LOOPER -- new, original sci-fi action film - Page 3

Off topic, but on topic for this off-topic digression and some genius type here might know the answer: My IE browser has stopped opening hyperlinks! When you click on one it opens a new tab like it's always done, but the tab is empty and the window is blank. I've tried a reset to no avail, and even downloaded the new version (IE 10) and it does the same thing! Weird. So I downloaded Chrome - hyperlinks work fine there - and that's now my browser. Anybody know a good spell-checker to use with Chrome?

Anybody ever heard of a problem like that with Internet Explorer? Microsoft wants to charge me $100 to take control of my computer and try to diagnose the problem. I told 'em to stuff it.

I am no computer wizard, but FWIW.

Have you run your virus/malware checker?
Have you checked Windows Updates?
Have you checked to see if there is some sneaky add-on running?

Yes to all, to no avail. The fact that upgrading from IE9 to IE10 didn't fix the problem leads me to think my Windows 7 operating system has some glitch, even though Chrome isn't affected. But I have no idea where to even start looking for the problem.

Are you asking for an additional checker or where it's located within Chrome? Within Chrome...

1. Click the Chrome menu on the browser toolbar – top right next to the star.
2. Select Settings.
3. Click Show advanced settings.
4. In the "Languages" section, click Languages and spell-checker settings.
5. In the Languages and Input dialog that appears, use the "Enable spell checking" checkbox to turn the spell-checker on or off.

Okay - kind of a clunky interface, but it works. Thanks.

I loved Chrome but finally decided to give it up and return to Safari. Unfortunately, there is a bug in Chrome that prevents it from automatically upgrading in OS X. For example, the current version of Chrome for OS X is at least ver. 22.X but the version I am running is ver. 17.0 beta and Chrome thinks it is the latest version. No matter, though, I have become accustomed to Safari and it works well. Perhaps someone with time travel capability can bring me a version of Chrome that will work for me back from the future.

I use Chrome for specific webbing and like it because it seems to be faster than IE.
Ordinarily, I just use IE.

I have a new laptop with Windows 8 and that is taking some getting used to.
Frankly, I prefer 7.

A dear friend has a software business, for which I am an occasional consultant . He has used Windows for many years and is an expert with the OS. He told me some time ago that Windows 8 wasn't very good and certainly not as good as Windows 7. It was on his recommendation that I finally upgraded from Windows XP to 7. Thanks to his recommendation, I was able to avoid the execrable Vista. Fortunately, I use Windows only for a few apps, Quicken for Windows for example, which don't have a version for OS X that I find satisfactory. The overwhelming percentage of the apps that I use are written for OS X. I learned a long time ago that life is simpler when I pay the Apple tax.

Sorry for the nerdy digression, guys, but I am a nerd and so can't help myself. Must go now and shop for a new pocket protector.

I am an old DOS man and love its simplicity, its directness.

With each new iteration of Windows, MS tries to extend the gap away from its roots.

I don't like how it is becoming more and more difficult to search for files and directories, cookies, and programs in general.
It is very frustrating how everything is being "hidden" underneath all the Windows glossiness.

What the fr@k? Maybe I should go back in time to rescue this thread......then again.... Watched this last night. Starts off so promising, but eventually sorta goes off-the-rails, I think. And what's up with Levitt's nose? Prosthetic for this film? He looks like Michael Jackson. Perhaps the paradox here is just too brilliantly done and goes over my head...

No. They changed his face with CGI (most notably for the nose and his upper lip) to make him look more like a younger Bruce Willis. It was unnecessary and kinda looked strange at times, but I didn't really mind it either.

Ah, gotcha. Maybe they should've re-used that kid who stood in as a young Bruce in Unbreakable; he looked just like Willis.

The face change was interesting but I thought that Levitt did a good job copying some of Willis' mannerisms.

I watched the Blu-ray last night and thought the black levels were weak in the nighttime scenes...maybe just my setup...but the movie still ranks in my Top Ten time travel movies.

