Rian Johnson is two for two with me so far. And I've been following this shit every since he announced it. This is gonna be one of the dopest movies of the year.

I hate when they do this shit put I gotta post it, the teaser for the teaser:http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=88993

Early word is this shit delivers. Hard. And it also supposed to make you think about time travel in a new light.

Didn't like RJ's 1st 2 flicks much but I hope the 3rd times the charm. He's got great potential & Shane Carruth's involvement should help. If it's anything like Primer I'm sure I'll enjoy it.

So hold off judgement on the Blunt front for now.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=89054

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=89093

don't recall where I first heard about this film, but it's been on my 'to see' list desktop post-it for a minute. didn't realize I'd have to wait until September, though!

I love the aesthetic of the film. Looks interesting. Can't wait.

http://www.slashfilm.com/trailer-rian-johnsons-time-travel-movie-looper/

This will do till the full trailer premieres.

...and that is a very good thing.

I have no doubt this is going to be a mind-fuck from what I've heard Johnson say about it and on the simple fact that he brought in Carruth to help with the time travel.

I really hope this catapults Rian Johnson into the next tier. He's one of the most exciting young filmmakers out there and I'd love to see him become a name brand in the same way that PTA and Wes Anderson are. Essentially I'd like to see him get financial backing and promotion while still being able to keep creative freedom the way those two do.

I'd probably be stoked had I liked Brick or The Brother's Bloom but The Blunt wielding that shotgun will convince me to give him another shot.

Why would you send someone back in time to get killed/incinerated? Why not just do it in the present? Seems like you're wasting a lot of money on some sci-fi body disposal.

Also, if you kill the older version, why would the younger version die?

>Why would you send someone back in time to get
>killed/incinerated? Why not just do it in the present? Seems
>like you're wasting a lot of money on some sci-fi body
>disposal.

No chance for you to get caught with blood on your hands in the present. Everything-- body, evidence, etc.-- would be gone too. I'm sure they'll explain why sending the person back is cleaner.


>Also, if you kill the older version, why would the younger
>version die?

I don't think he does. I think the mafia is done with using JGL/Bruce, so they send Bruce back in order to effectively "end his employment," as it were.

I forget where I read it, but Rian said the Mafia wants the loop closed off tying up all loose ends. And that means Joe killing his future self.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1683066/looper-trailer-watch-director-commentary.jhtml

I like this. and I can't wait to see it either.

Took me a second to find the close window button. Opened the stupid pop-up twice.

although levitt's makeup is off
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=92064

Fan-fucking-tastic!!! Can't wait!!!

and said it was fantastic. Word out of Toronto has been overwhelmingly positive also.

This, Killer Joe, and Seven Psychopaths are in my top 3.

You niggas are in for a real treat. As the movie goes on I was wondering how the hell is Rian gonna wrap this up? And boy does this payoff in spades. I did not expect to be emotionaly involved in this, but I was. Emily Blunt is the emotional core to this which is funny since she doesn't even show up till half way through....

And JGL kills it. The little ticks and expressions he does reminded me of Bruce Willis, who by the way also kilt it.

Easily Rian Johnson's best movie. Yes, I enjoyed this more than Brick.

I'm suddenly super hype for this

Rian really out did himself yo

holy shit

I'm stupidly excited for it.

Can't wait.

i'm out.
_____________________
"WHOLESALE REUSABLE GROCERY BAGS!!"
@etfp

No spoilers, but the end didn't have the emotional impact it could have, for reasons I can maybe hypothesize once more folks have seen it.

But there are so many ideas at play. Really smart. JGL and Blunt have never been better. Beautifully directed.

One of the best sci fi flicks in years.

SPOILERS OBVIOUSLY

Everything from the initial ache over the mother-son separation to the woeful feeling of the kid being condemned to his future life to the feeling of bittersweet relief after JGL's sacrifice, all worked terrifically for me. I liked that no heartstrings were pulled with JGL's death and the focus instead shifted to mom and son. At that point the story had become about something more than the "Looper."

Stories about sons and their mothers always get to me. And now that I have a son of my own, I felt the ache and pain in the story for my girlfriend and our son as well (she cried). All thoughtfully conceived and sincerely executed.

