The anxiously awaited Looper just came out and it's receiving rave reviews. It's currently sitting at a 91% on rottentomatoes and many critics are calling it the best sci fi film so far this year. So is it worth the price of a ticket? Let's find out.

The plot of Looper revolves around time travel. It's set in the year 2044 and time travel hasn't been invented...yet. Once it is invented, it's deemed illegal almost instantaneously. So naturally, the mob gets a hold of it. They then use time travel to send people back in time, where "Loopers" await their arrival with a cocked blunderbuss. The looper destroys the time traveler and thus a body that technically never existed. Since no one's looking for them, they get away scott free. The story of Looper revolves around a looper named Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). One day, the people from the future decide to close his loop, and sends 60 year old Joe back in time. Bruce Willis appears, Joe can't believe that he turns into Bruce Willis when he's older, and the two have vigorous sex  with each other for the duration of the movie. Spoiler alert, it's really just masturbation when you have sex with yourself.

So is it the best sci-fi movie so far this year? Absolutely. However, 2012's sci-fi movies have been like thanksgiving in the ghetto...slim pickings. Let's dive a little deeper into the review.

The good:

-Rian Johnson. He made it big within the indie scene with Brick and now I'm hoping he'll hit it big in Hollywood. He's a solid director, with a great eye, and deserves to be making bigger films. If Looper makes money, expect to see more of him.

-The acting. A solid cast all around. JGL studied Willis' mannerisms and it shows. It's really fun seeing him impersonating Willis. Willis carries his own of course as a complete bad ass. Jeff Daniels is amazing as always. And I wish Paul Dano had more screen time. He's great.

-The first 30 minutes. Seriously, the first 30 minutes of this film completely blew my mind. The best sci fi set up in years. It's a bit of a mind f uck as well especially when you learn SPOILER that the the film begins with the second parallel universe and not the first.

-The ending. It's very satisfying and creative. You kind of forget that it's an option and then BAM!

- The cinematography. Looper employs some inception-like cinematography and it's absolutely stunning.

-Paul Dano's fate. It's super f ucked up and just plain nasty. Loved it.

The bad:

-After the first 30 minutes. Alright, so it's technically not "bad," it's just not as good as the start. Sci-fi films should always be building onto themselves. You have a concept, then you add to it. And then you add some more. You need to stack the concepts and push the audience's boundaries. There's a point in the film where the movie stops advancing the originating concept of the film. Looper has "Walking Dead Syndrome." Once you get to the farm, it's not as much fun. The story takes over, but it's not nearly as interesting, especially with such a solid opening.

-Nobody's likable. I never once felt bad for any of the characters and this is a bit of a problem. Nobody's charming or the least bit redeeming. Even JGL's character lacks depth. He's just a guy. And there are other characters that the movie literally tells you to like. What's so likable about this asian wife? DOESN'T MATTER JUST LIKE HER AND WATCH THE DAMN MOVIE.

-The little kid. I'm not a huge fan of child actors and the "rainmaker" didn't change my mind. although he's ten, he looks way too young for his age. so it's silly when he says things like "i saw my mommy die." cringe.

-The more you think about the film, the more it falls apart. There are two gaping plot holes in the film.

1. What caused the rainmaker to despise all of the loopers the first time around? This literally goes unexplained.

2. Why does the mob send the old looper to the same young looper? Why not just mix it up and send different old loopers to different young loopers? Thataway, no one has a problem "killing themselves."

-Looper is juggling too many balls at once. There's this bit about telekinetic mutations at the beginning. And then it's put on the back burner until the very end. And it's a shame too, because it could have offered more depth to the film. There's also this back story about the rain maker and his mom that is completely unnecessary. There's just too much going on at times.

The ugly:

-Joseph Gordon-Levitt's make up. Seriously, it looks disgusting. They try to make him look like Bruce Willis, but it just doesn't work (because we know what JGL looks like). And for the love of god, would someone just fix his eyebrows?

Overall. Looper is a solid piece of sci-fi entertainment. It's a thinking man's film, but knows how to be absolutely kick ass when it needs to be. It's not perfect, but it's worth your time and you should throw it some green. We need more directors like Rian Johnson. Give him your money.

Best sci fi film so far this year. B+

I enjoyed the movie, but didn't think it was very good. Does that make sense? They put all of the interesting action stuff at the beginning then it was just a slow simmer from midpoint to credits. Why they decided to put that whole supernatural angle in there is mind-boggling, and this is coming from a guy who lives and breathes fantasy. It just didn't fit the story. Kind of ridiculous, actually.  Yet for all that was wrong with it, it wasn't the worst way to spend ten bucks.

