with treatment it is a cut, but WITHOUT Sarah to treat it the wound would infect and become much more serious, perhaps resulting in loss of his jaw - this is in line with Sarah's comments as she treats Young Joe's injuries sustained in the field) and he was abandoned to his own devices and open to malevolent influence. That has all changed so PERHAPS he is no longer The Rainmaker. But then perhaps perhaps perhaps. (5) To those who say there are left-overs of a previous draft: so what? If they actually exist they do detract from the final film, they are not out of place and - most importantly - they are not a part of THIS film. So again: who cares!?! (6) As far as Young Joe's suicide rendering the whole film moot (i.e. as he died Old Joe could never come back and so none of it happened, so why is there silver in the road etc), this completely ignores one way of looking at time travel paradoxes etc. Basically it's multiverse - every single possibility has occurred and a separate universe exists as a result of that 'different decision/event' being made/occurring. So, Old Joe comes back from a future in which The Rainmaker exists, his wife is killed etc etc. In one 'timeline' he is hooded and killed. In another he is not. Neither timeline is definitive - they BOTH exist, parallel to one another in the multiverse. We just happen to be watching a film that follows the second. So in fact Old Joe from Universe One is actually affecting (in fact creating) Universe Two. The absence of an Old Joe in Universe Two therefore is not a problem for what happens in Universe Two as he comes from a timeline (therefore Universe) One. The problem, in fact, is that under this understanding Young Joe killing himself in the created Universe Two will NOT remove Old Joe, who comes from a timeline/Universe where Young Joe DOES survive. All of which justifies Old Joe's comments about not talking about time travel or we'll be here all day drawing diagrams!! Right, I have now given myself a headache and can't remember the other points I wanted to make. Simply, it's a very good film and nowhere near as complicated re:themes, parallels stories etc as this talkback is making it seem. Apart from the inevitable complexity of any film using time travel, it's pretty damned straightforward. P.S. I won't go into detail on the one point I REALLY had a problem with - if this entire looper system upon which this film is based upon the fact murder is not possible in the future, how did the bad guys murder Old Joe's wife and set the whole plot in motion!?!
Sept. 30, 2012, 7:31 a.m. CST
by Jarrete Barnett
Abe being Kid Blue sure as hell would explain why he never just hauled off and bumped him off every time he fucked up. In the average movie, the bumbling henchman gets clipped in a heartbeat just to make an example. And on that note, I don't recall Kid Blue actually being shown (confirmed) dead after getting shot down by young Joe. If he goes on to live, it further explains why he knew so much about both old and young Joe's motives. Time travel is eventually invented (potentially by the Rainmaker) and Kid Blue is sent back before meeting a younger Joe, and the loop starts all over again. And you notice Joe or Seth never got ceremonial notice about closing their loops. Their future selves just popped up in front of them one day, at least in Joe's case, anyway. I think even when young Joe pulls off the job, he's still surprised to find out it was him under the hood. Obviously, older Joe putting up a fight in the loop represents rebellion against his previous fate of blindly following orders, and not solely about ulterior motives of saving his future wife. At the end, perhaps young, present Joe realizes he can't change his past (getting recruited by Abe), or fix his future (dead wife), so the only solution is to continually take himself out of the equation. Maybe the Rainmaker is simply a myth Abe made up to keep his loopers in check, preoccupied, or distracted. And as long as Kid Blue lives and Abe gets a hold of younger Joe in the past, the loop inevitably keeps going. All the while, present Joe doesn't know any better about present Kid Blue, and neither would future Joe, being a product of present Joe's actions. That being said, if the Abe and Kid Blue theory is true, then ultimately this is a story of Joe's conquest of progressively (little by little) transcending the limits of his own perspective or perceptions (slave mentality). Moral of the story: The greatest victory you can have, is over yourself.
Sept. 30, 2012, 7:46 a.m. CST
by Dr. Chim Richalds
You see old Joe walking towards young Joe's truck before the cut. I think he just got a scrap of paper and pen out of the truck, wrote the message, and then left. No big deal.
