[IslandNiles]

Originally Posted by heiker

Saw it today. Interesting film, excellent graphics but slightly too long. Also puzzled as to why Bruce Willis was in it. He wasn't the lead male so why give him a role

I noticed he still got top billing on the credits.

[Gordie1]

I noticed one of the actors in it played a Terminator in the TV series.

Quite a good film IMO.

[Stansfield]

Originally Posted by heiker

plus Signs

I didn't notice the Crop Circles....

[heiker]

Originally Posted by Stansfield

I didn't notice the Crop Circles....

The house in both films was surrounded by crops you couldn't see over the top of:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTgO18G5zjI

and a lot of time in both films is spend running through those crops.

[dreamycreamy]

Saw it a yesturday, really enjoyed it! Best film ive seen this year, would happily see it again in the cinema (i've heard its better on you second viewing)

[boddism]

Originally Posted by Yuffie

I was looking forward to this but was a bit disappointed by it.

Not an awful film, but I wouldn't be too bothered about seeing it again.

Re the ending

Spoiler

CJClarke hit the nail on the head a few posts up. If JGL killed himself, then he wouldn't have lived his life, so he'd never have gone back in time, and he would never have to have killed himself.

If that happened then he would have lived his life and then got sent back and the film would happen again.

Also I was a bit disapponted in the look of the film.

Spoiler

It was set in the late 40's (for the most part) but everywhere was so crummy looking. Not that I think everything in going to be chrome and shiny at that point but the cars, the were like our cars now with solar panels glued on. The farmhouse was like a farmhouse from this time.

I would have like things a bit more futuristic. These points are fairly petty but its just things I noticed.

As a person who's an uneasy fan of CGI (it drowns out many films, can often be distracting & ruin a film if it looks od or cheap) I found the relative lack of it here refreshing.

But then it didnt have an engrossing story to compensate for its loss.

To me, the glaring lack of CGI just pointed to "smaller budget" IMO

[boddism]

Originally Posted by blueisthecolour

I don't think that's really a spoiler, but just in case.

Spoiler

I did read before watching the film that having similar looking cars as now was deliberate. It was an attempt to show that despite some technical advancement that there had been little economic development in the preceding 30 years. Hence the increase in vagrancy and poverty as the welfare state became unaffordable/unpopular.

THis movie just screams "global recession". I liked that apocalyptic element to it, but I also thought that'd date it very quickly...

[Yuffie]

Originally Posted by boddism

As a person who's an uneasy fan of CGI (it drowns out many films, can often be distracting & ruin a film if it looks od or cheap) I found the relative lack of it here refreshing.

But then it didnt have an engrossing story to compensate for its loss.

To me, the glaring lack of CGI just pointed to "smaller budget" IMO

Well the thing is, they had some pretty cool bikes in it. The kind of things I would imagine to exist at that time. But the cars looked awful. Bad solar panels on them with wires everywhere.

Just seemed so strange.

And I don't mind that they didn't use CGI, but if you're setting a film in the future, you need it to look like the future. And I appreciate that they wanted it to look like an Armageddon of a recession had hit, but companies are still going to be innovative.

[MissDexter]

Originally Posted by Yuffie

Well the thing is, they had some pretty cool bikes in it. The kind of things I would imagine to exist at that time. But the cars looked awful. Bad solar panels on them with wires everywhere.

Just seemed so strange.

And I don't mind that they didn't use CGI, but if you're setting a film in the future, you need it to look like the future. And I appreciate that they wanted it to look like an Armageddon of a recession had hit, but companies are still going to be innovative.

How on earth would you know what the future will look like?

It's all guess work, if you go by Back to the Future we're only a few years away from HoverBoards, Flying Cars, mini vacuum pizza that cooks in a few seconds.

[Dizzle]

Originally Posted by Yuffie

Well the thing is, they had some pretty cool bikes in it. The kind of things I would imagine to exist at that time. But the cars looked awful. Bad solar panels on them with wires everywhere.

Just seemed so strange.

And I don't mind that they didn't use CGI, but if you're setting a film in the future, you need it to look like the future. And I appreciate that they wanted it to look like an Armageddon of a recession had hit, but companies are still going to be innovative.

Because cars in 1982 looked so incredibly different to how cars look today?

It's only set 30 years in the future. This isn't the Jetsons.

