AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › LOOPER -- new, original sci-fi action film
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

LOOPER -- new, original sci-fi action film - Page 2

post #31 of 191
9/29/12 at 8:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallW View Post

Plus, it's R rated so maybe even Matt will check it out. biggrin.gif

Hopefully I won't pee myself in excitement. tongue.gif
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #32 of 191
9/29/12 at 11:28am
I saw Looper today and enjoyed it. It is brilliantly acted and its story is intriguing. In fact, the story gave me so much food for thought, I have decided to think about it for a while before casting my IMDb vote. Anything with Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt, Piper Perabo, and Jeff Daniels, would have had me at hello anyway but the film paid off in other ways too. Most time travel films I have seen have tended to sink into incomprehensibility but Looper told its story clearly, thanks to the writing and direction of Rian Johnson and his remarkably talented cast's performances. I am looking forward to learning what the rest of you who see it think.

I should add that I didn't mention Joseph Gordon-Levitt before because I can never quite make up my mind about the guy. As usual, his performance was centered and intelligent but, also as usual, he never made me care about his charactger as much as I thought I should. For an actor so talented, Gordon-Levitt seems to me to be lacking in movie star charisma.
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 191
9/29/12 at 1:25pm
thanks for sharing this gwsat cool.gif, I can't wait to see the film, probably not before next week though...
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 191
9/29/12 at 6:05pm
Ok even though I had initially had some doubts about this, all this positive feedback got me excited like Prometheus and I was planning to see it this weekend because I love time travel films until I read this from someone who saw it and it "confirms" what I said earlier about how can both exist at the same time. But what this person pointed out is even worst so if you seen it and care to hopefully explain it from this person legit big problem with the plot in the spoilers.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Not exactly. The movie was perfect up until the end where Young Joe kills himself. Then Old Joe ceases to exist. Based on THAT logic, Old Joe would have never existed period, which means that all of Old Joe's actions/history throughout the movie had never happened to begin with.

It's one thing if Old Joe went back in time and was sent to an alternate past; one like his but not THE past of HIS reality and all he could do was change the timeline of that reality. But they were selling it from the start that it is the same reality/timeline. Any injuries that happened to Young Joe showed up on the Old Joe because they were one and the same (Young Joe getting shot with the rock salt, carving the name of the waitress, etc.). If Old Joe was from an alternate future, those injuries would not show up. But they did, so they were hammering the point home that it was all the one and same reality.

And more importantly, when Young Joe committed suicide, the Old Joe would not disappear if he was from an alternate timeline. So based on both Joes being one and the same, if Young Joe killed himself, he would NEVER grow up/live to become the Old Joe who goes back in time. He killed himself, right? So how does Old Joe's actions happen to begin with if he killed himself 30 years prior?

THIS is why the movie sucked. It turned into a cop-out with the suicide and like I said, if he killed himself to make Old Joe cease to exist, he wouldn't be alive to become the Old Joe 30 years later to begin with. This MAJOR plothole could have been fixed if they went with something simple as "you can't go back in time into your own timeline" and wrote the story to reflect this.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 191
9/29/12 at 7:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

I saw Looper today and enjoyed it. It is brilliantly acted and its story is intriguing. In fact, the story gave me so much food for thought, I have decided to think about it for a while before casting my IMDb vote. Anything with Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt, Piper Perabo, and Jeff Daniels, would have had me at hello anyway but the film paid off in other ways too. Most time travel films I have seen have tended to sink into incomprehensibility but Looper told its story clearly, thanks to the writing and direction of Rian Johnson and his remarkably talented cast's performances. I am looking forward to learning what the rest of you who see it think.
I should add that I didn't mention Joseph Gordon-Levitt before because I can never quite make up my mind about the guy. As usual, his performance was centered and intelligent but, also as usual, he never made me care about his charactger as much as I thought I should. For an actor so talented, Gordon-Levitt seems to me to be lacking in movie star charisma.

Thanks gwsat I'm looking forward to watch this.
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 191
9/30/12 at 8:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoey67 View Post