Finally, got this on the last day of 2012... but Come on! killing kids? dumb violent time travel nonsense. none of this makes any sense, it's just an excuse to desensitize you to senseless violence. I dislike movies that portray violence against children, especially young children. I'm perfectly willing to ignore the obvious silliness of the paradoxes created by the notion of time travel, for the sake of a good story. But there just wasn't much of a story here and the makers of this movie just asked too much from the audience to suspense their disbelief.

And any movie where a character hunts and guns down five year-olds is not entertainment.... FAIL.

I'm pretty open to action movie violence, but agree totally with your opinion. It's off my list. Thanks.

So much for BATTLE ROYALE!

Had to Google it. I'll not dig this one up, though I'll probably watch The Hunger Games eventually. My wife thinks I have no limits, but I do. I watched Unthinkable on cable the other day. I had no issues with the torture scenes, but as the end game approached, I was a bit worried.

Meh. Nothing is ever shown and all you see is him checking out the kids. It's all implied. At worst, you hear a gunshot. I thought it was pretty crazy that I was sort of rooting for the character, up until that moment. Then the reality of it all sets in and it did for the character too so... *shrugs* It's just a movie. There are much worse out there.

Guess you wouldn't make it through the first 5mins of 'God Bless America'. Not that... the rest of the movie was any good though.

+1 Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

As Scott already mentioned, those killings are merely implied. Only 3 children were sought out for termination, but that's not what's wrong with this movie.

The focus of the film heavily shifts to the last child on the list. And unless that child was was yet another younger version of himself, I don't understand why Levitt's character was so dead-set on protecting him. I think the things that Bruce's character do here are nothing compared to Arnold's assassination attempts in T2, where he repeatedly tries to kill a young John Conners....and not in a subtle fashion, either.

So happens I love children, but children dying in films is nothing new.

Popped this in the Oppo tonite and took my first look.

The Good
The premise
Emily Blunt and Jeff Daniels
The Blade Runner vibe
The surprise ending

The Bad
The 2 Joes are dumb as rocks AND don't look alike
Implausible actions/reactions of the characters
The intractable paradox of time travel is ignored
Superfluous characters are given too much screen time
Idiotic AFLS...the infection continues

Overall, a bit of a disappointment.
The basic idea is a good one, but just not pulled together in a way that satisfies.
However, there are some exciting scenes.
I can only rate this one as "FAIR."

Well its the age old question. If you could go back in time and kill Hitler as a child, would you? Think of it that way not " I think I will wake up today and kill kids with no reason", he had one.

Also to note, It was filmed in my part of the world. New Orleans and Thibodaux not the China part :P House and the Caine field were giveways for me , had to look it up however to make sure. My friend did not work on this one, would have loved to gone to the wrap party.
Edited by Wytchone - 1/3/13 at 6:18am

That helps. Thanks for the clarification.

True.

My copy arrives from NF today, but I am concerned if I watch it I will be desensitized and go “postal.”



Edited by Aliens - 1/4/13 at 4:49am

He was not dead set on protecting the kid until the end of the movie. Even then, I'd argue that his actions related more to himself than the kid. His reason for being at the house initially was to intercept his older self and kill him to get back in good graces with his overlords. A good portion of the movie is devoted to showing Levitt's character's evolving relationship with the kid and his mother...and ultimately showing his realization of the "circle" represented by his life experience, the future of his own life (via Willis), and the kid's future life, and what he had to do to disrupt the cycle. All courtesy of a mother's love (what a cliche!).

Be sure to record it for posterity.

Yeah, totally plausible.
I would admit Ms. Blunt may be able to sway some of MY decisions, but not to the point of suicide.

What's not to get? Future dude loved his wife enough to try to keep her around by killing the kids and present guy fell for a different lady because of future guy.

Time travel movies: fun concept, even more fun to argue about.