[Fear of Fours]

Can't wait to see this.

[Dave1979]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

Spoiler

I dont think it was casual - it was clearly an accident and I imagine he will get his ass served to him on a plate by the Rainmaker!

I was convinced early on The Rainmaker was going to be a limbless noseless Paul Dano as he plays creepy so well

I was amazed by the number of confused people commenting coming out of the cinema. It was not that complicated. If films like this and Inception had the basic level of complexity and brain-engagment for Holywood films I would be happy.

[theonlyweeman]

Loved it. One of the best movies I've seen of this year and possibly all time.

All these people claiming that the lack of it looking futuristic was an issue are weird, you look back at older films which tried to predict the future, they were all wrong, they all went too over the top and ridiculous, whereas this film got it right, it was futuristic and you could tell, but it was very much grounded.

[Mallaha]

I liked the future as a clapped out version of now, with some cool token technology (jet bikes) and a few mutations thrown in.

The time travel bits were rather confusing - people have said here what I thought though, so I won't repeat stuff.

Spoiler

I want to know what happened to Seth - did they let him live? Did he play any further part in the story?

I was quite interested in the other Loopers, and disappointed that they weren't really major characters. And what was the relationship between the Gat-Men and the Loopers? What did the Gat-Men spend most of their time doing?

[theonlyweeman]

Originally Posted by Mallaha

Spoiler

I want to know what happened to Seth - did they let him live? Did he play any further part in the story?

I was quite interested in the other Loopers, and disappointed that they weren't really major characters. And what was the relationship between the Gat-Men and the Loopers? What did the Gat-Men spend most of their time doing?

Spoiler

When Joe goes back to the house after he's given Seth up, he checks the hole and finds a gold block with blood on it. I took that to mean that he was shot inside the hole. I also thought there was a metaphor to it, as blood money, demonstrating that Joe had had his best friend (or one of them) killed simply because he wants the money, and he was then realizing how horrible that was.

[I may be entirely wrong with both of those. This being DS, I'd assume someone will jump in and call me stupid if that's the case]

[Mallaha]

Originally Posted by theonlyweeman

Spoiler

When Joe goes back to the house after he's given Seth up, he checks the hole and finds a gold block with blood on it. I took that to mean that he was shot inside the hole. I also thought there was a metaphor to it, as blood money, demonstrating that Joe had had his best friend (or one of them) killed simply because he wants the money, and he was then realizing how horrible that was.

[I may be entirely wrong with both of those. This being DS, I'd assume someone will jump in and call me stupid if that's the case]

Hmmm.

Spoiler

They definitely took him out of the safe to cut his appendages off - what happened to him after that?

[theonlyweeman]

Originally Posted by Mallaha

Hmmm.

Spoiler

They definitely took him out of the safe to cut his appendages off - what happened to him after that?

Spoiler

Ah yes, forgot about that. So he was probably only mutilated (possibly shot) in the hole, but not killed (I definitely remember the blood on the money and Young Joe seeing it and hating himself for what he'd just done) - you'd assume given what they were doing to him (in the torture scene) he'd have died soon after, but medical advances weren't talked about, and they appeared to reattach them with little difficulty, so my guess is that it was open ended, but you were meant to believe him dead.

Also, thank you for being the only reasonable person on DS, for correcting me, without calling me names or informing me that I'm stupid and don't deserve to be alive...

[Mallaha]

Originally Posted by theonlyweeman

Spoiler

Ah yes, forgot about that. So he was probably only mutilated (possibly shot) in the hole, but not killed (I definitely remember the blood on the money and Young Joe seeing it and hating himself for what he'd just done) - you'd assume given what they were doing to him (in the torture scene) he'd have died soon after, but medical advances weren't talked about, and they appeared to reattach them with little difficulty, so my guess is that it was open ended, but you were meant to believe him dead.

Also, thank you for being the only reasonable person on DS, for correcting me, without calling me names or informing me that I'm stupid and don't deserve to be alive...

Why would I do that? We're only chatting about a film.

Going back to what we were saying, he's not the only character that may have suffered this fate.

Spoiler

Kid Blue has a prosthetic foot which is referred to but never seen - did he really shoot his own foot off?

[theonlyweeman]

Originally Posted by Mallaha

Why would I do that? We're only chatting about a film.

Going back to what we were saying, he's not the only character that may have suffered this fate.

