# Looper (aka how is there not a thread for this movie yet?)



## Xaios (Oct 2, 2012)

I swear that I saw another thread for this movie several months ago when it was first announced, but even a Google search didn't turn up anything except spam threads that had already been deleted by the mods.

So, without further ado...

For those that aren't aware, the movie is about an assassin, called a Looper, who works for the mob in the year 2044 (I think). 30 years in the future from that point, time travel has since been invented and outlawed. As a result, only powerful crime syndicates use it as a way to dispose of people they want killed, as it is apparently quite difficult to dispose of a body in the future. They're called Loopers because they're eventually forced to kill their future-selves, thus "closing their loop." The movie is about how one Looper's future self manages to evade execution once he's sent back, and goes to work on changing the future, while trying to evade both the present-day mob and his former self.

I saw the movie last night, and I enjoyed it very much. It has some great emotional scenes (even Bruce Willis gets some actual drama ), and the action is wonderfully old school.

It bears mentioning that the time travel mechanics of the movie don't _really_ stand up to scrutiny. It's hard to hold it against the film though, because time travel in itself is an awesome storytelling device; it's simply that the temporal mechanics behind time travel screw everything up with a dose of reality. However, they're used quite judiciously here, and the difficulty in reconciling time travel is at least acknowledged, in the form of self-fulfilling prophecies and how changes to the past based on foreknowledge of the future alters that future.

The acting was quite impressive. None of the characters seemed overwrought, but everyone had clear motivation and acted accordingly. An especially nice surprise was Emily Blunt. Considering she's never played a character (to my knowedge) that wasn't British, her Heartland American accent is actually quite convincing. The young actor (I don't know his name) who plays her son is also _extremely_ effective in his role.

The movie also has some visual occurences that will definitely shock a bit with their extreme gravitas, similar to...



Spoiler



...the ending of Pan's Labyrinth when Captain Vidal shoots Ophelia.



It was surprising to see a movie like this contain plot events that were so _dark_, but those moments genuinely doesn't feel forced, and are necessary to the plot.

So, in summary, great movie. The time travel aspects may not work on paper, but they're quite effective as a storytelling device. The acting, action, and setting were all also quite convincing.

Recommended.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 2, 2012)

I've heard it's great. I'll be checking it out come Friday.


----------



## Choop (Oct 2, 2012)

Spoilers!



Spoiler



I really liked the movie! The style and general details were really great. The only thing I would change is to not give the kid crazy telekinetic powers. It seemed out of place given the tone of the rest of the movie, and I think it could have worked just as well if nobody knew if he was the rain man or not. It wasn't really important, the important thing was what happened to Joe as a result. He could have just gotten really attached to the kid and wanted to save him solely because of that. Still cool movie, I also really dug the montage of Joe becoming a killer mob assassin dude.


----------



## Xaios (Oct 2, 2012)

Choop said:


> Spoilers!
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



While it would have been an interesting idea to leave the fact of the kid being the Rainmaker or not ambiguous, taking away his TK would have deprived the movie of some of its most powerful moments. The rage on his face when he has the tantrum ("8, 16... 32") was downright fucking scary, and the somber resignation in his eyes as he's sitting in the field, drenched in the blood of the hitman that he had just exploded was also a really powerful moment.



Seriously, the kid in this movie really blew me away with how well he acted his part, one of the most intense child performances I've ever seen.


----------



## Skyblue (Oct 2, 2012)

Just saw it yesterday, thought it was pretty good actually. I like JGL, and Bruce Willis is, well, Bruce Willis, plot was clever enough to be interesting yet not too clever to just confuse the fuck out of you (and I was worried about that, as time travel is a bit dangerous in that aspect) and the flow was good. 

All in all, I definitely recommend watching it.


----------



## CharliePark (Oct 2, 2012)

Saw it the other day and really liked it. For some reason it reminded me of the Fallout games. Dunno what the woman was doing chopping that stump up though, what the fuck was she doing?


----------



## ilyti (Oct 2, 2012)

I don't mind the time travel rules being thrown out the window in favour of a good story. I _enjoyed_ Back to the Future and Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.


----------



## soundgardener75 (Oct 2, 2012)

I enjoyed it for the most part, I just think the ending could've been excuted better.



Spoiler



Piper Perabo's topless scene.  And JGL's eyebrows bothered me the entire movie.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Oct 3, 2012)

I thought it was brilliant, though a little confusing at times. Definitely better than I was expecting it to be though.