Sept. 30, 2012, 8:04 a.m. CST
Sept. 30, 2012, 8:10 a.m. CST
I agree gordons_alive about your last point-- the wife beng murdered. I'm glad that didn't occur to me while watching the movie (or indeed at all 'til I read these talkbacks). Of the various things people have brought up n TBs as supposed flaws (almost used quote marks again there) that's the only one that strikes me as anything like a real loose end-- though again, it didn't interfere with my enjoyment of this superb film. So according to a very useful Q&A on Slashfilm with Rian, the Bad Bobs killing old Joe's wife was a big fuck-up on the Bad Bobs' part, and the reason they start burning down the whole town is a half-assed attempt to cover it up.
Sept. 30, 2012, 8:30 a.m. CST
...I don't think Old Joe's wife being killed was much of a problem. In the scene it's clear it was a fuck up. Those guy were probably caught after these events. As for point (6) you made, (If the explanation for the preceding events having taken place even though Young Joe killed himself, is the parallel universe theory, then Old Joe should not have vanished) it is an issue, but this has been in issue in most You Can Change The Future films going back to Back To The Future. Back To The Future was still awesome. After all, these a films, entertainment, not scientific simulations.
Sept. 30, 2012, 10:13 a.m. CST
by Mr Underhill
Thoroughly enjoyed the film. real emotional connection, to the point that I shouted out at one point .....but, the time travel elements don't really hang together. However, the weaknesses will only occur to you afterwards ....unlike Star Trek, for instance. Liked it on the big screen, and will buy it on release. M
Sept. 30, 2012, 10:42 a.m. CST
BEFORE the loop started?
Sept. 30, 2012, 10:49 a.m. CST
I totally agree! It's just a film and it's ridiculous to get lost in the science! I wouldn't have mentioned it myself but for the fact that the point was made so many times elsewhere re: the death of Young Joe nullifying all that went before. My point was it doesn't, but that it DOES cause entirely different logical problems. That said, I'd just rather ignore it and take it for what it is - a very clever, very entertaining movie!!
Sept. 30, 2012, 10:52 a.m. CST
As far as I can tell that's the question that undermines every workable theory in Terminator - I don't think any well-thought out time travel theory I've come across explains it. Which I guess makes the use of time travel in Looper better than in Terminator!! (NOT to say it's a better film, of course! Or that there isn't a workable theory I haven't heard!!)
Sept. 30, 2012, 11:54 a.m. CST
by ass clown
End of story. Joe is not Cid. He didnt go into a time travel machine and there was never an intention for this.
Sept. 30, 2012, 12:09 p.m. CST
Sept. 30, 2012, 12:37 p.m. CST
Sept. 30, 2012, 12:38 p.m. CST
Also, if Joe was Cid, his name would be Cid. But it's not. It's Joe. End of story, indeed.
Sept. 30, 2012, 12:42 p.m. CST
1. Brown eyes, dark skin. 2. Young Joe isn't from the future. 3. Joe doesn't have TK 4. Old Joe is not The Rainmaker 5. Cid's name is not Joe.
Sept. 30, 2012, 1:17 p.m. CST
The whole point of the way they kill people is that you don't know if its you until you check their back, but they never check the face unless its them. If OldDano gets sent back to Joe, and OldJoe gets sent to YoungDano, both of them kill without even a seconds thought and neither realizes they killed the other. Furthermore, the act of sending back life-changing gold for the dude to retire, automatically causes all sorts of problems as the loopers timeline immediately and unnecessarily deviates. The last thing you ever want to do is let the looper know their loop is closed as that information, in and of itself, starts a completely new and unpredictable timeline that cannot be controlled. The killing yourself is something that was made for dramatic effect, nothing more.. nothing less. Johnson has allready admitted he never thought out how this actually works, so don't go taking snippits of some text he may have said and try claiming that solves everything. Thats what sheeple do.
Sept. 30, 2012, 1:54 p.m. CST
...effectively renders any opinion they have entirely moot.
Sept. 30, 2012, 2:02 p.m. CST
Watch for a slew of movies with China-set sequences. If it helps bring in the bucks for great movies like this then that's all good.
