Looper - Discussion

Conekiller

So this nifty movie came out last weekend and I can't believe any of you aren't talking about it!

Premise is that 30 years from the present (2044) Time travel is invented, but highly illegal, so it's primarilly used by the mobs to get rid of someone evidence-free by sending them back to a time where they "shouldn't exist". There, they encounter "Loopers" whose job it is to kill the hooded person, collect the attached fee, and dispose of the body.

Joseph Gordon Levitt's character is one such Looper and runs into trouble when he fails to kill one man, who just so happens to be his future self (Bruce Willis). So now the present day Mob is after both to put the kibosh on as much future altering as possible before things get too out of hand!

This is a very interesting premise (that, like the trailers, doesn't scratch the full breadth of the plot) that is carried very well with the strength of its actors, especially this little kid who steals practically every scene he's in and Acts most of the adults under the table!

I've been hearing that some people have a hard time wrapping their heads around the Time Travel shenanigans in the movie, but I found them basic sci-fi stuff that never took me out of the movie, even leading to some truly interesting visuals when played with the consequences of altering the future.

Pochipochi

I want to see this might and in the coming few days so … Yeah.

I hear really positive things

project1980

Actually saw it this past weekend and it was great. The way time travel is used is not over the time but effective.Levitt and Willis are on point. The big bad

! did not impress for some reason when they describe him in the future but to see him in the past and you realize holy shit this kid REALLY is dangerous you almost want Bruce and Joseph to kill him. Go see it totally worth.

Demonicpoodle

I'll check it out by virtue of a thread being posted on AP about it and people from AP saying it is good.

Luckily my dad lets me see movies pretty often; he's pretty well off, I am not.

Foolio

I saw this on opening day and it was pretty cool. The time travel stuff does stop making sense when you think about it too much but otherwise it's clever enough.

Really the only thing that bothered me is that Joseph Gordon Levitt's eyebrows look weird/painted on/something which makes him look really awkward in a few scenes.

Conekiller

Yeah, I think Levitt took on alot of makeup in some scenes to help him look like a bit more like Willis.

but I didn't find anything wonky about the time travel, what bothered you?

Gokuyuske

Personally I didn't like the movie that much. I thought it started out strong but that the second half just didn't deliver.

! The obnoxious kid took over the movie. The telekenesis was cool when it was just a coin trick that added creative/humorous flavor to the world. As a plot device it just wasn't that interesting, especially compared to the interactions between Bruce Willis, his younger self and time travel.
! Other points:
-Second half of the movie throws away the atmosphere it had developed and takes place at a farm.
-Didn't enjoy the voiceover at the beginning explaining everything. That's just bad storytelling; show me the setting and characters, don't just explain it to me with a couple of paragraphs of lazy voiceover.

I won't say it was bad. I just think it squandered its potential.

Sakonosolo

I think I made a thread about this but oh well. Want to see it. Didn't realize it was already out.

Pochipochi

I liked it. To be honest there isn't much to add discussion-wise for me, i don't think. It was that sort of "simple, but more lovingly put together than the average blockbuster" kind of deal that we've been getting for thriller/sci-fi the past few years where it's just how to more properly put a fun movie together without making it 2DUMB 2LIVE.

I actually was surprised my dad needed parts explained at the end

! He didn't get quite how Gordon-Levitt killing himself saved the future and he was like "so was… he the rain maker all along or something" and I was like dad...
! ..no...dad...
! Apparently thinking two steps ahead involving the consequences of Bruce Willis killing the mother didn't quiiite come naturally to him and I wonder how many other people didn't make the, what I felt, really obviously explained connection. Like damn son.
! It's cool that the movie doesn't waste too much time with exposition and narration period though.

Cyclone_Baroness

I enjoyed the movie. But yeah…once you start talking about the time travel aspect and Bruce Willis' actions within the past. It kinda makes less sense.

! But I was wondering if Joesph killing himself should have undone his prior actions. Like killing the potential Rain Maker…and his general killing spree. But also I feel like while Bruce was getting up and kinda just standing there Joesph had plenty of time to jog a few paces to be within firing range, instead of killing himself.

Also the guy I went with made me laugh at the

! Sex scene on the farm.He bent over and pretended to pick up something off the floor and said "Oh sorry. I dropped my shoe horn."

I did feel that that scene was completely unnecessary. It added nothing to the movie and felt pretty out of place for her character.

Taggerung

saw it the other day. was pgood, no complaints very entertaining throughout.

Sakonosolo

Awesome movie. I kind of feel that the whole explanations towards the beginning were kind of awkwardly placed in there though. There was probably a better way to do that. I'm glad the trailers didn't spoil too much even though they seemed to.

