Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Looper - Bruce Willis, Joseph Gordon-Levitt


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-10-2012, 16:50
IslandNiles
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,728
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.
IslandNiles is online now   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 02-10-2012, 19:05
Gordie1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: North East
Posts: 5,027
I noticed one of the actors in it played a Terminator in the TV series.

Quite a good film IMO.
Gordie1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 19:15
Stansfield
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 5,308
I didn't notice the Crop Circles....
Stansfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 19:18
heiker
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,411
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.
heiker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 23:14
dreamycreamy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Behind you!
Posts: 1,516
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)
dreamycreamy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 23:41
boddism
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: South Coast
Posts: 13,701
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


Also I was a bit disapponted in the look of the film.
Spoiler
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 23:43
boddism
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: South Coast
Posts: 13,701
I don't think that's really a spoiler, but just in case.

Spoiler
THis movie just screams "global recession". I liked that apocalyptic element to it, but I also thought that'd date it very quickly...
boddism is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 23:51
Yuffie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Scotland
Posts: 4,948
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.
Yuffie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 07:14
MissDexter
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,554
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.
MissDexter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 12:46
Dizzle
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 409
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.
Dizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 14:24
SlashNX
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: South
Posts: 3,465
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.
SlashNX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 15:09
starsailor
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,599
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
starsailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 15:41
CJClarke
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The Middle of Nowhere
Posts: 7,265
it's certainly a great deal more accurate than probably I Robot set in 2035..only 23 years away.
Spoiler
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.
CJClarke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 18:20
rawr
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,230
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.
rawr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 18:52
IslandNiles
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,728
The age of the son is easily verifiable. His date of birth was shown on that piece of paper.
IslandNiles is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 19:13
MissDexter
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,554
Her son was clearly not 10.
Yeah, that niggled me a bit - the young actor was only about 6/7
MissDexter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 19:19
rawr
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,230
Yeah, that niggled me a bit - the young actor was only about 6/7
But the kid wasn't supposed to be 10
Spoiler
rawr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 19:24
MissDexter
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,554
I don't think that was made clear enough.
MissDexter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 20:52
Yuffie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Scotland
Posts: 4,948
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.

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
Yuffie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 21:22
MissDexter
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,554
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.
MissDexter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 21:49
GandalfsFeet
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 209
Why did they make JGL look like an old man's ass?
GandalfsFeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 22:15
Unigal07
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Up North.
Posts: 21,867
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.
Unigal07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 09:29
((((Dingo))))
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 155
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.
((((Dingo)))) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 22:39
brangdon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 10,639
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


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
brangdon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 01:00
MrSuper
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 6,792
No1 at the UK box office with over 2m. Not bad going for an indie sci-fi movie!
MrSuper is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:23.