Sept. 29, 2012, 11:13 p.m. CST
But why didn't you ask him the question we all want to know?
Sept. 29, 2012, 11:17 p.m. CST
Sept. 29, 2012, 11:26 p.m. CST
and loved it. It was exactly like BRICK - original and innovative! I missed BROTHERS BLOOM and now have to search that out. Cool interview, Capone. To Mr. Johnson - you keep making them and I'll keep watching them!
Sept. 29, 2012, 11:32 p.m. CST
What's the question we all want to know?
Sept. 29, 2012, 11:38 p.m. CST
SPOILERS whether Old Joe's future is changed or not. (I'm trying to not give too much away). One thing I really liked is that even in Young Joe's timeline there is tech that we would consider amazing, yet it is a dark and depressed landscape. I liked the little touch of solar panels with jumper cables on the hoods of the cars. Very nice.
Sept. 30, 2012, midnight CST
...Of course Old Joe's future is changed. Young Joe killed himself, so beyond that Joe had no future. He never aged to become Old Joe
Sept. 30, 2012, 12:16 a.m. CST
Were Abe and Kid Blue the same person?
Sept. 30, 2012, 12:26 a.m. CST
...I absolutely believe so. There are clues. One line of dialogue where Abe seems to speak in the same accent as Blue, and the part where he calls Blue "Stupid Kid," following a the scene where Old Joe calls Young Joe "Stupid Kid."
Sept. 30, 2012, 1:19 a.m. CST
Sept. 30, 2012, 1:20 a.m. CST
Just saw it tonight, and enjoyed most of the experience but thought it was a little uneven. The whole telekinetic angle seemed way too tacked on to have such a big role in the resolution. The quick shot of the Rainmaker kid riding away in the cargo train car, pissed that his Mom has been killed, ostensibly plotting world domination in his toddler mind, was a much more interesting story. I would have liked to have seen them explore how this rug rat planned in his ascent to all powerful super villain, rather than mess around with the exploits of the two Bruce's. Then again, this is definitely a multiple viewing film, much like Inception was a few years ago, although I think Inception is a superior film.
Sept. 30, 2012, 1:27 a.m. CST
...It is clearly Back To The Future logic, when you change something you create an entirely new universe, but the original universe still exists. But the flaw with Back To The Future logic, is that if you were never born (BTTF) or you kill yourself (Looper) you would not disappear, because you are from another universe where you were not killed. Back To The Future logic is mucky, it's a cocktail of different conflicting theories on how time travel would work, and it has influenced countless time travel stories since. 12 Monkeys is much cleaner, wrapped up in a nice little bow in the end. Time travel movies that hurt your brain trying to figure them out are not intelligent, they hurt your brain because your brain knows the story doesn't make sense, and you are trying to force it to make sense of it.
Sept. 30, 2012, 1:32 a.m. CST
BTTF has no real time travel logic after the first movie. It made no sense. How is it that old Biff was able to go back to normal 2015 and return the Delorean after giving his young self the almanac, but Marty and Doc are unable to once they get to alternate bad timeline 1985. They didn't really think that part out.
Sept. 30, 2012, 1:45 a.m. CST
... YOU CAN CHANGE IT When you go back in time, every second after that point has forked off into a parallel universe. We know Looper follows these rules, because when Willis goe's back in time the second time, the original hooded Bruce Willis is not there. In these stories, you can change the future. Movies hat follow these rules almost always inevitably break them. If Young Joe shoots himself, then obviously then obviously he would never age to become Old Joe. But the Old Joe that traveled back in time WOULD STILL EXIST, because he is from another timeline where he did not kill himself as a young man. If he disappears, you are breaking your own rule. You are saying this is the same universe as the one Old Joe came from. But if that is the case, then not only would Old Joe disappear, none of the preceding events would have occurred, WHICH also means Young Joe would not have had a reason to kill himself, which means there woulld have been an old Joe, which means...see what I mean, head hurts. Why? Because it doesn't make sense. It would have made sense, and perhaps made for a much darker ending, if Young Joe killed himself, and Old Joe just shrugged and shot the mother, was killed by the boy, who then grew up to be The Rainmaker despite Young Joe's sacrifice. It would result in less holes at least (But obviously, if you don't allow for change, you'll have to lose that incredible Cronenberg-esque dismemberment scene. Hmm, tough call
Sept. 30, 2012, 1:47 a.m. CST
Sept. 30, 2012, 1:52 a.m. CST
...At least you can kind of forgive it in Back To The Future because it is a light hearted, rollicking family adventure movie. It's kind of more jarring in films that take themselves more seriously.