! The whole telekinesis thing came out of nowhere for me and I'm glad it was that way. I thought it was funny how 99% of people just use it to float things in the air too. And Bruce Willis killing kids was kind of weird. The kid that would be the Rainmaker was strange as hell too.
Enjoyed the movie a lot.

Pochipochi

one thing I liked was that

! Bruce Willis actually maintained himself as the main antagonist of sorts, though he was with well-defined and well-intentioned motives and internal conflict. That trial to be the good guy made it really great, honestly.
! It's one of the rarer things I've seen where a character straight up (no fake identities and masks) is against his future self and it doesn't twist and turn about it. Just, yo, you two gotta duke it out
! The trailers kind of made it look like Bruce Willis and JGL would tag-team or something goofy.
! I didn't think I'd think back to anything a few days later, because I thought the movie was open and closed as far as "yup I liked it uh the end", but I think the contrast between Bruce and JGL was just really well done. As characters. Would the moral ambiguity be what I want to say is the best part…? Hard to put into words.

ChesCa

Got back:
[hide]
If the trailer was a Homestuck character, it would be Doc Scratch.

I heard on a KROQ interview from one of the staff about how the movie deliberately doesn't explain everything because they felt they would've bogged down or lost track of how the film should go altogether. Personally having that creepy kid being the Rainmaker and never seeing how he terrorizes people when he grows up but just knowing that he does leaves a lot to the imagination about how fucked up he made everything and personally I like it that way. Hell, some of the best monsters usually don't have explanations for their powers and origins and the same was done with this kid. He's just an anomaly that the world can't explain but will nonetheless have to deal with, and dealing with the unknown adds more weight to the danger of a person than knowing exactly how to handle him or knowing if he's got a weakness or something.

I see this story as an ironic tragedy for Old Joe and a survival story for Present Joe, and it's only OJ being in the wrong and starting the cycle of death that makes him the antagonist imo. If it was left ambiguous if the kid could be 'redeemed' or not I couldn't tell you who was in the right or wrong for the greater good of the future.

What made it a tragedy was that PJ didn't get what he wanted (survival), but the real twist of the knife was in OJ's fate and where the irony comes in: he sure did save his wife.

Too bad he'll never get to meet her. Makes you wish he sucked it up and let himself get shot don't it?

That, my friends, is a sad, sad kind of poetry.

It's funny: one part that made me laugh wasn't the sex scene, but PJ shooting himself in the chest? Why?

Me: How come he shot himself in the chest and not the head?

Movie Screen: Blond chick strokes the actor's sexy, sexy hair

Me: Oh right, less messy 9_9

I also agree with Beast. Not having them team up like the trailer kind of wanted you to think really took things in an unexpected direction for me.[/hide]

DarthAsthma

I quite liked the movie despite one plothole that doesn't even have much to do with the whole timetravel shenanigans that kind of bothered me.

! I mean could they get away with killing old joes wife wasn't the point of the whole time travel thing that they couldn't get away with stuff like that?I think it did a decent job and making me not think about that stuff while I was watching it though (that said I've adopted quite a tolerant attitude towards time travel plotholes since it just seems in the nature of those movies).
It's a very intense film and the violence that happened
! to seth made me crinch for once just reminded me of how the over the top violence in cabin in the woods left me cold I guess delivery matters.

@Cyclone_Baroness:

! Sex scene on the farm.He bent over and pretended to pick up something off the floor and said "Oh sorry. I dropped my shoe horn."

I did feel that that scene was completely unnecessary. It added nothing to the movie and felt pretty out of place for her character.

I actually think that added a to her character. I wasn't really service like. You consider the background she came from, what she sacrificed to where she is and you kind of get why she did that which teaches you a about her current values. It also reaffirms what kind of character levitt is und contrasts what he later becomes and it's kind of a more obvious marker for the relationship of both characters.

Cyclone_Baroness

@DarthAsthma:

I quite liked the movie despite one plothole that doesn't even have much to do with the whole timetravel shenanigans that kind of bothered me.

! I mean could they get away with killing old joes wife wasn't the point of the whole time travel thing that they couldn't get away with stuff like that?I think it did a decent job and making me not think about that stuff while I was watching it though (that said I've adopted quite a tolerant attitude towards time travel plotholes since it just seems in the nature of those movies).
It's a very intense film and the violence that happened
! to seth made me crinch for once just reminded me of how the over the top violence in cabin in the woods left me cold I guess delivery matters.

I actually think that added a to her character. I wasn't really service like. You consider the background she came from, what she sacrificed to where she is and you kind of get why she did that which teaches you a about her current values. It also reaffirms what kind of character levitt is und contrasts what he later becomes and it's kind of a more obvious marker for the relationship of both characters.

