[Old.Tallen]

Originally Posted by Asmo

The plot seemed over-egged to me. The introduction of 'telekenesis' was really unnecessary and ultimately a distraction, like throwing Yetis and Mermaids into 'Close Encounters of the third kind' or having Unicorns in Jaws.

It's central to the plot.

[Old.Tallen]

Originally Posted by theonlyweeman

I haven't come across any majorly unexplainable plot holes, but it's not designed as a time travel film,

And I don't really know how to respond, because I felt sympathetic towards the characters (maybe you're heartless? ) and engrossed by the storyline. The acting was brilliant, especially from Joseph Gordon Levitt (who more than made up for his lacklustre performance in TDKR) and Bruce Willis.

Lots of people liked Inception (I've never seen it), maybe you're just difficult? (That was mean, but seeing as you dislike two of the more mainstream recent critical successes within the sci-fi genre I had to ask...)

I don't think the movie was forgettable at all, maybe the plot line was, but the film asks more than enough questions and presents more than enough ideas to prompt debates.

But this is all subjective, so you'll probably disregard everything I say, making this all rather pointless....

ALL timetravel films are riddled with plot holes, the problem is if they tried to completely explain the whole paradox situation, the film would be 12 hours long and boring as hell.

Consider this:

Spoiler

How do they guys in the past know what time a target will appear on their tarp? They know the precise time and location the target will appear, but the only person who is from the future comes back before all this begins so knows nothing of this time line. His former self is not a looper or even involved in this business as far as were told, It's literally unexplained

[RebelScum]

Originally Posted by Old.Tallen

ALL timetravel films are riddled with plot holes, the problem is if they tried to completely explain the whole paradox situation, the film would be 12 hours long and boring as hell.

What were the plot holes in 12 Monkeys?

[Deserana 12]

Originally Posted by mdt1988

Watched this for the first time recently, a little bit confusing and they skipped any science which didn't help. Average!

Cause the science was really relelvent to the plot...

If any "science" was explained the film would be criticised for holding your hand! It didn't need to explained and if the film stopped to talk about the details of time travel it would have felt out of place

As for the person who said that the introduction of telekenisis was unecessary I can help but feel they didn't watch the film at all.

[brangdon]

Originally Posted by Old.Tallen

Spoiler

How do they guys in the past know what time a target will appear on their tarp?

Spoiler

The chap from the future, who ran the Looper business, told them. Presumably he was sent other missives from the future. We know they can send back ordinary materials (eg silver and gold, and clothing) so they could send him written notes on paper. Probably they limit the information they send so as to minimise risk of paradoxes.

For me that was less a plot-hole, and more a detail they didn't bother to fill in because it was both obvious and unimportant. I'm more bothered by the premise (ie, of all things, why use the time-travel for that), and by the apparent lack of consistency:

Spoiler

If you can't kill people in the future, why carry guns around? Why allow Bruce Willis' wife to get killed like that?

Why not give the victims a lethal injection just before sending them back, so their heart stops a few minutes after they arrive? Making them unconscious first would also seem a wise move.

[Craigywageybaby]

Originally Posted by brangdon

Spoiler

The chap from the future, who ran the Looper business, told them. Presumably he was sent other missives from the future. We know they can send back ordinary materials (eg silver and gold, and clothing) so they could send him written notes on paper. Probably they limit the information they send so as to minimise risk of paradoxes.

For me that was less a plot-hole, and more a detail they didn't bother to fill in because it was both obvious and unimportant. I'm more bothered by the premise (ie, of all things, why use the time-travel for that), and by the apparent lack of consistency:

Spoiler

If you can't kill people in the future, why carry guns around? Why allow Bruce Willis' wife to get killed like that?

Why not give the victims a lethal injection just before sending them back, so their heart stops a few minutes after they arrive? Making them unconscious first would also seem a wise move.

Spoiler

You can kill people, it's just difficult to dipose of the bodies. I guess when it comes to organised crime, it's going to be syndicate vs syndicate based in the same city or in the 5 major cities as described in the film. These sorts of murders are going to have obvious perpertrators or the perps are going to be from within an obvious group of people. A random women in China is going to be harder to connect.

There's less guarentees with that method, you would be sending someone into the unknown. At least with this method there is someone at the other end to confirm what has happened. Plus the people in the future would be directly responsible for the murder, I guess this is the main reason why they send people back. So they aren't directly responsible.

Why try and justify the methods of someone who is runs a organised crime syndicate who will probably be unhinged anyway!

[Jimmy_McNulty]

Holy moly I just remembered Timecrimes. Now that was a hardcore time travel movie.

[linkinpark875]

Where do I start?

The cast are in very unnatural roles, the plot is not easy to follow, the time travel thing doesn't work and old cars in a futuristic film does not work.

I thought the Total recall remake was bad this one is worse. 2012 was a bad year for cinema even Expendables 2 was a let down.

[Gilbertoo]

I really like this film - a rather odd sensation of rooting for two characters (well, one really) for almost contradictory reasons, which was resolved with a surprising end (well, for me anyway!)

[theonlyweeman]

Originally Posted by linkinpark875

Where do I start?

The cast are in very unnatural roles, the plot is not easy to follow, the time travel thing doesn't work and old cars in a futuristic film does not work.

I thought the Total recall remake was bad this one is worse. 2012 was a bad year for cinema even Expendables 2 was a let down.

You were expecting the Expendables 2 to be good?!

I think that may explain your problem with Looper...

[Gilbertoo]

Originally Posted by theonlyweeman

You were expecting the Expendables 2 to be good?!

I think that may explain your problem with Looper...

You may be right. The Expendables was hardly worthy of a sequel!

[Virgil Tracy]

just saw this movie --------

*ucking wow !

it was really complex . I mean there was loads of story , it was just great , it had all the time travel issues , but it really dealt with how these issues affect the people, their agendas etc. .

plus it kept surprising me , usually these movies telegraph whats coming ( or maybe they're just cliche) but this one kept taking left turns .

gott watch it again .

[whedon247]

saw this last night

good start,interesting world and characters

lull in the middle-scenes with sara would dragged out 20 minutes too long,really ruined pace of the film

good ending

the science not being explained was a tad annoying but then time travel will never be explained properly i guess

good film but sohuld have been better

6/10

[nathanbrazil]

Originally Posted by whedon247

saw this last night.

Me too. Creepy kid.

[whedon247]

Originally Posted by nathanbrazil

Me too. Creepy kid.

but who watched it first?! are you my looper