PDA

View Full Version : LOOPER



Dom D
10-10-2012, 02:34 AM
So what did we all think of this one? I had a good time. Nothing mind blowing here but good solid sci fi action with a big (albeit somewhat faded) star- the sort of thing you figure should always be playing at the cinemas but basically never is.

I like this variant of the future that for some reason kind of looks like USA circa 1950 something. Jeff Bridges character was probably the highlight for me. A nicely understated variant of the villian role. It's hard not to write cliches when you write bad guys so I give it extra points. Bruce Willis doesn't work too hard to convince he's an older version of Levitt but that's okay 'cause Levitts doing enough work for the both of 'em. Which is the way it should be I suppose. It's a big complicated plot as sci fi stories tend to be but it ties off the central characters story nicely while leaving some good threads hanging. Satisfying but not too neat. It's a good trick. Actually this probablyis a better movie than I'm making it sound like. I don't know... it's just lacking something that's hard to put your finger on. That spark that takes you from good little movie to cult classic.

Ian Jane
10-10-2012, 10:02 AM
I'll wait for video on this one as I don't know that I care enough but I will say that I am surprised how much positive buzz the movie is getting. The trailers make it look okay, but everyone seems to be pretty stoked on this movie.

Mark Tolch
10-10-2012, 04:06 PM
Yeah, i've been meaning to check it out because of all the buzz. I dig Gordon-levitt as well, nice to see him getting some roles.

Barry M
10-10-2012, 04:22 PM
Rian Johnson's recorded an mp3 commentary track to listen to in the theatre.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19894786

http://loopermovie.tumblr.com/post/32950683762/our-in-theater-commentary-track-is-up-i-recorded

Mark Tolch
10-14-2012, 12:22 AM
Saw it today. Really, it has some serious flaws, but overall...a really interesting film. Gordon-Levitt did a rad job of nailing the Bruce Willis mannerisms. It's pretty awesome. Cool concept, well executed.

Randy G
10-18-2012, 06:08 AM
What interests me is that this has the same director who did BRICK, which I really liked, a surreal noir set in a high school.

The Silly Swede
10-18-2012, 06:50 AM
Yeah Brick was really nice, and The Brothers Bloom was a great idea that got a bit of a flawed execution. This Rian Johnson seems to be a dude with a lot of talent. I am still not sure I will see Looper in the cinema though. It just seems like the kind of film I will wait for the DVD on.

Mark Tolch
10-18-2012, 07:01 AM
I saw it last weekend.....it's definitely not a movie that you have to see in the theatre. I also enjoyed BRICK, and Gordon-Levitt was also really good in LOOPER. A lot of fuss has been made about his learning Bruce Willis' mannerisms and emulating them, but it really is something to see him and Bruce interact while he's doing it....definitely didn't seem like the same person. As far as the film itself goes, there were definitely some things that set it apart from the usual drek hitting the theatres...there were times that I was watching and thinking "What the hell just happened?".

Overall, a good flick with some solid acting from people in uncharacteristic roles. The film itself is like a Philip K. Dick story with a Twilight Zone/Doctor Who thing going on. Not what I expected, but worth seeing.

JoeS
02-27-2018, 12:04 AM
Gave it a second look this past weekend on the big screen. A repeat viewing isn't very kind. The holes in the plot (and the idiocy of the basic premise) really glare upon reflection. I don't care how "really illegal" time travel is - why send back people back? Toss in random telekenisis, absurd makeup on Gordon-Levitt (they couldn't find ANYone that looked more like Willis?) and obvious borrowings from the Terminator series and you have a pretty dumb violent flick. An enjoyable dumb violent flick, but pretty silly nonetheless (and, bonus Emily Blunt points!).

The Time Travel element has a bit of a convulted set-up, and one can certainly question the hows, whys and whens of how it's used. Bruce Willis is fine - although his inclusion seems to necessitate a big action shoot-out that seems more a 'contractual obligation' than a plot necessity. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is good, but the makeup job involving his 'looping' looks more like a genetic mutation than the wages of 'time' that it's supposed to be.

Much of what one thinks of the movie will depend on the final act twists and turns. Suffice it to say what begins as a TERMINATOR riff, somehow morphs into a combination of DePalma's duo of THE FURY and CARRIE. Let's face it, Johnson just wanted to make a sci-fi action flick with cool stuff blowing up, logic be damned. On that level, it's decent, but, it's hardly anything great.

SPOILERS


And, the time travel premise doesn't really even make internal sense - why does the kid still have a gunshot wound at the end if that timeline never actually happened? When Writer-Director Rian Johnson was pressed on this point, he was evasive "The approach that we take with it is a linear approach. That was an early decision that I made. Instead of stepping back to a mathematical, graph-like timeline of everything that’s happening, we’re going to experience this the way that the characters experience it." Ok. But, that causes even more issues. Why does Willis just disappear if he existed all along?