Sept. 30, 2012, 2:49 p.m. CST
I don't think anybody with a brain could argue Cid was Joe for all the obvious reasons outlined once they walk out of the film. I questioned the Director's very deliberately framed focus on the hair stuff in the film and even the foot squeezing to wake up both old Joe and Cid as unnecessary misdirection while you are watching the film. On reflection I guess these visual cues are in the movie just to reinforce the similarities between Joe and Cid in that their lives and the potential for them to lead a good or bad life are linked to parents/partners loving them.
Sept. 30, 2012, 3:30 p.m. CST
only admits the word hit way too close to home.
Sept. 30, 2012, 4:21 p.m. CST
...just say, "Whatever - 'Blade Runner' was a flop when it came out - this isn't"? So you judge a film's quality by how much money it makes? Is that a joke? Not to mention, '82 was the year of "E.T.", "Poltergeist", etc., etc. IT was a year when even Carpenter's "The Thing" was a "flop". If you seriously judge a film's quality by its box office, maybe you shouldn't even be watching and talking about movies at all.
Sept. 30, 2012, 4:37 p.m. CST
...what makes this movie work so well for me is that it's just so damn emotionally satisfying. I had chills for a good 10 minutes after leaving the theater. Thematically at least, it is brilliantly cohesive and moving.
Sept. 30, 2012, 5:13 p.m. CST
1. Old Joe doesn't show up with a hood. 2. Noah Segan's Kid Blue is annoying, stereotypical, and not well acted. at all. He was the lamest character, and should have been left on the cutting room floor. 3. There are plenty of non perfect things in this film, like the fact that people have to be sent back to the past to be killed because it is almost impossible to kill them in the future, yet when they kill Old Joe's wife, they just burn the house down. Done. No problems. 4. Why are they driving 40 or 50 year old trucks and using 40 year old (or a hundred year old) weapons? This is never explained. (and they can't hit the broad side of a barn). One of the gun used in the future (2074) in old Joe's home was a Beretta Neos, which is a .22 that has been around since 2003. 5. The kid's acting was incredible. He will be someone to watch. It's a good film, but nowhere near perfect.
Sept. 30, 2012, 5:22 p.m. CST
Sept. 30, 2012, 8:31 p.m. CST
It's good to be an open-minded individual that doesn't hate on everything that comes out these days. I'm a much happier person for it. Some people just don't know what they want anymore.
Sept. 30, 2012, 8:35 p.m. CST
1. Kid Blue was a horrible character, though, and everytime he was on the screen I was like, "Does this guy know where Rian Johnson's bodies are buried or what?" There had to be something passive-aggressive about giving him such a shitty part but probably paying him well to play it. 2. The TK was a little on the nose. I thought it was there for, again, world-building but it never occurred to me that this was the big evil secret. It made sense, of course, so I won't bash it. 3. I guess they had Piper Perabo's prostitute mom there so Old Joe would have his resolve tested. 4. In response to the guy above asking how Bruce Willis became a badass...he spent 20+ years as a killer working for the mob in China after his money ran out, that's how. 5. I loved some of the set design, but they just got lazy when it came to the automatic weapons. 6. The attempts to shut people up within the film about the time travel talk were kind of amusing, I'll give them that. 7. Just because they cut off Paul Dano's fingers and nose doesn't mean they couldn't sew them back on. They could always replace what they took and time is fluid enough in this universe to only stick once it can no longer be reversed.