I'm going to see it sometime this week.
I'll post my opinions later.

It looks pretty cool, though.

Not a word I'd use very often, but pretty apt here: meh.

Imagine Back to the Future or Terminator had been told in such a painfully convoluted way as Looper. They would've been fat around the belly like this film. There's a quote on the poster from a critic calling it "this year's Matrix" - don't make me laugh.

The key difference is the complex world of The Matrix is skillfully disentangled, whilst Looper is a much simpler premise made unnecessarily complex. It's a foggy movie that would've benefitted from clarity. My thinking is the director wanted himself noticed more than his story.

This was my first post-movie thought too:

Quoted from alb Looper is juggling too many balls at once. There's this bit about telekinetic mutations at the beginning. And then it's put on the back burner until the very end.

Quoted from alb The more you think about the film, the more it falls apart.

I'm on your schedule.

I saw this on Sunday and totally agree with the above reviews.

The first part set up a good story but it kind of fell apart in the second half.  There are too many things and times when I went, why?  Why would they do that, why would that happen and so on.

The whole TK thing was mentioned once for a brief moment early on in the story and then later and out of the blue it plays a major part.

There were some great parts though.  The looper's limbs disappearing is one that was quite disturbing.

It's a good film but by no means a great film.

I loved it,

Can't believe you guys are ripping the TK thing for not being mentioned enough. An idea was planted. It was planted hard! It comes back into play later.

Despite everyone else, apparently, I thought the story got better when JGL got to the farm. It took an unexpected turn and I was already becoming wary of the shoot outs and chases. It was a nice calm before the final storm.

I was intrigued when his mom ran and locked herself into a safe when the child got mad. Then you slowly realize what this child is capable of.

To me, it was the character arcs, and i hate to say that, but it was. Bruce Willis was willing to kill kids to save the love he finally found at the end of his life. JGL was willing to give up all the glory days he had coming to him. All because of what happened in the story.

Some major logic flaws if you want to sit down and talk about it. Don't get me going, I was Mr Physics my senior year at high school. Travel to the future, a viable possibility. To fathom traveling backwards?? Would take half the energy of the entire universe according to MIT profs. Yet, Willis does it in a tuna can.

I agree with Albino, the most relevant option to end this, is the one you think of the whole time, but don't see coming by the end.

Great film!

James

Would you be willing to kill child-hitler? That's kind of the power and terror the child brought to the world in the future as far as I understood.

With James 100%.  Thought the whole movie was great, and particularly surprised by complaints regarding the TK stuff.  It's introduced early in the first act; it's revisited; it's set up with the idea that the Rainmaker took over "by himself"; it's stepped up when we learn that Blunt's powers are slightly stronger than most; it's totally broadcast when Blunt hides in the safe.  Doesn't get much smoother than that, in my opinion.  

Just caught up with this one.  The hook was great, unfortunately the rest of the story wasn't.

Source Code is light years ahead of Lopper for sure.

Ghostie

Quoted from ghost and_ghostie gal Source Code is light years ahead of Lopper for sure. Ghostie

Don't get me wrong, Ghostie, I was a big fan of Source Code, but I didn't even think of that movie when I saw Looper. There's really no comparison. Wasn't Jake's character a destroyed soldier hooked up to a computer? In which they kept playing back the scenarios in his head to find out what happened?

I'll have to watch that again, but have seen Looper twice now. Had to explain it to my companions twice. It is a hard movie to get, but once they got it, you could see that "Wow" look in their faces.

James

@jwent6688

Hello, my friend.  And you would be correct about Source Code, but I wasn't comparing the two... both are sci-fy, and I'm the biggest sci-fy fan, especially when it comes to time travel.  I just liked Source Code much better.

Like I said the hook for Looper was great, maybe i had my expectations set high, but I felt the second half of the movie turned into "Hollywood" cliche.  I'm a sci-fy buff, so I'll eventually see it again, because it's funny when you look at movies for the second time, usually you see things you've missed the first time around.

So well see...

Ghostie

Just saw this flick this morning.  Tough film to review, for me, as well as a tough film to even decide what I thought of it.

Overall, I did enjoy it.  For once, we get an actual R rated movie that deserves and utilizes its R rating. sex, nudity, violence, drug use, and profanity.

Good action, great gunshot wounds, interesting, but convoluted story and plot, rather deep as well, meaning it could have a wide appeakl to various kinds of movie goers.

Even with all the above, for some reason, there seemed to be many very slow scenes that didn't deliver, though, which is a bit odd.  Not sure I can figure out exactly why that is.