Sept. 30, 2012, 2:01 a.m. CST
Sept. 30, 2012, 2:47 a.m. CST
by Balkin Flabgurter
after seeing Dredd 3d as the cherry on the summer sunday, i have to say this is the greatest summer of movies in my 23 years of life, after this, Django and Hobbit heres to the opposite of dying in 2012!
Sept. 30, 2012, 2:51 a.m. CST
Yup. And thats why you failed. It doesn't even have to be realistic, it just needs to make sense within the rules you setup. But if you don't setup the rules, and don't adhere to them, the script falls apart and becomes a muddled mash. And please, for god sakes find another genre. A Science Fiction Writer/Director you aint. Now Duncan Jones can keep on making sci-fi.. you? Go make a musical or some shit. I literally can't believe the level of pass this thing is getting from this site. The movie was a horrid example of time-travel. A couple good scenes(the guy falling to pieces and the kid going apeshit), do not a great movie make. I'm not one that can look at a pile of shit and notice a couple shiny spots. Its still, overall, a pile of shit.
Sept. 30, 2012, 4:12 a.m. CST
I didn't spot that flaw - that he shouldn't have disapeared, but finding that out now does really bother me, not the way all the problems in Prometheus did. I cared about the characters, dug the overall design and the scenes all worked - it carried me along without any jarring moments and I guess that's what makes it smart. The construction of it. Rian Johnson has said that he feels all time travel movies are essentially magic tricks and I think he pulled it off.
Sept. 30, 2012, 6:01 a.m. CST
There are a great many things that don't make sense on reflection. The dismemberment scene, carving Beatrix into his arm - if these guys are from separate parallel universes then the damage shouldn't effect them. Just as in T2 whether they kill the t1000 or not, the war still starts cos it's not the same universe. This type of film is inherently filled with fuck ups- what distinguishes them is how well you are distracted during the story. The only way to do a time travel movie that avoids this is to have nothing change and everything be inevitable, as in twelve monkeys. But I like both that and loopers and back to the future and the terminators and any other film that entertains me.
Sept. 30, 2012, 6:03 a.m. CST
Sept. 30, 2012, 7:24 a.m. CST
there's just a couple moaning runny cunts (tailhook & freebeer) posting 15 times in every LOOPER talkback about how the movie sucks (because they didn't understand it). You pissy childish aspie fucks ceaselessly crying because you lack the sophistication to enjoy this thoughtful, brutal, innovative adult scifi film should go see HOTEL TRANSYVANIA instead. That's about your speed, and the section of the moviegoing public you belong in. Or just stay home beating off to webcomix and reverting wikipedia edits like you do most weekends.
Sept. 30, 2012, 8:13 a.m. CST
Sept. 30, 2012, 8:15 a.m. CST
...And, as I keep saying, I enjoyed the film, and was capable of enjoying the film without ignoring it's faults. If you needed to ignore these problems, which I have pointed out (tell me how I am mistaken in any of the points I have made), in order to enjoy the film, fair enough.
Sept. 30, 2012, 8:15 a.m. CST
This tough, ambitious film has made you unhappy, but Adam Sandler will show you pretty colors and funny fart jokes to make you squeal and laugh. You'l love it!
Sept. 30, 2012, 8:16 a.m. CST
Sept. 30, 2012, 8:17 a.m. CST
People pointing out flaws in time travel logic as if it's a real thing, that's sweet.