[SlashNX]

Originally Posted by boddism

As a person who's an uneasy fan of CGI (it drowns out many films, can often be distracting & ruin a film if it looks od or cheap) I found the relative lack of it here refreshing.

But then it didnt have an engrossing story to compensate for its loss.

To me, the glaring lack of CGI just pointed to "smaller budget" IMO

I love these comments because it proves just how ignorant you are about CGI. The film is FULL TO THE BRIM of it! But because its GOOD CGI and does the job its supposed to you can't tell.

[starsailor]

Originally Posted by Dizzle

Because cars in 1982 looked so incredibly different to how cars look today?

It's only set 30 years in the future. This isn't the Jetsons.

it's certainly a great deal more accurate than probably I Robot set in 2035..only 23 years away.

Spoiler

(aprt from the TKbit of course, which seems are Emily Blunts character is in her late 20s or so would have to be born in the next few years to be that age in 2044 or so)

[CJClarke]

Originally Posted by starsailor

it's certainly a great deal more accurate than probably I Robot set in 2035..only 23 years away.

Spoiler

(aprt from the TKbit of course, which seems are Emily Blunts character is in her late 20s or so would have to be born in the next few years to be that age in 2044 or so)

Emily Blunt's character was 32, i remember her saying that she had her son at 22 and he was now 10 years old, so she would have been born in 2012.

[rawr]

Originally Posted by CJClarke

Emily Blunt's character was 32, i remember her saying that she had her son at 22 and he was now 10 years old, so she would have been born in 2012.

Her son was clearly not 10.

[IslandNiles]

The age of the son is easily verifiable. His date of birth was shown on that piece of paper.

[MissDexter]

Originally Posted by rawr

Her son was clearly not 10.

Yeah, that niggled me a bit - the young actor was only about 6/7

[rawr]

Originally Posted by MissDexter

Yeah, that niggled me a bit - the young actor was only about 6/7

But the kid wasn't supposed to be 10

Spoiler

she only said that to throw off the guy asking the questions.

[MissDexter]

I don't think that was made clear enough.

[Yuffie]

Originally Posted by MissDexter

How on earth would you know what the future will look like?

It's all guess work, if you go by Back to the Future we're only a few years away from HoverBoards, Flying Cars, mini vacuum pizza that cooks in a few seconds.

Clearly its what I think the future will look like, rather than knowing it.

Originally Posted by Dizzle

Because cars in 1982 looked so incredibly different to how cars look today?

It's only set 30 years in the future. This isn't the Jetsons.

Take a look at these 3 cars,


1980's car

2012 car

Looper car


Now I know I just took images from t'net and if I wanted, I could have have taken an 1980's ferrari and had technology look like it was going backwards.

But my point was, I would like to imagine that in the 2040's, things would have progressed a small bit.


This is quite an interesting photo. Shows one futuristic one and one of the shitty solar panel ones beside each other.

Both cars

[MissDexter]

I imagine it will take a VERY long time for the future to be Minority Report style.
There will no doubt be big technological advancements but I bet 2040 would be very much a mix of ultra-future and old-crap.

Many places worldwide struggle to find funding for regeneration for many reasons - I can't see much changing in 30 years. There are many many places, cars, buildings etc that look the same or very similar to what they did in 1982.

[GandalfsFeet]

Why did they make JGL look like an old man's ass?

[Unigal07]

Saw Looper today. Really enjoyed it but I'm a tad in love with JGL so I'm incredibly biased. However the OH really enjoyed it too. Interesting ending.

[((((Dingo))))]

I thought it was a great movie, I thought the cast was great, the star of the show had to be Cid, he gave a brilliant performance, to think he was 5 when this was filmed.

[brangdon]

I enjoyed Looper at the time, but the plot doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. I'm not bothered by time travel paradoxes, but other stuff.

Spoiler

Why wouldn't the gangster kill their victims before sending the bodies to the past, and so avoid the risk of a victim escaping? If it's so hard to kill, why did they murder the hero's wife so casually?

However, there was a lot that I liked, including bits which I gather others didn't like. The general look of the place, for example, I thought was well-done.

Spoiler

I'm glad the Rainmaker didn't turn out to be GJL. I liked that the woman he fancied really wasn't into him. I liked how smart the boy was.

[MrSuper]

No1 at the UK box office with over £2m. Not bad going for an indie sci-fi movie!