Looper - Bruce Willis, Joseph Gordon-Levitt

24567

Comments

  • brbbrb Posts: 27,405
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I saw it today. it was significantly better than I thought it would be. I thought it would be much more of a movie where the whole thing is spent chasing after a guy with car chases and the like - I was presently surprised.

    7/10
    The ending was a bit of a "shock" actually. Generally when watching a movie you know exactly what is going to happen, but throughout the movie I really didn't know where it was going or what would happen at the end. I'm glad they went down this route and did something to try and surprise us
  • PunksNotDeadPunksNotDead Posts: 21,125
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    brb wrote: »
    I saw it today. it was significantly better than I thought it would be. I thought it would be much more of a movie where the whole thing is spent chasing after a guy with car chases and the like - I was presently surprised.

    7/10
    The ending was a bit of a "shock" actually. Generally when watching a movie you know exactly what is going to happen, but throughout the movie I really didn't know where it was going or what would happen at the end. I'm glad they went down this route and did something to try and surprise us

    I kind of wanted it to be a cat and mouse type of film where willis and Levitt are trying to get away from the other loopers!
    Thought it was going in that direction in the first half then it changed to the farm house and film got a bit messy IMO
  • YuffieYuffie Posts: 9,864
    Forum Member
    Was going to go see this last night but didn't. It was a toss up between this and The Campaign and this didn't win. Will go see it during the week tho.

    Glad to hear ye like it!
  • MotthusMotthus Posts: 7,280
    Forum Member
    I saw Looper this morning and really enjoyed it.Its a really good film but its not perfect as parts of it are slow.I think the trailer is quite misleading as its not the action film that the trailer makes it out to be.It is a great film though!

    8/10
  • StansfieldStansfield Posts: 6,097
    Forum Member
    Motthus wrote: »
    I saw Looper this morning and really enjoyed it.Its a really good film but its not perfect as parts of it are slow.I think the trailer is quite misleading as its not the action film that the trailer makes it out to be.It is a great film though!

    8/10
    It's very misleading...
    6/10

    A cross between The Terminator and The Omen...but with laughs.
    And did Emily Blunt nearly chop her leg off, with that Axe....plus, the gun sticking in the ground, did that just happen with that take, and they kept it in.

    El Cid....the sequel.
  • boddismboddism Posts: 16,436
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I think the reviews saying this film was the best sci fi of the year or the best time travel film are WILDLY over exagggerating.

    Whilst this is good its not even the best Joseph Gordon-Levitt film of the year (Dark Knight Rises was much better)

    It is really nothing like the Matrix and a LOT like The Terminator.

    Anyone expecting an action film will be disappointed, this is a lot more talky than we've been lead to expect.

    Theres a paradox at the end:
    So Joseph Gordon-Levitts character lets the boy (Rainmaker) escape. but whos to say this was even a wise thing to do?? Theres NO guarantee this action would lead to the boy growing up "good"??

    At least that leaves the way open for a sequel if the whole cycle starts again a few years later! (VERY The Terminator!!)
  • Sez_babeSez_babe Posts: 133,998
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    I saw this today. I thought it was OK.
  • starsailorstarsailor Posts: 11,347
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    boddism wrote: »
    .

    Theres a paradox at the end:
    So Joseph Gordon-Levitts character lets the boy (Rainmaker) escape. but whos to say this was even a wise thing to do?? Theres NO guarantee this action would lead to the boy growing up "good"??

    At least that leaves the way open for a sequel if the whole cycle starts again a few years later! (VERY The Terminator!!)

    Thats true, the film doesn't fully show what might happen after the end, but
    I think it's taken to read that he has a different future. Remember the 'rumours' about the rain maker that he has a proshetic jaw and that he saw his mother murdered, well that happens in the film, but not quite...he almost gets shot in th mouth, and his mother almost dies,which would have sent him down the 'bad path'.

    The film clearly doesn't have the extreme visual flair of the Matrix, but then the whole CGIed to the hilt special effects thing has been overdone so much since then.

    The muted down style and emotionally damaged nature of all of the characters works well for this day and age, it's clearly drawing some definite lines from the breakdown in society and the gaps between rich and poor, which it does very well.

    It's not a huge smasher film, or a huge blockbuster, but I would say is a very good solid film for those which like more depth and thought to science fiction, and the type of film Hollywood needs to make, (rather than franchises or sequals, or comic book adaptations).

    And no sequel please. Just leave it as it is.....
  • LushnessLushness Posts: 38,158
    Forum Member
    I saw this yesterday. Great flm, very enjoyable; I will definitely rewatch.
  • MissDexterMissDexter Posts: 1,644
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The "This years Matrix" thing nearly put me off because I HATE The Matrix.

    Thankfully it's ten times better than that.
    Really enjoyed every aspect of it.

    If you close your eyes, Joseph GL sounds exactly like Bruce Willis.

    10/10
  • Alt-F4Alt-F4 Posts: 10,960
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Just seen this, a bit predictable but good entertainment from start to finish 7.5/10
  • SemieroticSemierotic Posts: 11,131
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I liked it, and we need more medium budget films like it to do well.

    It's hard not to think about the many plot holes afterwards though, as I guess is par for the course with any time-travel movie.
  • blueisthecolourblueisthecolour Posts: 20,119
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I saw this today with 2 friends. One friend really enjoyed it, I thought it was ok and my other friend hated it (though to be fair she's not really into sci-fi and only went for our benefit).