Sept. 30, 2012, 9:33 p.m. CST
by Ali Kerim Bey
Sept. 30, 2012, 10:32 p.m. CST
Oct. 1, 2012, 12:01 a.m. CST
First off, Joe is NOT Cid. If you even entertain this bullshit theory you are a fucking moron like the dcro1 guy and no one gives a shit about you lying about people discussing an 'early draft' of a Looper script on some Inception forum where Joe is Cid because that never existed. Stop over-analyzing things that are not even there. Joe himself never has any TK abilities whatsoever in the film, old or young version and Cid clearly does, so they are not the same person. The telekinesis in general. This movie takes place over 30 years later from present day 2012 so it's not totally out of the realm of possibility that some people would have a weak TK ability by then to float metal objects with their hands. Google 'real-life mutants' to read about some pretty extraordinary individuals living today and actual TK at some point is hardly that far-fetched. Cid's extremely powerful TK would make him an absolute holy terror in 2074 and would make him much more dangerous than just some average crime boss/terrorist. Without the TK he would not be the threat he is described to be in the future as the Rainmaker. Think about an average criminal as opposed to General Zod or Magneto in the real world but there is no Superman or X-Men to stop them and it would be an absolutely terrifying future to live in. Complaining about Cid's TK as being goofy makes you an idiot. Without it he would not be that dangerous at all. The Rainmaker is basically bringing hell on earth with their power and that's why young Joe kills himself so Cid can have a normal life and not end up like Joe and become pure evil which is what Old Joe turned into. Looper is absolutely on the same level of The Terminator and Blade Runner and Total Recall and RoboCop. It is an instant sci-fi classic and will be discussed for years and years to come because it is original and doesn't fuck around.
Oct. 1, 2012, 1:16 a.m. CST
Oct. 1, 2012, 1:33 a.m. CST
...call it amazing, call it spectacular, call it astounding, call it anything that connotes it being a work of excellence in and of itself at that current moment in time. Don’t call it an instant classic because you’ve brought in the presumption that this film will withstand the test of time. Looper is a great film, but not quite up there with Blade Runner, The Terminator, Alien, 2001, or the recent Moon. The characters are great, the themes explored powerful, acting top notch, best Willis has been in years. But there are too many lapses in logic that take away from the film, things that could have easily been sorted with a few tweaks to the script. It is like the director didn't give a shit about adhering to the laws of his own universe. 12 Monkeys is a far, far better film in my opinion.
Oct. 1, 2012, 1:36 a.m. CST
Looper will not be remembered alongside those movies. It will surely find a place in the BluRay collection of many a hapless, easily-impressed nerd alongside Donnie Darko, but looking back it will probably fall somewhere closer to that than Primer. After a very strong first twenty minutes of well-done exposition and prop design, the movie becomes self-obsessed with two or three thematically unremarkable ideas: the Vagrant Wars, "Dropping," and to a lesser degree TK. Dropping just looks like an acid trip. No one describes what it does to you, and that's a little unforgivable given that 25% of the film relies upon how addictive it is. You don't need to describe everything, but you at least need to address WHY something is important. The problem with TK is that it is never a threat until suddenly it's a HUGE threat. And at that point it drags out the same slow-motion post-Akira shenanigans seen in Resident Evil and its ilk solely to impress people with CGI. Visually impressive when first used, then pretty typical and lacking in pivotal emotional relevance. The Vagrant Wars are an empty McGuffin, none of the Vagrants actually come across as threats, China seems completely untouched by any of this, and there's never a sense of dread or any idea that this "War" has any weight chronologically or historically. Weird considering how about half a dozen times the Vagrant Wars are name-dropped. The Gats and Blunderbusses end up being kitschy. While the Blunderbusses have an appropriate amount of ground-level mystique to them, the Gats don't seem any more interesting than any other sidearm you'll find (in fact, they seem MORE awkward than any weapon we have today and no one seems to notice) and considering 70% of this movie is GATS vs. BLUNDERBUSSES, it seriously destroys the internal consistency of the movie. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW brought to the table other than the prop design for the weapons. The midpoint twist is LITERALLY the plot to Terminator and it kind of made me chuckle. And, finally, the future is REALLY boring. It has a charming, lived-in quality to it in 2044, but 2077 just completely gives up and doesn't even bother trying to world-build. I'm not saying I didn't really enjoy the movie. But I am saying it is a minor, stylized noir twist on dusted off time travel tropes that heavily reuses a lot of visual motifs from the genre. The audience I watched it with kind of shrugged it off when they were done. I nodded my head approvingly and then went on about my day.