For me, the negatives are as follow:

Even though it's quite unique in its setup and plot, it also feels very by the numbers.  I'm talking about various relationships and characters.  Almost as if certain "things" just had to be included here, which for me, is a mistake.

Even though it's a very "big" wide open premise, again, it seems rather small in how it all goes down, and again, for me, that's a problem that shouldn't have been present here.

Finally, the biggest issue of all, is that for me, the premise and setup did not make much sense and therefor, I had issues with the entire thing, the entire time I was watching.

SPOILERS     SPOILERS     SPOILERS     SPOILERS

So, in the future, time travel is invented and quickly made illegal, meaning it goes right to "the mob" (the mob?  For reals?  C'mon now...).  If you think about all the illegal uses time travel to the past would open up, I just can't wrap my head around the use they employ here, which is basically capturing someone they want dead, and sending them back in time bound and hooded, wearing a vest of silver or gold bars, where a "looper", or contract killer, immediately blows them away and disposes of the body.  I just can't understand what the gain or even reason is for doing this.

Also, let's think about Jeff Daniels role here and whether or not it makes any sense at all.  He's a dude from the future, sent back to create and manage a group of these loopers, and that includes having these loopers kill themselves when the powers that be decide it's time.  For me, it's a bit silly, really, with these bad guys all reporting to Mr. Daniels, and the ease in which "Old Joe" (Bruce Willis), dispatches of them, again, it just seems a bit silly - if he can do this so easily, why can't anyone else?  Why can't the loopers themselves take him out?

And what's with the silver and gold ingot things?  Unique, yes, but does it make any sense?  I don't think so.

I think the central problem this flick has is that it's tough to really root for any 1 character...or really anyone in general.  I mean, who is the Protag here?  I guess it's "Young Joe" (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), but because he is a cold blooded killer who is trying to kill our old pal Bruce Willis, I for one had serious trouble rooting for him.

The movie is well done, especially on a rather small budget of $30 Million (small in comparison to other sci-fi, action flicks), Performances are all very good, IMO.  I thought Emily Blunt's Sara was not only well acted, but damn, she looked fine as well.  My hat is off to young Pierce Gagnon, as Cid, who grows up to be the evil "Rainmaker". In all seriousness, I'd say his performance was one of the best by a child that I can remember.

I'm not surprised the critics adore this movie, nor am I surprised that it's making a killing, based on WWBO returns.  It is a good flick and it's a fresh take on time travel and sci-fi.  I may even watch it again, when it comes to DVD and satellite.  I definitely didn't love it, though...but I guess that's a pretty positive thing that I didn't dislike it, either.

Emily Blunt was the best surprise for me. Gordon-Levitt is always nice to watch. He didn't quite look like Bruce, but he got his voice and mannerisms down pretty good.

SPOILERS!



Here's my gripe. He knows in 30 years what'll happen. Instead of running, he stays in one spot. How they found him, I have no idea and I don't think it's ever explained.

The scene with Cid killing Jesse was great though.

Saw this last night and not sure whether I liked it or didn't. There are some great scenes, etc. But so many unanswered questions. Maybe I'm thinking too trivial like always, but a couple of examples being: What kind of havoc is 'the rainmaiker' doing in the future? Of course we see his powers, but for what reason did he start in the future doing what ever he was doing?? They show 2 seconds on the TV once and that's it - not enough info to make killing children acceptable IMO. And Emily's character - how did she know he was a looper? How did she know about them? Did I miss something? Nod off for a sec during a crucial moment? I don't know.
I think the more I'm getting into screenwriting, the more I'm asking questions when I watch something.

Overall, it was entertaining, I liked what they were trying to do with the story, but I think that could of pulled the second half together a lot better. Although - IMO, the ending was excellent.  

So I'm curious. What I saw was a film about child-rearing and the desire for parents, the emptiness of being without them; about violence being cyclical and transmitted through the family; about the effects of cyclical violence being irrevocable.

Is that the way other people think about movies like this? Are people aware, unaware, interested, not interested, more focused on the plot, more focused on the characters, more focused on the action? What do y'all think when you think of this movie?

I ask because there's such intense (and intelligent) focus on the story mechanics, which I hadn't even really considered.