Sept. 30, 2012, 8:39 a.m. CST
I guess that's one way to make a time travel movie - just take the thing that makes time travel hard to do, and unilaterally declare that it doesn't matter. None of the events of the film should happen because Old Joe ever exists. To me, a *smart* time travel movie finds a way to tell an interesting story bound by the limit of paradoxes. This movie took the approach of just laughing and saying *Ha-ha! We're just going to declare that OUR time travel works in a way that makes paradoxes OK!* And hell, if you're just going to ignore paradoxes you can make any kind of crazy time travel movie you want without putting in any effort whatsoever to be *smart*.
Sept. 30, 2012, 8:42 a.m. CST
...In any script, even if it's not a time travel story, if there are too logical flaws it take you out of the story. AND I say it again, I really enjoyed the film inspite of these flaws. I just think it's fair to point out these problems. The over hype lessened my enjoyment of the film, I would have enjoyed it a hell of a lot more if people had told me it isn't a flawless masterpiece before I went to see it. Again, I WANT someone to address my issues, I WANT my issues to be proven invalid so I can go "Oh, thanks!" and enjoy the film a hell of a lot more. If you can offer answers and prove to me I am wrong in any of the points I make, I'd love to hear it.
Sept. 30, 2012, 8:45 a.m. CST
...I'll watch Jack & Jill as an appetizer
Sept. 30, 2012, 8:46 a.m. CST
But daddylonghead is insisting that examining the flaws in a time travel movie means you probably only like Adam Sandler movies, and that's ass backwards. People who can't enjoy time travel movies because of the paradoxes are too smart for time travel movies, not too dumb for them. And if you are able to enjoy a time travel movie because the logical flaws literally aren't visible to you because your brain doesn't discern them, then it would seem likely that *you* would be the one more likely to enjoy an Adam Sandler movie with fart jokes.
Sept. 30, 2012, 8:54 a.m. CST
...Not surprised that someone who thinks something illogical like over thinking something makes you stupid, had no problem with the logical flaws in the film.
Sept. 30, 2012, 9:03 a.m. CST
And, for the hundredth time, (because some of you seem to think I'm attacking the film, which if you look at my comments, is not the case at all) I did enjoy it. I enjoyed it more than both Prometheus and The Dark Knight Rises, and was able to do so without ignoring the films flaws.
Sept. 30, 2012, 9:14 a.m. CST
Inception was a great movie to look at and ponder, but awhile after viewing it seemed like an empty shiny Box. Especially on re-viewing. Looper, on the other hand had character and much more. I think its going to age well and be something to Savor.
Sept. 30, 2012, 9:17 a.m. CST
That happens all the time. Thanks for pointing that out ( The discussion as if these Flics are REAL ). Looper though - can anyone deny the greatness of that little Boy? Awesome and chilling when he got angry. Even scarier than "wishing someone to the cornfield".
Sept. 30, 2012, 9:39 a.m. CST
...If a man gets shot in the head in a film, then turns up alive and well later without explanation, wouldn't that take you out of the film? I'm not saying there is anything that nonsensical in Looper, but the fact remains, when you break the laws of the universe you set up it doe's take you out of the film. You're brain cant help but go "Wait, that doesn't make sense." I want to be immersed in a film completely when I'm watching it, and when something doesn't make sense it's distracting, and you can't help but think about it, try and make sense of it, when all you want to be doing is enjoying the film.
Sept. 30, 2012, 10:57 a.m. CST
Didn't Bruce( old Joe) come back twice? He had to die in order for young Joe to have the life that would lead to him finding his wife that would save him. I also think the whole changing the future is smaller than what we think. Sure you can change your future and those in your immediate surroundings but if your life happens to be "small" then your ripples of your time disturbance wouldn't be that great. I think that's why the big boss from the future really surrounds himself with very few people or doesn't leave the cave as the director suggests. He would make a lot bigger ripples. I really loved the idea of that your past (time and place) your future self landed and future were so pliable once you went back in time, and that your memories would change accordingly to your actions. That torture scene was so horrifying, really showed how the director viewed time travels repercussions.