Ok even though I had initially had some doubts about this, all this positive feedback got me excited like Prometheus and I was planning to see it this weekend because I love time travel films until I read this from someone who saw it and it "confirms" what I said earlier about how can both exist at the same time. But what this person pointed out is even worst so if you seen it and care to hopefully explain it from this person legit big problem with the plot in the spoilers. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Not exactly. The movie was perfect up until the end where Young Joe kills himself. Then Old Joe ceases to exist. Based on THAT logic, Old Joe would have never existed period, which means that all of Old Joe's actions/history throughout the movie had never happened to begin with.
It's one thing if Old Joe went back in time and was sent to an alternate past; one like his but not THE past of HIS reality and all he could do was change the timeline of that reality. But they were selling it from the start that it is the same reality/timeline. Any injuries that happened to Young Joe showed up on the Old Joe because they were one and the same (Young Joe getting shot with the rock salt, carving the name of the waitress, etc.). If Old Joe was from an alternate future, those injuries would not show up. But they did, so they were hammering the point home that it was all the one and same reality.
And more importantly, when Young Joe committed suicide, the Old Joe would not disappear if he was from an alternate timeline. So based on both Joes being one and the same, if Young Joe killed himself, he would NEVER grow up/live to become the Old Joe who goes back in time. He killed himself, right? So how does Old Joe's actions happen to begin with if he killed himself 30 years prior?
THIS is why the movie sucked. It turned into a cop-out with the suicide and like I said, if he killed himself to make Old Joe cease to exist, he wouldn't be alive to become the Old Joe 30 years later to begin with. This MAJOR plothole could have been fixed if they went with something simple as "you can't go back in time into your own timeline" and wrote the story to reflect this.

When I watch or read a time travel fantasy I don't insist on internal consistency, for this way lies madness.smile.gif I can't really disagree with the analysis you quoted in the Spoiler but it just didn't bother me much when I saw the film. Keep in mind that your standards for being willing to suspend disbelief may well be higher than mine.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 191
9/30/12 at 2:35pm
Honestly, whenever I see commercials or posters, I can't stop staring at Levitt's make-up job. It's so distracting, and not in a good way.

.... He looks nothing like Willis, or himself...... I feel like I'm looking at a photo of Michael Jackson from the last few years of his life or something.

I don't like that they tried to change Joseph Gordon-Levitt's face to mirror Bruce Willis. He just looks odd.

Well they failed and it was massively distracting. Also, I think it took expression away from Levitts face. Stupid idea.

As intriguing as this movie is, I just don't think this one is worth the trek out to the local cineplex only to comeback with a headache from trying to figure it out.. Like some of the folks who did see it, they had some issues with JGL face, it's also very distracting and annoying to look at. And there's just too many qualms with the timeline and plot issue that I'll wait for the dvd to see it. And like this one person who loved this film, this is what he had to say and his 1 only problem which to me are probably one of many hundreds to each person will see on his or her own:

I've got one critique of the film. I thought it was a fantastic sci-fi/suspense/thriller - definitely the surprise hit of the year for me. My one problem though: Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
wouldn't it have been smarter to have someone other than your past self close your loop? From a purely business standpoint, it would seem to be more efficient to have someone else kill your future self, rather than run the risk of getting emotionally involved in killing your future self.
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 191
10/3/12 at 11:57am
I saw it yesterday afternoon and enjoyed it. It sort of reminded me of sci-fi films of the 1970s and early 80s. I think it will become a cult hit. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Looks like the Algerian desert got developed in the future replete with old looking houses. That's because 2W23 and 24N36 would put you in the Algerian desert. biggrin.gif
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 191
10/4/12 at 7:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoey67 View Post

Ok even though I had initially had some doubts about this, all this positive feedback got me excited like Prometheus and I was planning to see it this weekend because I love time travel films until I read this from someone who saw it and it "confirms" what I said earlier about how can both exist at the same time. But what this person pointed out is even worst so if you seen it and care to hopefully explain it from this person legit big problem with the plot in the spoilers. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Not exactly. The movie was perfect up until the end where Young Joe kills himself. Then Old Joe ceases to exist. Based on THAT logic, Old Joe would have never existed period, which means that all of Old Joe's actions/history throughout the movie had never happened to begin with.
It's one thing if Old Joe went back in time and was sent to an alternate past; one like his but not THE past of HIS reality and all he could do was change the timeline of that reality. But they were selling it from the start that it is the same reality/timeline. Any injuries that happened to Young Joe showed up on the Old Joe because they were one and the same (Young Joe getting shot with the rock salt, carving the name of the waitress, etc.). If Old Joe was from an alternate future, those injuries would not show up. But they did, so they were hammering the point home that it was all the one and same reality.
And more importantly, when Young Joe committed suicide, the Old Joe would not disappear if he was from an alternate timeline. So based on both Joes being one and the same, if Young Joe killed himself, he would NEVER grow up/live to become the Old Joe who goes back in time. He killed himself, right? So how does Old Joe's actions happen to begin with if he killed himself 30 years prior?
THIS is why the movie sucked. It turned into a cop-out with the suicide and like I said, if he killed himself to make Old Joe cease to exist, he wouldn't be alive to become the Old Joe 30 years later to begin with. This MAJOR plothole could have been fixed if they went with something simple as "you can't go back in time into your own timeline" and wrote the story to reflect this.