    I'm a bit of a harsh critic when it comes to recent films (not sure why) so take my opinion with a bit of salt but I was more disappointed that anything. I love time travel films but found the whole concept of this pretty stupid. The idea that time travel would be invented and then only used by gangsters to get rid of people they don't like isn't very logical. Also I do like films to give a bit of background about the future they present and that was clearly lacking.

    I thought that the story was nicely 'wrapped' up in the end in a way that I wasn't expecting but that the middle part of the film dragged quite a bit. I was expecting a fair amount of action and futuristic sci-fi stuff but the film spends a long time in a very non futuristic farm house. I'm not adverse to a degree of character building and slow story telling, and the pay off was good, but I felt that it didn't blend very well with the rest of the film.

    The film indulges itself in age old cinema cliches such as 'bad guys can't shot' and isn't ashamed to use the usual plot devices. By and large it does it quite well but it's not one that's going to stay with me.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,305
    Forum Member
    Just saw it and and really enjoyed it, even if the ending didn't exactly make sense:
    If he shot himself in the field then none of the events of the film could happen as he would never have been chasing his future self.

    Regardless though i'm going to take Bruce Willis's advice and not try and wrap my head around time travel laws as i'll just get confused, so i'm just going say that i enjoyed it immensely:p

    9/10
  • boddismboddism Posts: 16,436
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    haha! Good points on your spoiler there!!

    I thought that perhaps he was an idiot for
    not following Bruce Willis's advice, he could well have been right that the boy was a danger, whether his mother was killed or not
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 13,367
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    boddism wrote: »
    Theres a paradox at the end:
    So Joseph Gordon-Levitts character lets the boy (Rainmaker) escape. but whos to say this was even a wise thing to do?? Theres NO guarantee this action would lead to the boy growing up "good"??

    What you're describing isn't a paradox, but you're right that there's no guarantee. However:
    JGL had listened to the mum saying she hoped he could control it and do good with it. And he saw that at the end, she was able to talk him down. And he also realised (as I'd predicted quite early in the film) that it was actually he who created the Rainmaker in the first place, by shooting Sarah in front of the boy.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 13,367
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    boddism wrote: »
    haha! Good points on your spoiler there!!

    I thought that perhaps he was an idiot for
    not following Bruce Willis's advice, he could well have been right that the boy was a danger, whether his mother was killed or not

    I suppose that's the moral dilemma, isn't it.
    If someone from the future tells you that a child grows up to be a very bad person, should you kill them? They're not a bad person yet, they're just a child. To be honest, the Bruce Willis character was already beyond redemption, having killed one innocent child.
  • Rincewind78Rincewind78 Posts: 2,198
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    JGL had listened to the mum saying she hoped he could control it and do good with it. And he saw that at the end, she was able to talk him down. And he also realised (as I'd predicted quite early in the film) that it was actually he who created the Rainmaker in the first place, by shooting Sarah in front of the boy.
    well that's not so true for Bruce Willis' timeline though - as in that timeline, Bruce lived, wasted and regretted his life as a druggie and the Rainmaker still grew up on the farm without intervention from anyone and became all powerful and evil.
    Granted, JGL saw himself create a more evil Rainmaker.
    why didn't Bruce just not go after the gang leaders/members in their youths ??
  • starsailorstarsailor Posts: 11,347
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I suppose that's the moral dilemma, isn't it.
    If someone from the future tells you that a child grows up to be a very bad person, should you kill them? They're not a bad person yet, they're just a child. To be honest, the Bruce Willis character was already beyond redemption, having killed one innocent child.

    It effectively the old
    'If you could, would you kill Hiltler as a baby'
    moral dilemma....
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,926
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I was a little disappointed, I have to say. It was good, but it's not a five star movie. Nice work from JGL though. Ignoring the make-up, the little Willis-esque facial expressions he used were very good.

    The Omen stuff is, to be frank, a little lame and
    the TK stuff is really only there so as to make the debate about killing a child slightly more complicated. I think I'd have preferred it if the kid was just a normal well-adjusted boy with no hint of becoming The Rainmaker
    .

    The best time travel movie? Well, that's still Back to the Future. The best time travel movie starring Bruce Willis? Um, that's 12 Monkeys.

    But this is relatively smart, intriguing and has some great moments. Go see.
  • YuffieYuffie Posts: 9,864
    Forum Member
    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
    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.
    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.
  • heikerheiker Posts: 7,029
    Forum Member
    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 :confused:
  • heikerheiker Posts: 7,029
    Forum Member
    Stansfield wrote: »
    It's very misleading...
    6/10

    A cross between The Terminator and The Omen...but with laughs.
    And did Emily Blunt nearly chop her leg off, with that Axe....plus, the gun sticking in the ground, did that just happen with that take, and they kept it in.

    El Cid....the sequel.

    plus Signs :D
  • blueisthecolourblueisthecolour Posts: 20,119
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yuffie wrote: »
    Also I was a bit disapponted in the look of the film.
    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.

    I don't think that's really a spoiler, but just in case.
    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.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 13,367
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    heiker wrote: »
    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 :confused:

    I noticed he still got top billing on the credits.
Sign In or Register to comment.