Oct. 1, 2012, 1:40 a.m. CST
and is now called a true classic of the drama genre. Looper does the same thing for Sci-Fi films so that's why I would declare it an instant classic within it's genre. This is only the 3rd film by Rian Johnson and Brick and Brothers Blood and now Looper are all drastically different from one another in style and tone which shows he is a true force to be reckoned with as a filmmaker. Instant classic? Maybe even that term is an understatement for the genuine greatness of LOOPER.
Oct. 1, 2012, 1:41 a.m. CST
Oct. 1, 2012, 2 a.m. CST
Oct. 1, 2012, 2:02 a.m. CST
Oct. 1, 2012, 2:03 a.m. CST
Oct. 1, 2012, 2:06 a.m. CST
No way are Joe and Cid the same person. If - as it has been speculated - Abe brought Joe back with him from the future, then I think Joe would remember it. And, of course there's the fact that Joe had a childhood much different than Cid (sold by his mother to a panhandler gang, escaping, caught trying to rob Abe, being given a gun - which I can't see happening until Joe was at least in his early teens - and Cid raised on the farm, thinking his aunt was his mother and his mother was his aunt. Joe and Cid being the same person makes no sense whatsoever. The end just had Joe seeing what would happen with absolute clarity and taking a chance to stop the cycle of violence. It may not have helped (or maybe his sacrifice did change things after the events up to that point) because someone pointed out that in the original timeline, Cid must have lived with his mother on the farm without incident...and he became the Rainmaker anyway. Also, when Abe told Joe, "Don't go to France. Go to...China. I'm from the future." he wasn't putting him where he knew he'd be in the future. In the original timeline (at least before the one where we see Joe grow old and before the one created by older Joe's actions after being sent back) I'm sure Joe went to France just like he planned...and got caught up in whatever catastrophe struck France in the intervening 30 years. Remember, the only reason Joe was warned not to go to France was because Abe was having a conversation with him instead of breaking his fingers to find out where his friend was hiding. And the only reason they were having that conversation was because his friend had let his older self get away...creating a new timeline. One where Abe, giving Joe a chance because he likes him, warns him away from France with the clear implication being he knows something's going to happen there and picks China out of a hat. That changed Joe's future. Heeding Abe's warning, he decided if he couldn't go to France, why not go to China. They should have had middle-aged Joe watching a CNN report about a terrorist action in Paris. And as far as Sarah knowing about loopers: She was wild when she was young, gave her baby to her sister to raise, and probably either dated a lot of the "bad boys" in the city or was a hooker like the one Joe was crushing on. That's how she knew about loopers. She was involved with the criminal element and I'm sure there was a lot of common knowledge and pillow talk.
Oct. 1, 2012, 2:06 a.m. CST
If you look at 1982 and now 2012, not much has really changed. This same logic is applied in 2042 and the brief glimpses of 2072 in the film. Limited budget notwithstanding, all ideas will be pretty much exhausted for making our lives better or more enjoyable. They will most likely get worse if anything in spite of advanced technology. The so-called plot holes you are trying to examine are merely your own opinion or trying to grasp the open concept of time travel and the rules established and followed or not. The movie did follow it's own rules that were made clear from the outset. The eyedrops as a drug is just a future version of an illicit intoxicant much like the asthma inhaler things Tom Cruise used in Minority Report or anything else from other sci-fi movies. If you need the importance of that explained to you then you are thinking too hard in the wrong direction. Cocaine and heroin and painkillers get you high, liquor makes you drunk, jacking off makes you cum. It's shit that makes you feel good and it was just another version of that. As for the vagrants, I think they were just a take on how annoying hobos are to anyone and how you only want them to fuck off. By 2042 maybe they will just try to take your shit and be more aggressive because having a bullshit elaborate story for why you need a dolla cuz you have 5 kids and your wife died from a pectoral colonoscopy just does not cut it anymore.
Oct. 1, 2012, 2:08 a.m. CST
Oct. 1, 2012, 2:13 a.m. CST
Remember, after young Joe closed his loop, the montage showed him leaving, living in China, his funds diminishing and his apparently working as a hitman. Over the next 20 or so years, he became a badass killer. At least up to around 23 years after closing his loop, when he met his wife, she got him off his addiction and they lived their life together until he was found to be sent back. It's a trope called retired badass. Decades of experience killing will do that.
