Tickets booked for 9.20 tonight, cannae wait!
Looper - Bruce Willis kicks his younger selfs ass. • Page 3
-
Page
of 4 First / Last -
mikew1985 9,705 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 6 years ago -
faux_carnation 7,687 posts
Seen 18 hours ago
Registered 8 years agoSorry to say it, but I was underwhelmed. It's good, but not amazing.
Also, I just read the Guardian review (waited till I'd seen the film), and its like the reviewer literally didn't understand the film at all. It's full of factual inaccuracies. Shoddy. -
mcmonkeyplc 35,883 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 10 years agoYeah I watched this last night and came away a little underwhelmed. It's good, not awesome.Come and get it cumslingers!
-
beastmaster 8,015 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 9 years agoI though it was awesome! -
Aargh. 11,182 posts
Seen 10 minutes ago
Registered 2 years agoAnyone going to see a film expecting it to be amazing is always going to come out of it feeling underwhelmed.After chasing sunsets one of life's simple joy is playing with the boys
-
mcmonkeyplc 35,883 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 10 years agoI didn't think it was going to be awesome...but calling it this decades Matrix is wrong on many levels.Come and get it cumslingers!
-
mikew1985 9,705 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 6 years agoYup, good but not amazing.
The kid is fantastic though, i don't know if its just fluke to find a kid that can semmingly act so well or great talent spotting. I'm bemused as to how a child so young is capable of that. -
Emth 122 posts
Seen 21 hours ago
Registered 6 years agoI was expecting a bit more after how ridiculously highly rated this is on IMDB... Maybe it's just me but it seemed like there was too much narration explaining the story. -
ResidentKnievel 5,393 posts
Seen 51 minutes ago
Registered 6 years agoTelekinesis? Really?
I was expecting it to be a thriller about time travel and assassination then they throw telekinesis in to the mix.
The second half was a bit rubbish
Edited by ResidentKnievel at 21:10:59 05-10-2012morriss wrote: My actual real opinion is very insulting and unhelpful. -
mangojoe 230 posts
Seen 10 hours ago
Registered 3 years agoThanks for the spoiler fuckface -
ResidentKnievel 5,393 posts
Seen 51 minutes ago
Registered 6 years agoSorry about that.
If it's any consolation it's talked about in the opening segments so it's not too spoilery and probably should have been included in trailers.morriss wrote: My actual real opinion is very insulting and unhelpful. -
neilka 12,049 posts
Seen 6 minutes ago
Registered 8 years agoIt was in the trailers.Even the toast is a ghost, and your daddy is in the toast!
-
ResidentKnievel 5,393 posts
Seen 51 minutes ago
Registered 6 years agoAh well then
I think they should have just stuck to the one sci-fi concept rather than throwing telekinesis in to the mix. It felt like a band-aid was applied to the story needlessly, they could have explored the time travelling assassin aspect more thoroughly instead.
Edited by ResidentKnievel at 21:24:21 05-10-2012morriss wrote: My actual real opinion is very insulting and unhelpful. -
CosmicFuzz 18,820 posts
Seen 45 minutes ago
Registered 6 years agoI thought it was fantastic. -
urban 10,410 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 9 years ago@ResidentKnievel
I enjoyed it but I'd say that it's the weakest Rian Johnson film so far.
8/10.
Factual inaccuracies? Explain to me how a Fictional film can possibly have Factual inaccuracies? -
sport 10,904 posts
Seen 4 minutes ago
Registered 8 years agoSaw it on Friday. Really good, but as others have said, not "ZOMG AMAZING".
One part that kinda confused me:
When BW first goes back and JGL fails to kill him - ok cool I get that - that's what sets up the "old vs young" aspect. But then JGL falls from the ladder at his apartment and we go back to field to see a "replay" of the BW arriving scene, only this time JGL does kill him. ?!?!?!?! Was this purely to show how we get to the older BW character through the years? -
AaronTurner 6,880 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 8 years ago -
sport 10,904 posts
Seen 4 minutes ago
Registered 8 years agoAaronTurner wrote:
Fair enough. Still confused me at the time. Probably best not to over-think continuity where time travel is involved.
Yes. -
JCHilton 1,375 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 8 years agoLoopers exist because it's "Impossible to kill in the future [because of ID tagging and the like] or so I'm told".
The mob makes the great effort of illegaly establishing an underground venture of inter-chronological hitmen, whom kill and discard of future people.
A looper kills and works under one established and "Accepted" rule: that they must kill themselves (sent back from the future) and "close their loop"; as to destroy all trace of their existence. (Without touching upon how this is a false dichotomy and that it doesn't really make sense, as the danger of being "found out" lies within the murders themselves more than if you exist in the future). "The mob" collects the future looper and personally send them back in time....
"The mob" collect the lead character and willy nilly kill his wife. KILL his wife... Thus sparing on the consequential events. They go through the trouble of setting up this "looper malarkey" only to KILL the lead characters wife, in the future, in her own home, in daylight, by the very same "mob", then burn down her house? Hell if it's that easy, why does this film even exist?
Lets not even touch upon the time paradoxes, telekenesis and diner scene in which Rian tells the audience to 'forget about all this time convolution'.
Brick is genius writing in comparison. "This decades Matrix"? I think not.
Edited by JCHilton at 04:03:19 08-10-2012 -
Mola_Ram 2,403 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 11 months agoWell, I loved it. I thought the writing was great, and the lines impeccably delivered by both Willis and Gordon-Levitt. I could see Willis bringing back shades of that great performance in 12 Monkeys.