----------



## PeteyG (Oct 3, 2012)

Just saw it and there's a paradoxical issue that is bothering me.



Spoiler



The kid grows up to become the Rainmaker, growing up alone and bitter because his mum (Emily Blunt) is killed before his eyes, who is killed by future Joe (Bruce Willis). It is also the Rainmaker existing in the future as an evil crime lord who gets Joe's wife killed that is the reason for future Joe to make the choice to go back in time to try and kill the kid, which is how he ends up killing the kids mum. That, as a premise, I'm fine with.

HOWEVER, when we are told the story of how future Joe became future Joe, leaving town and eventually meeting his wife, we are also shown that future Joe killed his own future self. Surely this would mean that in future Joe's story the kid wouldn't experience his mum getting killed in front of his eyes, and then not growing up alone and bitter and as such, unable to become the Rainmaker?



Good film though, really enjoyed it, great cast and very very well made.


----------



## XEN (Oct 3, 2012)

The previews did a great job of keeping some of the best parts secret. It definitely had several "Whoa!" moments. I really enjoyed it. 

Joseph Gordon-Levitt has been a favorite actor of mine since the early days on 3rd Rock from the Sun. He's turned into a seriously grade A performer.


----------



## Choop (Oct 4, 2012)

Xaios said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



It was still too cheese for me personally. I don't care how intense his scenes were, they changed the tone of the movie and went with a pretty cliche angle about his character. I think there were far more powerful moments in the movie than the ones with the kid getting mad. I liked how in the beginning they made it out to be like tk wasn't a big deal, and was kind of a let down, and then the movie made it a big deal near the end with him. His powers are never explained anyway, so what would be the difference if he didn't have them at all? Cliche stuff like that in an otherwise pretty original environment and plot for a movie just feels out of place to me.


----------



## Xaios (Oct 4, 2012)

Choop said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> It was still too cheese for me personally. I don't care how intense his scenes were, they changed the tone of the movie and went with a pretty cliche angle about his character. I think there were far more powerful moments in the movie than the ones with the kid getting mad. I liked how in the beginning they made it out to be like tk wasn't a big deal, and was kind of a let down, and then the movie made it a big deal near the end with him. His powers are never explained anyway, so what would be the difference if he didn't have them at all? Cliche stuff like that in an otherwise pretty original environment and plot for a movie just feels out of place to me.





Spoiler



In a nutshell, it all breaks down to circular logic: event A happened because event B happened, which happened because event A happened and so forth. However, it does all hinge on the kid's super-TK, without which he wouldn't have been able to become the Rainmaker. That simple fact is what gives every major character in this movie reason for being.


----------



## Choop (Oct 5, 2012)

Xaios said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, it all breaks down to circular logic: event A happened because event B happened, which happened because event A happened and so forth. However, it does all hinge on the kid's super-TK, without which he wouldn't have been able to become the Rainmaker. That simple fact is what gives every major character in this movie reason for being.





Spoiler



The plot didn't really hinge on the kid's super tk, that's really something that I think the movie kind of messed up on..making the kid the focal point, and another late main character, kind of of takes focus off of the other real main characters (or one, Joe and Joe). The audience never actually has to know anything about the rainmaker other than that he's bad. The important thing is that Joe gets attached to Sid (Cid?) and ultimately kills himself to save the kid. It didn't need bad cgi, anime, mind power scenes to establish anything.



I still think it would have been better had it been ambiguous. Agree to disagree, I guess.


----------



## Bungle (Oct 5, 2012)




----------



## Xaios (Oct 5, 2012)

It's missing 2044.


----------



## soliloquy (Oct 6, 2012)

i thought piper perabos role was pointless. i still think shes hot but a pointless role for her

and other movies in the past regarding timetravel and alternative reality usually left loop holes unanswered. i thought this movie did an awesome job covering all loop holes

though i think the future can not exist without present actually occurring....but thats just me


----------



## SirMyghin (Oct 6, 2012)

Choop said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah I found that part of the movie to be where it really started to lose me. I found it pretty lame. Great acting, bad ending.



Spoiler



I found it detracted heavily and thought the first tantrum was just some uber movie cheese. Then it got worse by recurring....





PeteyG said:


> Just saw it and there's a paradoxical issue that is bothering me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



Goes too far to suggest determinism, the kid will be Rainmaker regardless. It can't have multiple realities because they dismiss that when Joe killing himself removes Joe. But then...Old Joe already killed older Joe.... I could look past these ones, no problem, but the whole super TK thing, not so much.


----------