Sept. 30, 2012, 11:05 a.m. CST
whether the dark future with the Rainmaker was changed. I was trying to be spoiler free, but see that I was just confusing. I assume that was the "question" alluded to above. cheers. More Spoilers. And if the Mob in the future has to go to such trouble to dispose of bodies in the past, how can they kill Old Joe's so cavalierly?
Sept. 30, 2012, 11:34 a.m. CST
...Why do they have Loopers kill their older selves? To tie up loose ends? No withnesses? The Looper retires for thirty years, in all that time he could tell anyone about the mobs activities, about the abuse of time travel, about Loopers. Why then, 30 years later, doe's the mob decide it is unacceptable having an old Looper walking around? Why is he suddenly now a threat, a loose end, but he wasn't considered one for the past 30 years? I'm sorry, things like this just can't be ignored, they take you out of the movie.
Sept. 30, 2012, 11:43 a.m. CST
I thought it was the Rainmaker realizing that a looper killed his mother, and closing ALL loops as revenge. And I do not think Abe and Kid Blue are the same person. Look how close Kid Blue comes to death throughout the film. Abe lives in a cave in order to avoid any ripples in the space/time continuum, but he lets his younger self carry a gat. Yes, Abe did seem to have a slight limp, and Kid Blue had shot his own foot off, but really, would you smack your younger self's hand with a hammer, if you would then have to live with the consequences? Despite carpings, I greatly enjoyed LOOPER, perhaps more than you did Freebeer. I was original, and the scenes on the farm really worked for me.
Sept. 30, 2012, 11:50 a.m. CST
...and I know the reason it's 30 years is because that is when time travel was invented, and they couldn't send a Looper back any time before that. But they do have agents in the past, Abe, he's henchmen, probably more like him. They could have killed the Looper any time during those 30 years. They didn't. And in those 30 yrs, the Looper proves not to be a threat, so why kill him? It would make sense if they didn't say ALL Loopers eventually have to close their Loops, that they only send a Looper back to be executed if they threaten to expose the organization or become some other kind of liability.
Sept. 30, 2012, 11:51 a.m. CST
...The one thing that I thought about that makes a little sense is that you could send the older versions back BEFORE you send back the rest of the people the young version kills. Because until you send people back for assassination, from your timeline's perspective no crime has been committed. So the aging loopers have nothing to tell the cops. If they go to the cops and say, *The Rainmaker killed John Smith!* while John Smith is still walking around, their information makes no sense. If a looper goes to the cops, you can just not actually send them that person to kill, so they'd end up reporting something that never happened.
Sept. 30, 2012, 12:03 p.m. CST
I thought it was the Rainmaker realizing that a looper killed his mother, and closing ALL loops as revenge.
Sept. 30, 2012, 12:04 p.m. CST
I really liked the film, review here: http://tinyurl.com/9f8laeo I think that any time-travel stories that have the time-travelling characters altering their timeline are inherently illogical, so you either accept the impossibility of the conceit to begin with, or you don't. ** Spoilers for Looper & other time travel films** Timecrimes, The Terminator, and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban are films where the timeline isn't altered -- rather you see how the travel fits into what already occurred, but you weren't initially privy to, and are only made aware of as the travellers become aware of it as previous events are replayed from the new perspective. Terminator 2 alters the timeline, and creates that paradoxical loop of altering it in such a way that prevents it from having been altered in the first place. If the T-800 prevents Skynet from existing, he prevents his own existence, and thus can never come back to prevent Skynet, which in turn allows his existence, which allows him to then come back and prevent Skynet -- it's a real 'loop', a little pocket that is like a never-ending binary switch between two outcomes. Looper's internal rules seem to be that when a timeline is altered you're in a new universe entirely, except that scenario *should* make it so that base-timeline Old Joe is unaffected by whatever happens to Joe in this new timeline when changes occur. Joe killing himself in the new timeline should have no effect on Old Joe. But, that's not what happens. Instead we get a strange combination of that and the Terminator 2 paradox -- Old Joe could never have come back if he never existed, but if he never comes back he doesn't create the circumstances for Joe to kill himself, so Old Joe exists, and then comes back... creating another never-ending binary switch loop. Either the time travel actually works like a shift of the travelling character into another universe (which strictly speaking isn't really time travel any more), or it doesn't. What does it say then that, as is the case with Terminator 2, that I cared not at all about this, and think that Looper is one of the best films I've seen all year? Only that I buy into the conceit, illogical as it is, especially with how well the film is made.