Yes, it falls apart if you think too much about it, but imo that's more of a function of the time travel thing, not a fault of the film itself. Loopholes and paradoxes are pretty much a given with time travel. Try to do it realistically, and you get a confused mess like Primer (which I also loved).
Speaking of Primer, I reckon the name of Jeff Daniels' character is a shout-out to that movie.
But yeah, it will hurt your brain to think about it. For example, I assume that there are multiple timelines in this movie that could exist at any given moment, which is why Old Joe described his memories as "one possibility". Which also explains how he was able to continue to exist in the future in that way, give that he would only have had the money if he had, in fact, killed himself.
But if multiple versions are possible, then why do they worry so much about "closing the loop"? Why go to all this effort, when it would probably be so much easier to just let the guys live and swear to never reveal anything?
Actually, that probably was explained at some point, but meh. I need to think about it some more..gif)
-
JCHilton 1,375 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 8 years agoIt's obviously a movie written to supply a narrative that touches upon many areas of emotional impact rather than any philisophical debate.
Putting a disclaimer in your film -(the diner scene), is a backwards attempt at solving/ discussing any complexities fiction allows a writer,
I feel Rian was much more comfortable with a down to earth gritty genre such as noir [Brick]. His science fiction is a tad too generic and pastiche.
To me (though I cannot claim to know certainly), this film seems as though one developed from imagery: seeing your older self/ interacting with them/ ]the little boy's telekenesis/ the ritualistic murders/ the hoverbikes etc Which while leading to a stylistic aesthetic seems sewn together at the edges: narratively speaking.
I feel science fiction; it being the prophetic genre it has grown into, has to have some sort of prevailing morality/ parable or deconstruction of a current or historical societal/ human dilemma. I guess I was just looking for some intellectual rigor/ depth.
Depth that independant film productions such as Primer (@Mola_Ram As you mentioned) and [at the time] Brick, pride themselves on. Dare I say it even Inception with all its flaws made more of an attempt at clear exposition: sticking to its own "pre established" rules. In the case of Looper little effort was made; it's not clever to admit this and offer vague/lame cover overs.
Enjoyed Joseph's imitation of Brucie though.
Edited by JCHilton at 08:15:13 08-10-2012 -
Handy timeline someone did showing how there is more than one.
But then even that can be broken down and proved to be wrong I guess...You dare to strike Scurrcules!?
-
JCHilton 1,375 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 8 years agoScurrminator wrote:
I see the trickle down/descending tier-like effect of time, but how does that explain the reverse influence of the younger on the older [through parallel universes I assume]?
Handy timeline someone did showing how there is more than one.
But then even that can be broken down and proved to be wrong I guess...
Oh nevermind, it's not wise to criticise a film for over-complication disguised with flashy cinema, then indulge it with rationalisation.
Edited by JCHilton at 09:23:25 08-10-2012 -
sport 10,904 posts
Seen 4 minutes ago
Registered 8 years agoJCHilton wrote:
Willis pretty much lays it down in the diner scene i.e. slams table and yells at JGL to not even try get his head around time travel. Works for me.Scurrminator wrote:
I see the trickle down/descending tier-like effect of time, but how does that explain the reverse influence of the younger on the older [through parallel universes I assume]?
Handy timeline someone did showing how there is more than one.
But then even that can be broken down and proved to be wrong I guess...
Oh nevermind, it's not wise to criticise a film for over-complication disguised with flashy cinema, then indulge it with rationalisation. -
JCHilton wrote:
I guess once that older person is brought back into 'that' timeline then things that happen to the younger one affect the older one.Scurrminator wrote:
I see the trickle down/descending tier-like effect of time, but how does that explain the reverse influence of the younger on the older [through parallel universes I assume]?
Handy timeline someone did showing how there is more than one.
But then even that can be broken down and proved to be wrong I guess...
Oh nevermind, it's not wise to criticise a film for over-complication disguised with flashy cinema, then indulge it with rationalisation.You dare to strike Scurrcules!?
-
M83J01P97 5,754 posts
Seen 21 hours ago
Registered 6 years agoAnyone else think Rian Johnson could be a great director for a live action Akira? -
Razz 57,931 posts
Seen 44 minutes ago
Registered 11 years agoIf it's impossible to kill in the future than how is it that they kill his wife?
Edited by Razz at 11:31:27 08-10-2012--------------------------------------------------------------------
Steam/PSN/XBOX: Razztafarai | 3DS: 1246-9674-8856
-------------------------------------------------------------------- -
McGeeza 762 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 8 years agoRazz wrote:
Indeed. That was a script failure. It would have been a good excuse for a chase scene/shootout with the Chinese Police turning up and chasing down the bad guys (with a captured Brucie).
If it's impossible to kill in the future than how is it that they kill his wife? -
Razz 57,931 posts
Seen 44 minutes ago
Registered 11 years agoPossibly, but I think the mobsters started setting fire to village where Bruce had lived, perhaps they killed her by mistake and were using the fire to cover it up, which begs the question, if that works why the blooming heck would ou bother using a time machine instead?
Edited by Razz at 11:51:22 08-10-2012--------------------------------------------------------------------
Steam/PSN/XBOX: Razztafarai | 3DS: 1246-9674-8856
-------------------------------------------------------------------- -
faux_carnation wrote:
Or you didn't understand it. There's always that possibility.
Sorry to say it, but I was underwhelmed. It's good, but not amazing.
Also, I just read the Guardian review (waited till I'd seen the film), and its like the reviewer literally didn't understand the film at all. It's full of factual inaccuracies. Shoddy. -
Page
of 4 First / Last