Quoted from Dreamscale Just saw this flick this morning.  Tough film to review, for me, as well as a tough film to even decide what I thought of it. Overall, I did enjoy it.  For once, we get an actual R rated movie that deserves and utilizes its R rating. sex, nudity, violence, drug use, and profanity. For me, the negatives are as follow: Even though it's quite unique in its setup and plot, it also feels very by the numbers.  I'm talking about various relationships and characters.  Almost as if certain "things" just had to be included here, which for me, is a mistake. The movie is well done, especially on a rather small budget of $30 Million (small in comparison to other sci-fi, action flicks), Performances are all very good, IMO.  I thought Emily Blunt's Sara was not only well acted, but damn, she looked fine as well.  My hat is off to young Pierce Gagnon, as Cid, who grows up to be the evil "Rainmaker". In all seriousness, I'd say his performance was one of the best by a child that I can remember. I'm not surprised the critics adore this movie, nor am I surprised that it's making a killing, based on WWBO returns.  It is a good flick and it's a fresh take on time travel and sci-fi.  I may even watch it again, when it comes to DVD and satellite.  I definitely didn't love it, though...but I guess that's a pretty positive thing that I didn't dislike it, either.

Well, what do you know, but you and I LARGELY AGREE on a movie, Jeffrey!

It's OK, but a very simple story told as though it's complicated - and it adds absolutly nothing worthwile in following that course. There was purpose in telling Pulp Fiction in a jumble, but it's ill-fitting here, IMO. So that's my big problem because it obscured what was decent material - themes that Chris touched on and themes suffocated by this telling of the story. To me, it's one of those films where people like to think they have something over everyone 'cos they "get it". Not a fan of that type of pretentiousness at the best of times - especially when the film doesn't have the necessary beef in the sandwich.

Andrew, my friend and former nemesis...with age, comes wisdom.  You are evolving, grasshopper.



Chris, I'm not sure if your post is serious or in jest.  If it's indeed serious, then I can tell you flatout, that you and I do not watch movies the same way.  I don't give a rat's ass about any of that stuff.

I watch to be entertained.  I watch to get away from reality.  I watch to see things I can't see in real life.  When a movie engages me, I react positively.

Simple as that, really.

SPOILERS

Andrew,

I thought the telling of the film was fairly straight-forward? Didn't think we were meant to be confused, or see things as complicated, except for perhaps the few moments after Gordon-Levitt falls, the film cuts to black, and then it skips back to him killing himself. Basically, the first half-hour is Gordon-Levitt's backstory, the next half-hour-ish is Willis' backstory, and the final hour is a somewhat overly static second and third act.  Willis' story even picks up right where it should, in linear terms, and then leads right back to where it should -- I saw the whole film as a linear telling of the events as they would have happened the first time around (ie, he grew up as a looper which caused him to kill himself which caused him to go to China which caused him to meet his wife which caused her to die which caused him to go back in time which caused him to try to kill the Rainmaker which caused him to kill himself in the first place -- though none of this addresses Albino's highly valid point that the first cause for the Rainmaker's hatred of Loopers doesn't exist). Or did I read that wrong?

Jeff,

Yeah for sure serious. And I'm not surprised to hear that we don't watch movies in the same way...I am still surprised, though, and still think it's great, that we both like Eyes Wide Shut.  

I like being entertained by films -- The Rock is my favourite film and there's little that's more completely devoid of depth than a Michael Bay flick -- but if I think a film is trying to get at something deeper, which I think Looper was, that's what I tend to focus on afterwards. I like to watch people shoot each other, especially when it's nice and violent as Looper is, but my favourite part of a film experience is generally discussing afterwards with friends, and to me, the stuff I describe above makes for more interesting discussion than the plot.

When you say you don't give a rat's ass, do you mean you don't notice it, or you notice it but don't care?

Do you think Rian Johnson intended to get people thinking about that stuff? Or maybe I'm just reaching?

Quoted from Heretic Jeff, Yeah for sure serious. And I'm not surprised to hear that we don't watch movies in the same way...I am still surprised, though, and still think it's great, that we both like Eyes Wide Shut.   I like being entertained by films -- The Rock is my favourite film and there's little that's more completely devoid of depth than a Michael Bay flick -- but if I think a film is trying to get at something deeper, which I think Looper was, that's what I tend to focus on afterwards. I like to watch people shoot each other, especially when it's nice and violent as Looper is, but my favourite part of a film experience is generally discussing afterwards with friends, and to me, the stuff I describe above makes for more interesting discussion than the plot. When you say you don't give a rat's ass, do you mean you don't notice it, or you notice it but don't care? Do you think Rian Johnson intended to get people thinking about that stuff? Or maybe I'm just reaching?

No, Chris, I hear ya...I really do.

Sometimes I do "see" deeper meaning, and others, I don't even try to...or care about what it was supposed to mean.

Take Eyes Wide Shut, for example.  Do/did I see everything that Kubrick wanted me to, after 8 or so viewings?  I don't know...probably not, but I actually dug it after my first viewing, at the theater.