Sept. 30, 2012, 12:06 p.m. CST
Found this and found it interesting. Does not address the Abe/Kid Blue question. http://www.slashfilm.com/ten-mysteries-in-looper-explained-by-director-rian-johnson/
Sept. 30, 2012, 12:09 p.m. CST
...The Loopers know that one day they will have to close their Loops from the very beginning, so this rule existed before The Rainmaker took over. what the Rainmaker was doing was closing the Loops all at once.
Sept. 30, 2012, 12:11 p.m. CST
Sept. 30, 2012, 12:12 p.m. CST
Sept. 30, 2012, 12:17 p.m. CST
...Spoiler from something that's revealed pretty early on, but still, sorry!
Sept. 30, 2012, 12:46 p.m. CST
...Abe being Kid Blue. I listed my reasons for believing this above, but I'd like to add the fact that Kid Blue is called Kid Blue. We are never told what his real name is. Abe might have given him this name, to hide his identity from others in the organization. Also, Kid Blue seems desperate for Abe's approval, there is definitely more than a boss/subordinate relationship going on here.
Sept. 30, 2012, 12:49 p.m. CST
Sept. 30, 2012, 1:28 p.m. CST
Sept. 30, 2012, 1:35 p.m. CST
Sept. 30, 2012, 1:41 p.m. CST
Here it is: One of the things I picked up on in ‘Looper’ is the relationship between Kid Blue and Abe. It’s very much like a son trying to win his father’s love. I think a big question for a lot of people watching it is whether or not they’re related. I know! Or some people have asked… Are they the same person? Are they the same person, which is interesting to me. I never thought that they were. I don’t think that would work, but I think it’s really cool that people’s heads go there. That’s definitely the dynamic I was reaching for with it, to see that kind of older/younger, a different variant on that — a sort of variant on the same theme between them. The stuff between them is so great because Noah’s part is very much the comic relief, but once we get to know him a little better, it’s ultimately very sad. Good, good. That was a big part of casting Noah, the same way you cast to a certain actor’s strengths. Noah’s so likable, and he’s got that little boy quality to him that just… even when he’s playing this kind of f— up villain, your heart goes out to him. I knew that was going to be a really important part of that character landing.
Sept. 30, 2012, 1:42 p.m. CST
One of the most exciting , inventive pieces of cinema since, well, Chris Nolan's "Inception". I was expecting a disappointing trip of incohesiveness, but came out having faith in Johnson's reliance on treating the audience with a modicum of intelligence. I was profoundly disappointed with his debut feature, "Brick": It started off well, then lost it's way. So, now here we are: Chris Nolan, watch out: There's a new figure in town indulging in intelligent cinema. Oh, and the score by his cousin, Nathan Johnson, is best of the year. Bastards!!
Sept. 30, 2012, 1:49 p.m. CST
...I'd still like to believe that they are the same question. I find it hard to believe Rian never considered this, in almost their first scene together I leaned over and whispered "I bet they're the same guy" to my buddy. And he says he doesn't think that would work? I don't see how it wouldn't, there's a lot of other things in the film that make a hell of a lot less sense. Blade Runner works for me better with Deckard being a human, even though Ridley disagrees, and so it is with Abe being Kid Blue.
Sept. 30, 2012, 1:50 p.m. CST
Sept. 30, 2012, 1:50 p.m. CST
There is a deleted scene which shows Old Biff returning to 2015, staggering out of the DeLorean in obvious pain and then vanishing out of existence. This would suggest that they at least tried to adhere to the time travel rules that were established (i.e., that version of Biff no longer existed and was perhaps even killed at some point in the past). But then again, it's a deleted scene, so whether or not it should be considered canon is debatable.