But didn't we see this already with the first guy? The guy who was loosing his fingers etc? This is one thing that was stated and why it was important to take the person out when they do arrive. They arrive you shoot and kill them. Letting them go or having them run off, well that creates a bunch of "issues".
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 191
10/4/12 at 8:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoey67 View Post

Honestly, whenever I see commercials or posters, I can't stop staring at Levitt's make-up job. It's so distracting, and not in a good way.
.... He looks nothing like Willis, or himself...... I feel like I'm looking at a photo of Michael Jackson from the last few years of his life or something.
I don't like that they tried to change Joseph Gordon-Levitt's face to mirror Bruce Willis. He just looks odd.
Well they failed and it was massively distracting. Also, I think it took expression away from Levitts face. Stupid idea.
As intriguing as this movie is, I just don't think this one is worth the trek out to the local cineplex only to comeback with a headache from trying to figure it out.. Like some of the folks who did see it, they had some issues with JGL face, it's also very distracting and annoying to look at. And there's just too many qualms with the timeline and plot issue that I'll wait for the dvd to see it. And like this one person who loved this film, this is what he had to say and his 1 only problem which to me are probably one of many hundreds to each person will see on his or her own:
I've got one critique of the film. I thought it was a fantastic sci-fi/suspense/thriller - definitely the surprise hit of the year for me. My one problem though: Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
wouldn't it have been smarter to have someone other than your past self close your loop? From a purely business standpoint, it would seem to be more efficient to have someone else kill your future self, rather than run the risk of getting emotionally involved in killing your future self.

As Rian Johnson explained:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The future gangsters are fearful of messing with timelines and they are afraid that if another looper were to kill the future you, you might be tempted in 30 years to kill that person, causing lots of unforseen problems...
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 191
10/5/12 at 10:20am
It is a paradox like Shroeders cat.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 191
10/6/12 at 8:13am
Caught Loopers this week, and I thought it was worth the trek, and then some.
It well acted, with decent character development, and the conceptual framework was introspective, and thought provoking in a gritty presentation. I'll be ordering the BR when available.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 191
10/6/12 at 8:28pm
Saw the movie the other night. I thought is was alright and not exactly worth the hype I was hearing. I would give it a B- and definitely say that 12 Monkeys is much better. Rian Johnson made Brick with JGL and it was similar in tone.

As to the time traveling paradox in the movie, I think it was explained by the BW character in the diner where he says that there are possible universes which seem to narrow as actions happen. Whether you accept that explanation or not, I think that is what the director is going with.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 191
10/7/12 at 8:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by daryl zero View Post

Saw the movie the other night. I thought is was alright and not exactly worth the hype I was hearing. I would give it a B- and definitely say that 12 Monkeys is much better. Rian Johnson made Brick with JGL and it was similar in tone.
As to the time traveling paradox in the movie, I think it was explained by the BW character in the diner where he says that there are possible universes which seem to narrow as actions happen. Whether you accept that explanation or not, I think that is what the director is going with.

I agree with you entirely. The movie was probably overhyped; I gave it 7 Stars out of 10. Thought it was a good but far from great film. As noted in earlier posts, I wasn't bothered by the time traveling paradox either.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 191
10/7/12 at 8:38am
Count me as among the skeptics who are always doubtfull of time travel as a plot device, and always ready to bring up the basic time travel paradox to dispute the plot details. I think time travel has been the downfall of a lot of good SF plots from Star Trek to Lost. It was with these misgivings that I decided to see Looper yesterday, based on several reccomendations from people I trust.

Looper was very well done IMHO. It is the very first time travel plot to get my approval after more than meeting my pretty high standard for suspension of disbelief. I have some small misgivings about casting, but fundamentally I like the movie and will buy it on BR disk and add it to my collection of a few dozen "best SF" films.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 191
10/7/12 at 8:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Bessinger View Post

It is a paradox like Shroeders cat.
Schroeder didn't have a cat. He had a piano.


You're thinking of Schrodinger... wink.gif
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 191
10/7/12 at 9:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Schroeder didn't have a cat. He had a piano.
You're thinking of Schrodinger... wink.gif
Therein lies the paradox.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 191
10/7/12 at 9:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

I agree with you entirely. The movie was probably overhyped; I gave it 7 Stars out of 10. Thought it was a good but far from great film. As noted in earlier posts, I wasn't bothered by the time traveling paradox either.

The less one thinks about the movie the better. Otherwise, the entire movie completely falls apart. You just have to accept it and move onto, hopefully, a lot better movies.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 191
10/7/12 at 3:30pm
I was intrigued by the previews of Cloud Atlas.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 191
10/7/12 at 5:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

I was intrigued by the previews of Cloud Atlas.