I think you may be reaching a bit with all you're bringing up, but then again, I don't know.

History will be kind to this film, much kinder than the critics, from what I've seen.

Early on in the movie, I was down on it, because I thought the plot holes were going to sink it. It's possible I missed the explanations for certain things, but I was spending way too much time asking questions.

Many had answers if you thought about it. For example, why don't they just send bodies back from the future? The answer is if they kill them in the future, authorities will immediately know, though for some reason they won't miss the person if he's transported to the past.

Why not just send these guys back a few million years? I guess there is a limit how far back or something.

Anyways, if you stop digging for some of the paradoxes inevitable with time loops, and try to accept the premise, the movie becomes cool. And almost much more than cool.

It didn't quite go where I thought it was going to go, and if it had, I think it could have perhaps become a sci fi film of historical premise. Let me explain and hopefully someone's willing to play along.

WARNING, SPOILERS and maybe even ARC discussion to follow! Don't say you weren't warned Jeff!

Let's consider what the standard hero's journey type story is. Our main character is presented with a challenge, he has a flaw, and he must overcome that flaw in order to succeed in the end.

Your basic character arc.

Think about how much you could do with a character arc in a story like this!  

Here's the movie premise: when a looper survives to the point in the future where time travel is happening, he has to be killed. He can't be there when a new version of himself is born. Something like that. The loopers accept this.

(Here's where another tricky issue comes up: the looper that survives all the way to the time travel period has to be sent back and killed. Fine. But why does he have to be killed by his looped self? Why can't they get another looper to do it?)

Ok, so the surviving loopers are sent back to be killed by themselves. Sometimes the looper with the gun freezes, and the older version runs.

That's where the fun starts. There's a really cool scene where the young looper is slowly killed by removing body parts, and the old looper, now in the same period, has the effects take place in him, with body parts disappearing.

Where the story opened up for me was when the Bruce version of himself started talking about the connection between his memory and the memories made by his younger self. If the younger self meets someone while the older one is in this world,  the older self suddenly has the same memory.

Now do you see why I brought up character arc?! It's a very strange arc that loops on itself. If the younger self learns a lesson, in theory the older self now learns it too.

Ok, so the older self(Bruce Willis) has found love with a nice Asian girl. But then we have the next development in the story. There's a mutation that has formed within humanity that allows part of the population to have some minor telekinetic power. Well, in the future along comes this guy, the Rainmaker, with enormous powers, and he decides to destroy all of the loopers. As a result, guys come in and shoot Bruce and his Asian lady.

The only way Bruce can save the lady is to loop back in time and make sure the rainmaker is destroyed as a boy. He has a birth date and a hospital, and it turns out 3 boys were born on that day. So he has 3 addresses, and he must kill all 3 boys.

It doesn't come easy for him to kill a boy. And he has already lectured his younger self on being self absorbed. But he does shoot the two kids, and is on his way to the third.

But the story did not go where I thought it would, and that it should have. What I thought we had was a race for the young looper to fulfill his character arc before his older self killed the last kid. If the younger self learned to be unselfish, to be consistent, the older self should have also learned the lesson, just like the memories changed within him. That would have made this brilliant!

They didn't go there. The young self learned the lesson, but the older self remained determined to kill the boy. Only the suicide of the younger saves the kid by making the older disappear as though having never existed.

So the movie stimulated thought. And the rest was plenty good enough to entertain. I think there was a missed opportunity to loop that character arc, which would have been really cool. The film was still effective enough as is.  

Thumbs up for sure. Much better than Prometheus, IMO.

Note: Jeff, I assume the gold and silver ingots were because you can't send cash from the future, or whatever currency they have then. For example, if you wanted to send money back in time to your grandfather, what would you send? Might be hard to find bills from that era. So you send ingots.

Finally caught up with this one over the weekend. And...
I wasn't impressed. On many levels, at all.

Really wanted to like this one.
I want to support outside the box cinema getting a worldwide release.
I want films like this and District 9 to succeed in pushing original content.

But this one left me cold on many levels...
At first, it seems that Bruce Willis is the more sympathetic one.
But as the story progresses, he's the monster that JGL was in the beginning.
It's like the lessons never consistently transferred as the memories did.

I still don't see why this script needed the mob and the TK stuff.
Guess it's a conscious choice to go with plot over characterization.
Wanted to know two side of the same guy more than all the future junk.

In Brick and Brothers Bloom, I felt beating hearts behind the pithy dialogue.
Pleased the film succeeded enough to encourage Hollywood to foster bold ideas.
But the convoluted nature of the story smothered my interest.