Sept. 30, 2012, 1:56 p.m. CST
Sept. 30, 2012, 2:11 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, 4:52 p.m. CST
Sept. 30, 2012, 5:04 p.m. CST
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and gave a pass on the paradoxes in the plot cause what mattered to me was that they were great characters and a really good story. What did bug me was the scene in the diner between the Joe's where the older Joe brings up the weekend waitress Jen and how it would have been "less letters". Call me a grammar nazi but that dropped me out of the flow of the movie; it's even more surprising having read the interview above where Rian obviously knows the proper usage of fewer vs less in the discussion about saying more with fewer words. Did anyone else find the outfits of the gat men in China evoked the Spanish Inquisition ala Monty Python with those hats and long frocks?
Sept. 30, 2012, 5:13 p.m. CST
Wouldn't the authorities in the future figure out what the mob is doing and go back in time to "solve" these murders?
Sept. 30, 2012, 6:44 p.m. CST
A time travel movie where people initially don't realize they are creating parallel universes by going back, but then come to see that they changes they are making don't effect they're current existence. They then have to try to return to the universe they left because they realize that the only way to make effective changes to their situation is in the present. Sort of like realizing that living in the past is futile and that living in the moment is the only way to get the most out of life. Too cheesy?
Sept. 30, 2012, 7:50 p.m. CST
"Are they the same person, which is interesting to me. I never thought that they were. I don’t think that would work, but I think it’s really cool that people’s heads go there. That’s definitely the dynamic I was reaching for with it, to see that kind of older/younger, a different variant on that — a sort of variant on the same theme between them. http://screencrush.com/rian-johnson-interview-looper-time-travel-logistics-and-transformations/
Sept. 30, 2012, 7:55 p.m. CST
None of kid blues clearly permanent injuries manifest themselves in Abe. (Limp, busted hand) I don't know why he'd be so cavalier about injuring him either. Although I thought it would be interesting if blue we're abes father or grandfather. He quotes either his grandfather or father at one point and then says ahh what did they know as if they werent too bright. Is it ever stated exactly how at ahead from the future Abe is from? Outside of assuming he's from the generalized 30 year ahead period.
Sept. 30, 2012, 8:24 p.m. CST
And I really enjoyed it. That said, there are a couple of things that irritated me, but they are almost completely balanced out by the things I really liked... mainly nuances and stylistic touches that made me smile, constantly being kept on my toes, instead of sighing "oh, THIS cliche again." And I really liked the scene between old Joe and young Joe in the diner. It's like a perfect distillation of how you would feel talking to your younger self... or to your older self.. you really feel the sympathy and connection to both of them. I won't deal out any spoilers yet, but I will say that some of Bruce Willis' scenes are brutal and shocking, yet affecting, in a way that I thought I would never see in a Hollywood film. If you've seen it, you know what I am talking about. Kudos to this film for trying something different, and pretty much succeeding.
Sept. 30, 2012, 9:39 p.m. CST
You're a crime boss in the future. You can't kill anyone because of some forced plot device that alerts the authorities whenever someone dies, but you do have access to a highly illegal time machine that those same authorities can't find because you cleverly hid it .... in an abandoned building. You decide to send your victims back in time and have them wacked in the past. So, you send back a representative to manage the executions. So far, so good. Why on earth would you set it up so that anyone else knows the victims are from the future? Only the representative has to know. You build a freakin' shed around the spot where the victim appears and your rep hires a few people to show up ten minutes later, kill the guy and dispose of the body. Simple. Or you have him transported DIRECTLY into a furnace. Even simpler. There is no need to "close any loops" because the executioners are never in on the plot. And if an executioner does happen to accidentally see someone appear out of thin air, you take care of the problem THEN, not 30 years later. I was waiting for the movie to offer an explaination for all this but it never did. Therefore, I never bought what it was trying to sell. A big ol' waste of time.