We'll have to disagree. I felt it added nothing to her character that I felt to be believable. I'd prefer if she was still more standoffish, rather than get that scene. There's much better ways to convey wanting comfort and or trust.

Conekiller

If there had been a gratuitous sex scene, I'd be likely to agree, instead we just got enough of an idea to know what was going on, and the scene transitions.

Very likely there may have been a scene that explains her attitude more clearly in a scene that was eventually cut for some reason or other.

DarthAsthma

Well I feel like people have just become to used to sex scenes that only do 3 things making male audiences drool or indicating oh these 2 people are in love and oh comedy.

Regardless of you felt if it was effective or not it had clear function and showed a clear progression of how the relationship changes after that.
They treat each other a little differently.
There are certainly other ways to convey those things but how about giving examples think about how long any of those scenes would take and what kind of trust and warmth these would convey. Even if there is another way that would convey the exact same thing why would that be more valid than the sex scene, is there something inherently bad about sex scenes? I can't imagine another way having the same undertone.

Sex is kind of like a easy plot tool like killing of characters. At the very minimum it always changes the relationship between the participants even if the emotions involved were pretty limited.

Cyclone_Baroness

I dunno…maybe for me it was her acting or the choice is camera shots and cuts. While some might have seen her warming up to him, and put herself out there. I saw it has, she was randomly horny and wanted a booty call. I think it was the fidgeting and the close up of her hands on the hem of her nightgown before she summoned him. Just was sort of off putting for me. I don't mind sex scenes. But like I mentioned before, I felt they could have found a better way. I would have preferred it had been more subtle I guess. I mean, really it was pretty much just that scene I didn't like. There was another scene indicating sex, and I didn't have that thought process that it didn't need to be shown.

DarthAsthma

@Cyclone_Baroness:

I dunno…maybe for me it was her acting or the choice is camera shots and cuts. While some might have seen her warming up to him, and put herself out there. I saw it has, she was randomly horny and wanted a booty call. I think it was the fidgeting and the close up of her hands on the hem of her nightgown before she summoned him. Just was sort of off putting for me. I don't mind sex scenes. But like I mentioned before, I felt they could have found a better way. I would have preferred it had been more subtle I guess. I mean, really it was pretty much just that scene I didn't like. There was another scene indicating sex, and I didn't have that thought process that it didn't need to be shown.

No I got the same impression but you know that's exactly what I mean that's the kind of person she is.
And the sex also didn't mean hey the love each other, no she used him he went along (because again they aren't exactly you upstanding examples of virtue, jgl being a criminal she being an irresponsible person trying to do the right thing). Nevertheless even if the sex wasn't filled with any kind of deep emotion it changed the relationship to somewhat emotional trusting because that's kind of a consequence(or prequesite depening on how you see it) of being consensual intimate outside of a framework for gain (for example prostitution).

As for you wanting it being more subtle that's fair I guess but that's preference. I didn't really care about the scene but I think it has function. I think I have somewhat the same attitude like you towards the scene where they introduce

! telekinesis through Seth, that was very cluncky by the virtue that we already had to accept some other outlandish concepts. That I wished they've done more subtle but I get that they had to get it out in the beginning since it's important for the whole rainmaker thing.

CosmicDebris

I thought it was a very fun, effective movie. Yeah, I'm one of the people that gets all teary-eyed in movies.

I didn't have any problem with the booty call….honestly some women do that, it's not that unusual. And the scene itself was short and not graphic at all. I don't think there was supposed to be anything more than that between them, as opposed to the real true love story that does exist in the movie. Although then it kind of makes me wonder

! What if the older Joe had decided on his own to stop the chase, and younger Joe falls in love with Sara, would that have then erased the future of future Joe meeting his asian wife, and thus completely negating him wanting to go back in the first place? head asplode That's the trouble with time travel…lol

Cyclone_Baroness

@CosmicDebris:

I thought it was a very fun, effective movie. Yeah, I'm one of the people that gets all teary-eyed in movies.

I didn't have any problem with the booty call….honestly some women do that, it's not that unusual. And the scene itself was short and not graphic at all. I don't think there was supposed to be anything more than that between them, as opposed to the real true love story that does exist in the movie. Although then it kind of makes me wonder

! What if the older Joe had decided on his own to stop the chase, and younger Joe falls in love with Sara, would that have then erased the future of future Joe meeting his asian wife, and thus completely negating him wanting to go back in the first place? head asplode That's the trouble with time travel…lol

! I'm pretty sure that's what would have happened. Old Joe was tripping because it took a lot effort to focus on his older memories of his wife when Young Joe only just met up with Sara. It was already messing with the time line cause Old Joe never met her before. Old Joe stopping would have been his resolution to let his wife go instead of doing everything to stay with her.

Do we still need to spoiler stuff?