And JGL's makeup looked more like Bogart than Bruce.

E.D.

Yes, the lessons transferring when the memories did was the idea that intrigued me most, as I said above in a more long winded way. They didn't go that route, though.

I think it's hard to do time loop movies without serious questions arising.

I am trying to take a more generous approach to movies than I used to. Same with scripts.

I look at it this way: if we only like 1 or 2 movies a year, we're setting the standard too high perhaps. I kind of dissed Planet of the Apes, and that was a mistake on my part. I should have just appreciated it for what it was.

Similar to scripts. I've seen people on Carson's blog who trash every script. But I wonder what they would do if they had to select a top 25 like Carson has on his blog. Could they find 25 scripts worthy of production? Could they find 5?

Looper definitely has all the flaws you pointed out. But I think it's making the attempt, and does a pretty good job of entertaining while it does.

I'm new to the movie thing, so my approach is probably more fluid and subject to wild swings than most people! Who knows, maybe soon I'll like Transformers 17!

Quoted from Heretic Andrew, I thought the telling of the film was fairly straight-forward? Didn't think we were meant to be confused, or see things as complicated, except for perhaps the few moments after Gordon-Levitt falls, the film cuts to black, and then it skips back to him killing himself. Basically, the first half-hour is Gordon-Levitt's backstory, the next half-hour-ish is Willis' backstory, and the final hour is a somewhat overly static second and third act.  Willis' story even picks up right where it should, in linear terms, and then leads right back to where it should -- I saw the whole film as a linear telling of the events as they would have happened the first time around (ie, he grew up as a looper which caused him to kill himself which caused him to go to China which caused him to meet his wife which caused her to die which caused him to go back in time which caused him to try to kill the Rainmaker which caused him to kill himself in the first place -- though none of this addresses Albino's highly valid point that the first cause for the Rainmaker's hatred of Loopers doesn't exist). Or did I read that wrong?

Sorry Chris, I've only just seen this now the thread has popped back up.

No, it does tell it in the way you say more or less, but those constituent elements are weaved together in a way that - at least through my lens - is intended to bamboozle the viewer a little. That was unnecessary as it didn't elevate the experience at all.

Totally agree that the film is very simple, but it felt like the director purposely made a stylistic decision to cultivate a narrative fog in order to lure the viewer into thinking about bigger themes - a fog I think unnecessarily engulfed the story with an unitended lack of clarity. It's fair to break up the puzzle, as long as sufficient clarity is reached at some point - but whether or not it was a lack of depth in the characters/story or simply a botched attempt at the job, I think the director fell short. I just think he should've let the story breathe a little. The ending would've packed a lot more resonance as a consequence.

I, like many others, had mixed reviews on this movie.

I enjoyed the 1st Act, thought it slowed too much in the 2nd Act, and had a short 3rd Act.

Some of the flaws that bugged me (and has been mentioned already):

- Sending the Looper back to be killed by yourself. Seems a bad idea. Should be sent to someone else.
- Why not kill the Looper in present day and send back body to be disposed off?
- Why not strip the Looper in present day and send back 100 million years?

Meh. I can live with these flaws.

What threw me off was that 2 stories emerged and seemed to struggle instead of living in harmony. It moves from a Time Travelling sci-fi thriller to a TK movie. I thought the pace changed too abrumptly and the focus moved away from what was originally setup in the 1st Act (premise) to a second 'mini' movie from the middle of the 2nd Act.

I ask myself... would that movie have worked without TK? My answer is Yes. I didn't see the need for it. It's like the original story/plot could not last a full movie and they needed some additional storylines.

As Heretic mentioned above, I did seem some deeper meanings about family, loss of life and loved ones, revenge, cyclical/heriditary violence, loneliness. That was the strong point to the movie.

A rambling review? Yes.

One Question that I didn't see answered above, which I am sure has a major impact in the story and Time Travel:

Shortly after we have Bruce Willis arrive in the past and escape, we have a quick shot of that scene repeating itself and JGL killing him (as originally expected). Then it jumps onward with the story of Willis on the run. Anyone else think about this scene and what it means????

edit - it seems Heretic did mention it above.

Mac

Can answer one question. The reason they cannot kill and then send the body to another time is because in that part of the future, authorities can instantly detect when someone is killed. They don't explain how, and they don't explain why it's not a problem when someone just disappears.

Why they would have a looper kill himself is something I could never figure out.

Nor why they don't just send someone back to a time when Earth was molten lava. Presumably there is a limit to where they loop to, but it would have to be a range, since they don't keep sending people back to the exact same time.