Sept. 30, 2012, 10:01 p.m. CST
Oct. 1, 2012, 8:59 a.m. CST
@tonguestubble:A little cliched, but that actually sounds promising. @malckwan: The future police wouldn't investigate because that person technically never existed. Of course, that invites the question" If they never existed, you'd never need to send them back, right?"
Oct. 1, 2012, 11:45 a.m. CST
They would still have existed in the future up to the point they get sent back to the past. Though even then, their being dead in the past doesn't negate their existence in the future prior to being zapped back. It's not as if their birth was prevented in the past or they were killed as a child in the past and thus their older selves were erased. They'd still be missing persons in the future after they get sent back by the mob; there just would not be an trace evidence of a murder.
Oct. 3, 2012, 2:25 a.m. CST
and can anyone actually claim to understand Primer who has'nt poured over the mega diagram for days? The only problem I see with Looper is that it's being called sci-fi. Looper is fantasy. No scientific explanation is presented or even hinted at anywhere in the film. To demand one from a fantasy film is just blowing hot air.
Oct. 5, 2012, 7:38 p.m. CST
Oct. 6, 2012, 3:32 a.m. CST
by Fixthe Fernback
Best time travel movie ever...
Oct. 6, 2012, 6:22 p.m. CST
But the main character's irrational behavior in order to get those mechanics to work just completely cuts the legs out from under the movie. When your protagonist is tormenting a woman (who, herself, is unbelievably naive in helping strangers continually), when he chooses to wrap himself up like a monster, when he sees knifing as a way to alert his past self, you lose interest in whether or not he makes it out okay. I was hoping he would actually pay for his "time crimes" at some point, but no, we're stuck with an asshole for a hero. It works as a time travel story because of the attention to detail, but it totally fails as a movie because of simply unbelievable actions on a human level.
Oct. 7, 2012, 8:55 p.m. CST
just to state this is the worst major movie I have seen since Star Trek.
Oct. 9, 2012, 4:35 p.m. CST
Transport them into a furnace. Yes. The end. I, too, think this movie makes ZERO sense, from start to finish, and I couldn't overlook it. Another major disappointment from 2012, joining the list that includes Dark Knight Rises, Prometheus, The Master, and Cabin in the Woods. Beyond the logic problems, Looper felt clumsy and derivative, at one point coming off like a near-direct copy of the original Terminator. Also, the second half really dragged and felt badly paced, and the Kid Blue / Abe business ... what a waste of time that turned out to be. A mess all around. I did see one great movie this weekend, though: End of Watch. No super clever ideas--in fact, many ideas that we've all seen a million times before--just masterful execution. THAT movie packs one hell of an emotional punch.
Oct. 9, 2012, 4:44 p.m. CST
Oct. 9, 2012, 11:17 p.m. CST
Oct. 9, 2012, 11:30 p.m. CST
He said in the interview that he decided that paradoxes wouldn't be prohibited or impossible, but that they would dealt with in some organic way--not left alone, but somehow integrated & modified. Also, if you read his early comment about being inspired by Ray Bradbury, and if you know anything about Ray Bradbury, you would know that Bradbury didn't write "hard" science fiction: he used the settings and tools of the future, sci-fi, other planets to tell character stories, idea stories, concept stories. Looper is not a hard sci-fi movie, and it doesn't need to be. It succeeds at it intended purpose, to tell a character/concept/idea/morality story. One fundamental posited "rule" of time machines is that you could only travel back in time as far as the first existence of a working time machine "receiver". And, the way you will know if your first-ever implementation of a time machine works is that there will be a message from the future for you waiting inside the instant you turn it on. This is one rule from one hypothetical time-travel set of rules. If the "experts" here were to cling to that set of rules, NOTHING in Looper would have been possible. Hard-science approaches to time travel will still have to make a set of assumptions, and a lot of hand-waving and dodging the issues around paradoxes. Are they possible, are they not. Do you change your own timeline, or do you just create another. Since no one knows, it doesn't matter which you pick.