It was interesting. A lot of different scenarios so it will be interesting to see if that kind of narrative works.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 191
10/8/12 at 9:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Schroeder didn't have a cat. He had a piano.
You're thinking of Schrodinger... wink.gif
I am old and the memory is going.....going.....where am I:eek:
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 191
10/10/12 at 4:42pm
Saw this one today and I liked it a lot, despite a plot point that was rather troublesome. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
It's soooo soooo difficult to kill people in the future, yet we see Joe killing like crazy throughout the future montage. That makes no sense.

But I said, WTF and just forgot about it and enjoyed the film. Nothing is perfect and for the most part, this film was fairly smart.

As much as I like Bruce Willis, it would have been better to use one actor for old and young Joe and use makeup for Old Joe.

I read they used Kodak 500t stock, which is grainy. I wonder if this was shot 2-perf? I really dug the gritty look. Everything today is so darned clean. Can't stand that.
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 191
10/15/12 at 9:52am
I saw this yesterday with my wife and oldest daughter and we all loved it. It made my Top Ten for time travel movies and as a genre I always ready to cut this type of film some slack. It had much more of a story than I was expecting. It's Day 1 purchase for me. I stayed though the end credits and noticed the film's composer was named Nathan Johnson - the director's cousin.
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 191
10/16/12 at 1:33pm
Is anybody else having the problem of clicking on the spoiler link and just being directed to the top of the page?

Anyway, just got back from seeing this. Great picture; sort of like a Blade Runner with more on its mind, a dystopia that brings to mind the look of Children of Men and the mind-boink factor of 12 Monkeys or Primer. An instant cult classic, sure to be debated and puzzled out in the years to come. One of the top time travel movies, no question.

I had a few issues with it, but they were relatively minor, generally plot twists that should have been clearer that better directing or editing could have taken care of (and the directing and editing was really quite good), and a few opportunities for even more mind-twisting goodness that they might could have thrown in but didn't. Plus it had the ethereal Emily Blunt, adding her fragile/strong/sexy presence. Her appearance halfway gave the film an overwhelming humanity and emotional depth, furnishing a character the audience could really care for and worry about.

If you like quality science fiction, GO SEE THIS NOW. It's so complicated that spoilers are not as likely as lots of movies, but they are there, and you might end up being spoilered. Don't just wait on Blu-ray, though you will probably want this one to keep.

P.S. If you try to pick the logic apart on this one you'll spoil all the fun.
Edited by Shaded Dogfood - 10/16/12 at 1:40pm
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 191
10/17/12 at 11:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaded Dogfood View Post

Is anybody else having the problem of clicking on the spoiler link and just being directed to the top of the page?
.

Yes. When I commented on it I was made to feel it was just me. Glad to know I'm not alone.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 191
10/18/12 at 7:25pm

Is anybody else having the problem of clicking on the spoiler link and just being directed to the top of the page?
.

Yes. When I commented on it I was made to feel it was just me. Glad to know I'm not alone.

I have a tendency to keep lots of ie windows open. When I shut everything down and just opened one, everything worked like it should (though my mouse is frequently still wonky). Don't know whether to blame internet Xplorer, the AVS websites or Windows updates.

I have chrome but have all my bookmark stuff in ie and have been too lazy to learn chrome.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 191
12/12/12 at 8:29am
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=loopers.htm

Looks like it will be on the most profitable films of 2012. Despite it not quite reaching 70 million in the U.S., the film has earned 167 million worldwide on a 30 million budget. Even if you went on the crazy far out there scale of what they need to earn to get into the back and say 3 X the budget, that means it's 70 million in profit. Amazing.

I think they could have spent 50 million, instead of 30, allowing for some bigger set pieces and they would have sen even more money come in. The biggest complaint i saw about this film was the obvious smaller budget limiting the scope of the film.

Great film. Enjoyed it more than most this year.
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 191
12/12/12 at 10:52am
Originally Posted by Shaded Dogfood View Post

I have chrome but have all my bookmark stuff in ie and have been too lazy to learn chrome.

 

In IE8:
 

Show the Menu Bar

Click File > Import & Export > Export Favorites (Or Export to a file for IE8) > Select the Favorites you want exported > Save them somewhere
 
In Chrome:
 
Wrench icon > Bookmarks manager > Tools > Import Bookmarks > Select the file from where you saved it.
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 191
12/12/12 at 10:55am

Chrome is great; once you sign in, you can take all the extensions and bookmarks (favorites) to any computer you're on.

Reply
Reply
post #60 of 191
12/12/12 at 4:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamian View Post

Chrome is great; once you sign in, you can take all the extensions and bookmarks (favorites) to any computer you're on.
Yeah, it's easy to transfer your I.E. FAVORITES list over.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › LOOPER -- new, original sci-fi action film