Weird though this combo may be, the ending reminded me in a lot of ways of Toy Story 3 meets Straight Time, though with a more hopeful ending than Straight Time in terms of the theme of the cycle of violence (the loop of violence?).

I saw it with a midnight crowd that had odd reactions a couple times throughout the movie, but the ending left everyone in dead silence. I'm not trying to make it seem like Cries and Whispers, but I definitely think Rian Johnson stuck the landing.

For the record, I was not a Brick or Brothers Bloom fan. Hadn't been a Joseph Gordon-Levitt fan before either. Far from a regular patron of the sci-fi arts, and hadn't thought of Emily Blunt as anything other than Jim Halpert's wife before. Now I have at least a decent-sized appreciation for all.

My only faults with it the first time through were a couple effects, the inability of the Gat Men to hit anything, not enough screen time for Jeff Daniels, and the Kid Blue character. But honestly those are all minor issues.

Great movie.

>No spoilers, but the end didn't have the emotional impact it
>could have, for reasons I can maybe hypothesize once more
>folks have seen it.

I'm with Longo, Johnson was all 10 until the end. Those final shots of Blunt and JGL together annoyed me for some reason. I think the romance was a little rushed and maybe that's why those final moments bugged me. I want to say it should have ended with Blunt finding the truck, but no that point wasn't stressed at all.

This, Inception and Dark Knight Rises JGL is putting together a classic film resume.

Johnson has yet to make a bad film and I can't wait to see what he does next.

Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.-Tyler Durden

SPOILERS

She was horny and for once there was a guy nearby. It gave her the opportunity to feel close to someone and unburden some troubles, so to speak. But I don't think RJ was trying to push some love angle. This wasn't a Three Day of the Condor situation.

>I'm with Longo, Johnson was all 10 until the end. Those final
>shots of Blunt and JGL together annoyed me for some reason. I
>think the romance was a little rushed and maybe that's why
>those final moments bugged me. I want to say it should have
>ended with Blunt finding the truck, but no that point wasn't
>stressed at all.

But there were little things foreshadowed throughout that had pushed the movie to be about youth and giving kids a chance to escape or accept the mistakes their parents made or the violence that was around them. That to me was more important than silver or gold (how many times had he offered his bricks to someone at that point?).

I thought the most interesting tragedy of the film was less about children losing their chance for a pure future and more about a man seeing exactly how he grows old. What if the Rainmaker child discovered who he became? Would that help him change? Does seeing Bruce Willis change JGL? If seeing him changes him, does that then change Willis' behavior? etc. The last twenty minutes focus heavily on JGL seeing Cid as himself (especially that shot of angry orphan Cid on the train), when I wondered if focusing on JGL seeing how shitty his life is and how embittered he becomes as an old man would have provided further tragedy. Self-awareness rather than projection of one's childhood upon another child...

... especially when The Rainmaker clearly had that seed planted well before JGL's arrival into his life. He's full of darkness from his "mother"'s death. JGL's departure from his life in no way gives a guarantee that the kid gets a normal life or doesn't turn out horribly shitty. If anything, he comes closer to facilitating a future dominated by the Rainmaker-- another person in Cid's life removed in an untimely fashion. It just didn't seem like a solution to the long term problem at all... but it did *feel* like a solution tonally. Which to me made the ending feel a little more facile than it actually was.

That and you could gripe that JGL killing himself dooms all of the good Willis had already achieved by killing Daniels and them. The logic problems of JGL removing himself when Willis had implemented so much change already etc. But it's a time travel movie-- none of that bothered me while watching it.

Again, this is me being nitpicky, as this is still a Top 10 movie of the year for me at the moment, and in the genre is one of the best in recent years. It just didn't quite nail the emotional resonance for me personally that I felt it was moving towards.

We're old y'all.

Minor gripes aside, this is the first flick I feel that's finally lived up to his potential. Great ideas abound in the previous two, but the focus was pretty scattered. JGL, Bruce & Blunt all brought their A games. MadCid the Badkid held his own as well. Didn't expect, nor favor the focus shifting to him in end tho. Reminded me a little too much of the recent horror movie craze w/ creepy kids at the center. Twas handled pretty well up until the final scenes tho. Would've preferred a little more interaction between the Joes instead.