Oct. 1, 2012, 2:14 a.m. CST
I am just stunned at that statement. I thought that was the single worst performance of the film and that the character was cartoony and completely out of place with the tone of the film.
Oct. 1, 2012, 2:17 a.m. CST
Geez, in "The Jackal" he tongues a man in a gay bar, draws a heart on a dying woman's face with her own blood, and he blows away Jack Black with a massive gun...............wait a minute, everyone cheered that part.
Oct. 1, 2012, 2:18 a.m. CST
...No, this has been proven not to be the case, look at the many comments that address this. The film has it's cake and eats it. It is a mish mash of different conflicting theories on how time travel might work, namely, you can change the future/can't change the future. You can change the future because when Young Joe kills himself Old Joe disappears, but you can't change the future because everything Old Joe did when he travelled back in time still happened. The movie constantly contradicts itself, and doesn't follow an rules at all. It's like the writer said "Hmm, I want this to happen but that wouldn't make any sense whatsoever. FUCK IT, people are dumb, they won't care." And regarding your theory on the so called Vagrant Wars, that's downright offensive on so many different levels, nd that is absolutely NOT what the writer intended. He merely wanted to show the world that Joe grew up in, that shaped him into the violent man became. A world that has lost it's humanity.
Oct. 1, 2012, 2:19 a.m. CST
so Capone saying that just because he is like The Terminator in Looper is very silly. If you are bothered by it then you are a pussy.
Oct. 1, 2012, 2:26 a.m. CST
the homeless pieces of shit shown in Looper are not different than the ones you see every day in your own city. Deplorable alcoholics and drug addicts is all they are and ever will be and I don't give a fuck about them. If that offends you then you can eat shit. Looper never violated it's own established rules at any point. You need to watch it again to understand this.
Oct. 1, 2012, 2:28 a.m. CST
he was in Brick for a little bit but his performance in Looper was hardly a 'star-making' turn.
Oct. 1, 2012, 3:25 a.m. CST
The central conceit from a science fiction perspective is that the past and the present exist at the same time and that a device / science can send something from one point in time to another. Fine. But does that mean the complete rewriting of reality so that rules of physics only apply when convenient? No. This film commits the crime of magic on A scale I've not seen since Marty Mac's disappearing / reappearing family photo / hand in Back to the Future. It's bub-bye to consistent rules and hello-there fuzzy thinking. SPOILER! SPOILER! SPOILER! If young Joe's actions magically cause old Joe to disappear then so should all the gold and silver, the truck, whatever's left of young Joe, the family in the field AND THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. The reverse of this logic is - if the gold and silver AND THE WHOLE REALITY do not vanish then neither should old Joe (who presumably would get his target) but none of the scarring/memory overwrites should work either. So. I call bullshit. Still I actually enjoyed the movie right up to the last scene. So there you go. ps. Marty's hand moment in BttF is the worst sci-fi logic hole ever due to the fact that the situation sorts itself out so why the hell was his hand vanishing anyways? Gah! pps. loopers are clearly not a secret organisation in the setting of the story and it seems likely that a floozy/party girl/prostitute, like Sarah (pre responsibility) would have heard of them.
Oct. 1, 2012, 4:21 a.m. CST
Saw Dredd 3D on Saturday and Looper on Sundaay. I had much more fun at Dredd. Looper would start to get interesting and then slow to a snail's pace. It's very boring. I also think it has a fundamental flaw, in that it requires the audience to accept that Cid won't turn into the Rainmaker as long as he has his mother with him. He was a little bastard even when he had his mother and he even killed the aunt by mistake a few years older. Cid was the rainmaker before Joe failed to complete the loop, so I'm not understanding the point of this movie.
Oct. 1, 2012, 4:22 a.m. CST
More joyless, hyper-analysis from uber nerds who can't enjoy a single thing in their lives
Oct. 1, 2012, 4:34 a.m. CST
I enjoyed everything in my life this past weekend except this movie. Had the reviews not said how great it was, I would have left half way through the movie. I kept waiting for it to get better. I kept telling my friends, "No wait, it's going to get better. Everyone says this movie is fantastic." I felt like Randall from Clerks 2, "The chick's coming. Don't worry." Unfortunately, this moive sucks.