Spoiler

Kid Blue has a prosthetic foot which is referred to but never seen - did he really shoot his own foot off?

Apparently he goofs slightly in the shot where he's spinning his gun (I read somewhere Johnson chose that shot deliberately, because it made him laugh), so maybe he did or maybe he didn't, again not mentioned in the film. I think Johnson assumed you'd just accept it, and not question it, although it is kinda irrelevant, so I doubt he gave it tonnes of thought....

[theonlyweeman]

Also, just done a quick Google and apparently Sony Pictures Germany will be releasing Looper on blu-ray in February (21st to be precise), so we can expect a similar time over here. It's being released by Entertainment One in the UK, but based on their treatment of previous films it's unlikely to be that long a wait (2 days after the US, 6 before Germany for the one I checked)

[brangdon]

Originally Posted by Dave1979

Spoiler

I dont think it was casual - it was clearly an accident and I imagine he will get his ass served to him on a plate by the Rainmaker!

Spoiler

They had guns, and it seemed to me they were quite willing to use them. The guns were lethal. They'd have shot old Joe dead if he hadn't cooperated, I'm sure. I didn't see the shooting of his wife as an accident; it seemed like they shot her because they thought she was a threat.

[SarahMarie]

Thought Looper was great but a bit patchy. Didn't like the time machine, wish it had been a bit more original! JGL was excellent though:

Few of my thoughts on the film here - http://www.thisisafilmblog.com/looper-2012/

[maurice45]

I loved the film.

Spoiler

That kid was really creepy when he got annoyed. I knew exactly who he was supposed to be the moment I saw him though, particularly because of his way of thinking.

[Muttley76]

I thought this was pretty terrific, actually, and I went in a bit sceptical. I thought it was a smart concept, very well executed. Really nicely done. 9/10

[Matt35]

Saw this yesterday. thought it was ok but nothing special. one think i didn`t quite get, maybe someone could clear up.

Spoiler

At the end in the field When young joe realised he was the one that turned rainmaker evil. couldn`t he just kill his older self instead and carry on living his life from then on?

[metanoia]

Spoiler

He was to far away to use his blunderbus - they mentioned it's short range several times

[Matt35]

Thanks.

[Rhodes666]

Originally Posted by Matt35

Saw this yesterday. thought it was ok but nothing special. one think i didn`t quite get, maybe someone could clear up.

Spoiler

At the end in the field When young joe realised he was the one that turned rainmaker evil. couldn`t he just kill his older self instead and carry on living his life from then on?

Spoiler

Made me wonder why he didnt just blow his own hand off and old joe wouldnt be able to hold the gun or mother hostage,then just kill the old one

[dbob]

Saw this last night and enjoyed it very much.

Interesting story that made a change from the usual paint-by-numbers Hollywood sci-fi affairs we are use to.

I liked the directors vision of the future, it was well executed and felt very realistic. Can't believe some people are moaning about it not being futuristic enough, if you want flying cars and laser beams then maybe rubbish like Total Recall re-make is more up your street.

The whole mechanics of time travel can become a total mind f*** if you think about them too much so better to just switch off those thoughts and enjoy the film for what it is, a well made piece of sci-fi.

I would say a 4 out of 5, not as mind blowing as the Matrix but still one of my fav films of the year.

[MemphisJaxx]

I haven't seen this film but do intend to. I enjoy a good time-travel film as much as the next man however I find myself struggling with the flaws and paradoxes in most of these types of films and end up annoying the other half by talking incoherently about 'mistakes'.

Are there alot of holes in this film?
Or am I simply as annoying as the misses says?

I should state that at this point in time I am no master of the laws of time-travel. According to a familiar-looking, old man I met, I won't aquire that knowledge for a few decades yet. The crazy old fool!

[metanoia]

Originally Posted by MemphisJaxx

I haven't seen this film but do intend to. I enjoy a good time-travel film as much as the next man however I find myself struggling with the flaws and paradoxes in most of these types of films and end up annoying the other half by talking incoherently about 'mistakes'.

Are there alot of holes in this film?
Or am I simply as annoying as the misses says?

I should state that at this point in time I am no master of the laws of time-travel. According to a familiar-looking, old man I met, I won't aquire that knowledge for a few decades yet. The crazy old fool!

I'm quite similar to you in this respect, but I didn't really see that many errors (at least in the way time travel works in the film) whilst viewing it. On reflection after the film I did wonder why the main character made certain choices towards the end, when he had other less drastic alternatives.