Quoted from leitskev Mac Can answer one question. The reason they cannot kill and then send the body to another time is because in that part of the future, authorities can instantly detect when someone is killed. They don't explain how, and they don't explain why it's not a problem when someone just disappears.

Right! I remember now - it was part of the opening dialogue. But, like you said, they never mentioned how and why.

I liked this film.  Like some others here I thought it was much deeper than your average action movie and wasn't at all about what you saw on the surface.  

I agree with the comments about looping being a sort of silly practice.  However,  I also think this movie wasn't meant to be taken quite so literally but more poetically.  If you think about it like a poem then the movie is actually quite beautiful and in that context it almost makes perfect sense.

I say almost because there was something nagging me about the logic used and I finally figured out what it was.   If you accept the whole looping concept, silly as it is, then when the looper's older self runs -- the gang grabs the young looper and mutilates him.  They do this because they don't want the older self changing time.   However, they themselves are changing time by mutilating the young looper.  I don't think their bosses would agree with that practice because any change the gang makes could easily affect their bosses in the future.  That to me was a major logic error.  

But I still like the film anyway.    

  

Saw this a week ago. I loved it. Often I don't have the energy to sit through the whole movie but this one kept me engaged throughout.

There was something that bothered me and it's (SPOILERS) why a killer has kill himself, why not someone else. But that's the only part. Maybe it's because I watched it in Russian and the translation wasn't great - but I totally missed why.

Otherwise - great twists. I loved the fact that the two - him now and him in 30 years are portrayed like different people, different minds, desires and the two ultimately work against each other - what a thought! For me the idea is simply great.

Loved it!

Kham,

I think it was explained in one of the V.O. speeches in the beginning of the film.

When a looper's contract is up and they send the older version back in time for the younger version to kill, they don't send him back to a different looper because there is a bigger payout attached.  They send the looper his "retirement pay" strapped to the older version.  Then from that point, he only lives 30 more years.

There is supposed to be a hood covering the face of the older looper, so the younger looper won't know he is "retired" until after he shoots the older looper and sees the retirement payout.

I hope that just doesn't cause more confusion.  

I liked the film.  Probably because I don't usually overthink sci-fi movies.  I just enjoy them for what they are... entertainment.

Quoted from DaveTroop They send the looper his "retirement pay" strapped to the older version.  Then from that point, he only lives 30 more years. There is supposed to be a hood covering the face of the older looper, so the younger looper won't know he is "retired" until after he shoots the older looper and sees the retirement payout.

Oh, okay, I remember they payed in silver bricks. Yeah, thanks! Makes great sense.

Great movie, absolutely loved it.

I re-watched a nifty BluRay of the film again...
And I still have the same question.

Why do you need telekinesis to tell this story?

I still didn't get it.
It feels in the way to me.
Was so jazzed to see two sides of the same guy square off with each other.

And then it becomes about temper tantrums and identified flying objects.
What am I missing here?!?

E.D.

Quoted from Electric Dreamer I re-watched a nifty BluRay of the film again... And I still have the same question. Why do you need telekinesis to tell this story? I still didn't get it. It feels in the way to me. Was so jazzed to see two sides of the same guy square off with each other. And then it becomes about temper tantrums and identified flying objects. What am I missing here?!? E.D.

Yeah, I just don't get it either. I was always taught that if I could take a storyline out of my script, and it still works, do we need the storyline in the first place?

This is an example of a movie that could have benefited without it.

Stew

There could have been other ways to do it, but he needs to be able to set things up so that he has to come into the past to hunt for that messiah like kid who is destined to hunt the loopers. Which is a loop issue in itself, as his hunting the kid is probably what turns the kid against the loopers as he tries to prevent the looper from going back to try to kill him and mother, or sister, whatever she ways.

I know that sounds convoluted. It's the Terminator scenario basically, but with more of a twist.

In Terminator, the kid is going to lead a revolution. So the writer needs to give this kid a special skill. He went with this telekinesis thing. What other options could he have come up with? I don't know, but this works as good as any, probably. It has to be big enough where an ordinary kid will come to immense power.

One thing bugged the hell out of me...

How could they kill Old Joe's wife in the future?  I know it was essential to the plot but still, it makes no sense to me.  The main rule in this films reality is that the mafia cannot kill people in the future and have to send them 30 years back to be executed.  Without this rule, there would have been no loopers and thus no movie.

Yet when the henchmen came to pickup Old Joe they killed his wife, which is what makes him go on a vendetta to kill the rainmaker.