Oct. 1, 2012, 5:09 a.m. CST
by slappy jones
hahaha he was shit
Oct. 1, 2012, 6:43 a.m. CST
by Candy ass monkey suit
Looper is good, infact very good, but to call it a classic is churlish. The main prob with Looper is that it's a hotch potch of many different sci fi movies like The Terminator,source code etc to name but a few. The middle section drags a tadge and there's nothing here you havent really seen before but what's good is that Rian Johnson has crafted a decent movie from "best of" pieces from the aforementioned films. 4/5 for me.
Oct. 1, 2012, 9:05 a.m. CST
Their half-assed excuse for that was them burning down the village Bruce and Asian Wife were living in.
Oct. 1, 2012, 9:20 a.m. CST
....send people from Shanghai to Kansas? Surely people would appear in Shanghai, still in the machine. My brain hurts.
Oct. 1, 2012, 9:22 a.m. CST
by Ultron ver 2.0
seriously, see it in 3D...still thinking about it a few days later Mama is going to get me. D:
Oct. 1, 2012, 9:23 a.m. CST
by Ultron ver 2.0
and you call yourself a geek.
Oct. 1, 2012, 9:39 a.m. CST
Oct. 1, 2012, 9:40 a.m. CST
Oct. 1, 2012, 10:23 a.m. CST
Wow, I was kind of underwhelmed. Maybe I went in with my expectations too high, but half-way through I suddenly thought "this is kind of a mess and I'm not really enjoying it." I held out hope that it would redeem itself in the end, but I still kind of left unsatisfied. The problems?... well first off the time-travel logic is a hot mess. It's not even logic really, you just have to actively suspend that part of your brain. For instance, Paul Dano's younger version gets his legs chopped off in the present, so future Paul Dano's legs disappear. Really? Then how did he run away from young Paul Dano in the first place? I can go along with changing one time-travel logic with another, but what they replaced it with didn't make much sense on any level. Other logic problems: why does Future Joe just disappear after the diner scene? Present Joe stumbles on the farm within a minute, but the next time we see Future Joe, he's in a sewer. And the third kid just HAPPENS to be Present Joe's girlfriend's kid? What is that, like 10,000,000:1 odds that the kid would just happen to be born on the same day in the same hospital as Kid Rainmaker? That's handy for the plot, when the plot requires a trap for Future Joe, isn't it? Then Future Joe easily dispatches with the no longer needed plot point of Jeff Daniels, only they feel there should be more action somewhere, so the other guy chases after them and quickly dies. So much of the story, in particular the action, felt like a sloppy afterthought. Another major problem I had was the "Rainmaker." Mainly that they didn't show him in the future, or explain why he was closing loops. He's referred to briefly to get that plot point set up, but we have no real understanding of who he is or what he wants other than a throwaway line. That's a problem because the entire second half rests on the idea of this kid being this horrible figure in the future. That means virtually nothing to me because they failed to SHOW that. So much of this movie was done with telling, not showing. The mom telling her backstory to Joe, Joe telling his backstory to the kid, Future Paul Dano telling Past Paul Dano about "The Rainmaker," Present Joe telling us about how looping works. And where did Present Joe's narrative go? Once the plot points had been set up, his narrative was gone completely for the rest of the movie. I hate that. If you're going with a noirish voice-over, stick with it or don't use it. Aaaand... I'm not rooting for any of these guys. Present Joe is a dick and I have nothing invested in him. Future Joe at first comes across as smart, wise, and redeemed, and within seconds he's murdering children and also a dick. The kid? Yep, kind of a dick too. Everyone's a dick, except for maybe the mom. I didn't find myself invested in any of them. And finally hoverbikes. During a supposedly serious battle with a guy on a hoverbike, the audience in my theater was laughing. It felt really off and out of place. They had some nice "future" touches, but that was not one of them. The tone definitely felt uneven. I really do hate to be 'that' guy, and I tried desperately to enjoy it more, I just didn't. I don't think it's as strong as people are saying. I'd give it a C. It's a GREAT premise looking for a better movie.