Great film all in all, very nice to see intelligent Sci-fi again.

[JasonWatkins]

Saw it today and really enjoyed it. One of those films that was a teeny bit confusing to follow initially but as it went on, it all made more sense and in the end, it was spot on. very good indeed.

[rombod]

I really liked this, but there was one glaring inconsistency I thought. Or at least I think it was a hole:

Spoiler

So in the original timeline JGL kills Bruce Willis, succeeds in closing his own loop, moves to China, has his wife killed by Rainmaker, then is sent back in time, escapes his own looper and decides to change the past by killing Rainmaker. In the denouement it's revealed (??) that by doing so, Bruce Willis is actually the one to create Rainmaker, by shooting Emily Blunt. (I think?) So JGL kills himself to forcibly close the loop and apparently prevent Rainmaker from going bad. BUT!!!!! If Bruce Willis surviving his looper and shooting Emily is what made Rainmaker bad in the first place, then in the original timeline, when the loop is successfully closed, there wouldn't be a Rainmaker in the first place, as Bruce couldn't have been the one to kill R's mother, which he knows is the cause of R's badness, as he did not survive his own looper. But we know there is an evil Rainmaker as that's why Bruce fights to change the past in the first place... so the only conclusion is that someone else killed Emily, or the first Mum, in the first timeline and that the whole Bruce/JGL scenario doesn't really change anything overall. I don't know. My head hurts.

[SlashNX]

Originally Posted by rombod

I really liked this, but there was one glaring inconsistency I thought. Or at least I think it was a hole:

Spoiler

So in the original timeline JGL kills Bruce Willis, succeeds in closing his own loop, moves to China, has his wife killed by Rainmaker, then is sent back in time, escapes his own looper and decides to change the past by killing Rainmaker. In the denouement it's revealed (??) that by doing so, Bruce Willis is actually the one to create Rainmaker, by shooting Emily Blunt. (I think?) So JGL kills himself to forcibly close the loop and apparently prevent Rainmaker from going bad. BUT!!!!! If Bruce Willis surviving his looper and shooting Emily is what made Rainmaker bad in the first place, then in the original timeline, when the loop is successfully closed, there wouldn't be a Rainmaker in the first place, as Bruce couldn't have been the one to kill R's mother, which he knows is the cause of R's badness, as he did not survive his own looper. But we know there is an evil Rainmaker as that's why Bruce fights to change the past in the first place... so the only conclusion is that someone else killed Emily, or the first Mum, in the first timeline and that the whole Bruce/JGL scenario doesn't really change anything overall. I don't know. My head hurts.

The answer to your question

Spoiler

There are many different paths to the Rainmaker becoming the rainmaker. In the original timeline where Young Joe kills older Joe he becomes the Rainmaker because of anotther un-explained reason. I reckon we are to assume that because his Mum was poor there lives turn out bad enough he becomes the rain maker. In the new timeline Young Joe sees that if Old Joe kills Cid's mum the anger and loneliness will inevitably drive himself to become the Rainmaker, but if he doesnt then he atleast has a chance. Also when Joe kills himself he leaves behind all his gold which Cid and his Mum collect and obviously lead a happier life. So I think your expected to assume that in the original time line, Cid growing up poor made him the Rainmaker. And in the new timeline young Joe prevents this by saving his Cids mum and leaving them his fortune.

[rombod]

Originally Posted by SlashNX

The answer to your question

Ah, thanks, some of that makes sense to me. But:

Spoiler

The original Rainmaker's big M.O. is that he's obsessed with closing all the loops. I can't see how that trait would be fueled by growing poor. Wasn't it originally stated that a looper killed his mother? I can't remember. I definitely don't remember it being implied his issues were a result of poverty. If it was a different looper that killed his mum in the first timeline then the JGL/Bruce drama wouldn't really affect that original murder. I get what you're saying about there now being a chance... but nothing really changed for Rainmaker apart from Emily getting the money. Bruce caused that whole scenario/danger, and JGL closed it, but the kid's original development towards being the Rainmaker wasn't contingent on the threat of Bruce in the first place, so I can't see why it would change anything overall. I don't know. The whole noble sacrifice thing fell flat for me because the need for it arose in-film and was sorted in-film, whereas Rainmaker's true motivations appeared to result from far more than just that situation.