Can someone explain why, in the future, it's apparently fine to kill the wife but not the actual guy?  Then afterwards, they set a housefire to... maybe I'm wrong... to dispose of any evidence of the wife's body?  To cover up their mistake, right?  By setting the house fire, couldn't they just dispose Old Joe's body this way as well?

I feel like this was a huge plothole.  I really wanted to love this movie but this bit really held the film down.

ONEY

Excellent point, Mendoza. I did think of this while watching. My only explanation is that the wife was killed outside of the U.S. So this no killing rule only applies to the United States. I think she was in Honk Kong or something. Somewhere in China.

Quoted from leitskev Excellent point, Mendoza. I did think of this while watching. My only explanation is that the wife was killed outside of the U.S. So this no killing rule only applies to the United States. I think she was in Honk Kong or something. Somewhere in China.

But wasn't old Joe there with her as well?

Quoted from Oney.Mendoza One thing bugged the hell out of me... How could they kill Old Joe's wife in the future?  I know it was essential to the plot but still, it makes no sense to me.  The main rule in this films reality is that the mafia cannot kill people in the future and have to send them 30 years back to be executed.  Without this rule, there would have been no loopers and thus no movie. Yet when the henchmen came to pickup Old Joe they killed his wife, which is what makes him go on a vendetta to kill the rainmaker. Can someone explain why, in the future, it's apparently fine to kill the wife but not the actual guy?  Then afterwards, they set a housefire to... maybe I'm wrong... to dispose of any evidence of the wife's body?  To cover up their mistake, right?  By setting the house fire, couldn't they just dispose Old Joe's body this way as well? I feel like this was a huge plothole.  I really wanted to love this movie but this bit really held the film down. ONEY

Good point. The director definitely bit off far more than he could chew. My vote for most pretentious movie of the year!

Quoted from Oney.Mendoza How could they kill Old Joe's wife in the future? ONEY

Valid point (sigh) - I loved the movie.

They were outside the U.S. Pretty sure that's why they could kill her. Apparently the one world government thing never happens.

Don just posted the Looper script so I started reading it.

Great read! Heaps of white, the expo is short, concise and sets it all up nicely. I haven't seen the film but you just picture Bruce as Joe does his stuff. Also kept thinking of the The 5th Element and 12 Monkeys, again because of the Bruce connection.

Anyway, things started going apeshit for me when the older Joe comes back and escapes. The plot seems to become very complex and I actually lost track of what the fuck was going on! The style of the writing may have contributed as it was done in a sort of casual tone. There were actually grammatical errors in it.

I kept reading it till about three qtrs but the enjoyment was gone. I'll re-read from the tricky bit and see what happens.

Nope, had to give up on this script. Tried re-reading from the bit where Old Joe comes back but it became too tedious and entangled.

Pity as I was digging it up till then.

Quoted from Dreamscale Even though it's quite unique in its setup and plot, it also feels very by the numbers.  I'm talking about various relationships and characters.  Almost as if certain "things" just had to be included here, which for me, is a mistake. (the mob?  For reals?  C'mon now...).

From the very first, the concept presented in the trailers has kept me at arms length from this movie, and I haven't seen it yet as a result. I got the distinct feeling that the very concept would be so out-there/convoluted, that it would be little more than a showcase of flashy visuals and big names to hide a shallow premise. Leading to point two, there... really? The mob? I reacted the same way, Dreamscale. Kudos. For so long, they've gotten away with what they do just fine. Do they really need to go to such great lengths - to the energy expenditure of ripping holes in space time - to whack somebody? Erhm ughh arrgaagrrr... I'll see it.... yeah, I'll see it, because I breathe sci-fi, and if I don't get enough of it over a period of time, sure, I turn blue and die, eyes bulging out of my head... but probably only once it falls into my lap. I'll have to leave real judgments for later, but this is one that did not seem to have enough going for it at its heart to even pull me into the seat.

No one gets my money for free.

Also, I make my own currency, but it's not recognized by most countries (as of yet).
The island of Nauru does, apparently, but that place is made of petrified bird poop, and is divided up into square inches so that the Russian Mob can launder money.
Now there's a mob... and well, probably the only proof that the mob CAN, on occasion, put their hands into pretty convoluted schemes... and bird poop.

Quoted from Dreamscale   My hat is off to young Pierce Gagnon, as Cid, who grows up to be the evil "Rainmaker". In all seriousness, I'd say his performance was one of the best by a child that I can remember.

Cannot agree more. The child was a solid actor. He really does need more praise.

Thought I'd share this for some lawls.  

'Everything Wrong With Looper in 3 Minutes'

http://youtu.be/XwDbqhl_p3g

ONEY