Oct. 1, 2012, 10:33 a.m. CST
by MISTER RUMBLES
That's just wrong.
Oct. 1, 2012, 10:52 a.m. CST
Oct. 1, 2012, 3:14 p.m. CST
For the last time I've just re-read all of my posts and I never once said I think Joe was Cid in the film we all saw. Not once. I just pointed out the peculiar but deliberate choices around the hair stroking and squeezing of feet to wake up Cid/Joe which IMPLIED there may have been a different narrative at play in another draft. I still don't really see that those elements as being necessary. I've been trawling the Nolanfans.com forum to see where I got that there were people who had read different versions of the script here: http://media.nolanfans.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=4190&hilit=cid+joe&start=1080 but I've come up short on that-hands up. I can't go through 255 pages to find evidence of somebody suggesting something that isn't the case in the film anyway. All I did find tonight was somebody who had read the script and misinterpreted it but he was pulled up quick by people saying that was an idiotic interpretation! Which I agree with!!
Oct. 3, 2012, 12:43 p.m. CST
Looper was far better. And you know my views on Looper :P. Now, 12 Monkeys is a classic and simply curbstomps either film. Primer I remember as a borefest whose only claim to fame was it was done on the cheap. Fanbois cream themselves over any film that can be made for under 6 digits(usually by other fanbois), because it gives them hope that one day they can create similar. Now, Timecrimes is a good no-budget well-done time travel film if you are into that type of thing. Also, while the effects are cheesy and its gotten a bit dated, I highly suggest Millennium. You should be able to find both on Netflix Instant. And if you're really in for some Time Travel, find Timescape(aka The Grand Tour: Disaster In Time), David Twohy's first film with Jeff Bridges as the lead. Love that film.
Oct. 4, 2012, 8:03 a.m. CST
Asked, How does the Rainmaker exist in a timeline where Old Joe didn’t kill his mom? -- He responds: "That’s the Terminator question. If it’s important to you to really justify that beyond ‘It makes sense in a story type way,’ you’ll have to get into multiple time lines existing in neverending loops of logic. You can shoehorn it into making sense. For me it’s a trope of time travel movies and there’s a slight amount of magic logic that you have to apply in order for a story like this to make sense." -- Basically admitting he didn't have much interest in rigorously following the logic of time travel. Not an encouraging thing for morning-after analysis.
Oct. 4, 2012, 8:05 a.m. CST
It would be intriguing if the conclusion we see is the umpeenth iteration (Groundhog Day style) of the events, the one that finally gets it right.
Oct. 4, 2012, 7:33 p.m. CST
Who said the time machine was in Shanghai?
Oct. 5, 2012, 2:19 a.m. CST
And managed it well, but It wouldn't surprise me if he was drafting a movie around Children of the Corn/Joe Dante's Twilight Zone segment and a separate Time travel assassin treatment. And anyone who hasn't seen his first film Brick yet, drop everything and go see it.
Oct. 5, 2012, 7:40 p.m. CST
Oct. 5, 2012, 9:27 p.m. CST
A mother stroking a child's hair is fairly common, so it's a nice emblem of a mother's love. Deprived of it, Young Joe still craves it and Cid becomes a psychotic mass murderer. Anythings possible re: rewrites, but IMHO as it exists in the final draft it's just a symbol. Not a red herring. For the record, I love indies and even I thought the movie bogged down a bit in the middle, but I never actually got bored. I could live w most of the time travel logic but the paradox caused by Young Joe & his blunderbuss really bugs me. Liked the movie, but was expecting to love it.
Oct. 5, 2012, 9:28 p.m. CST
Oct. 9, 2012, 10:15 a.m. CST
Oct. 9, 2012, 11:49 a.m. CST
...should be lobotomized and sent into the sun. Otherwise, my thoughts on Looper are complex and have been covered in various posts here. I'll need to see it again that's for sure.
Oct. 12, 2012, 4:39 a.m. CST
Apparently Orcus' earlier self did