Need a TKBJ from Blunt stat

I'm sure that our favorite movie and non-movie blogs will try to outthink the story and out-logic the rules but everything made sense to me (not perfect sense, mind you, but it worked for me).

I didn't buy the JGL-Emily Blunt kiss, felt we didn't need it.

And I know this is fucked up to say but the kid was terrible, all mean glances and screaming. He annoyed me and I hoped he would die, if not at the hands of JGL/Bruce or one of the mob minions, then have Emily Blunt accidentally shoot him in the dead of night. He fucking irritated me that much.

I was also hoping at some point that Jeff Daniels would get into the mix at some point, but alas, no, so that was a little disappointing.

Otherwise, put another one in the W column for Mr. Leavitt, and for Mr. Johnson as well (didja see him thank Vince Gilligan and "the BB crew" in the closing credits yo?) and let us all be reminded once again that Bruce Willis is still an American Bad Ass.

Not a "perfect" movie but it did what good sci-fi does: set up the rules of its universe, then let the characters play around in that universe in accordance with said rules...

Also, was it just me or did JGL's final solution seem like a no-brainer? Anyone else go, oh, duh! when it happened?

_________________________________________________________________________
We out here trying to function.

how the time travel worked it would have overpowered the characters and story.

The kid reminded me of Damien from the Omen...lol
__________________________________________________________
http://agoonieneversaysdie.wordpress.com <--(film)

>And I know this is fucked up to say but the kid was terrible, all mean glances and screaming. He annoyed me and I hoped he would die, if not at the hands of JGL/Bruce or one of the mob minions, then have Emily Blunt accidentally shoot him in the dead of night. He fucking irritated me that much.>

i thought the kids acting playing the character was actually well done, and nuanced...

there were little very subtle things that he did that i thought were really great, and then the over the top screaming stuff was...well...over the top....but i thought it actually called for that...

the kid managed to (IMO) pull-off expressing very subtle sympathetic emotions, complex adult intellect and understanding, simmering creepyness, raging anger, and of course Damien-like explosive power/scaryness....

i thought the young actor ( Pierce Gagnon ) nailed it all...

(and no, i'm not his uncle or anything like that :)

I really didn't like the ending.

((((((((((((((((spoiler))))))))))))))))

If the future Joe could remember what present joe was doing, well wouldn't future Joe, remember that the chick and the kid were on a decent path?

That bothered me, because they took the time to show how connected the past person is to the present person, with the friends getting bits and pieces taken off. Even with tell him where to meet.

The one thing at the end. Nope no connection there.

The abrupt ending too everyone in my theater let out a groan.

In the middle of the film (Bruce's double gunned run through) the lights turned up.

"huh?" -everybody in the theater.

Two theater employees walked in that jount and was like "WHOOPS!". Crowd busted out laughing.

I was standing waiting for my friend to get out the bathroom and I overheard a group of people talking about that moment and the consensus was "Man I'm glad that happened because the middle almost lost me".

Overall I loved it though. But yeah it started to drag at one point but the payoff was good.



i'm out.
_____________________
"WHOLESALE REUSABLE GROCERY BAGS!!"
@etfp

once they introduce the kid the film's pace dragged a little -to me but I enjoyed it thoroughly great job Rian!
__________________________________________________________
http://agoonieneversaysdie.wordpress.com <--(film)

AGAIN SPOILERS DO NOT READ IF NOT YET SEEN THE MOVIE...



The younger Joe was in a paradox in which he couldn't kill the Rainmaker himself, because he grown found to the child, but at the same time knew his older self would had stop at nothing to kill him. I knew he wouldn't be closing the loop by killing his old self, because he'll still find and marry his Asian wife and she still will get killed courtesy of the Rainmaker's goons. Therefore he had no choice BUT to kill his (younger) self!

I think the scene way early in the film where he kills his older self AS PLANNED was the most UNDERRATED part of the film. He killed his old self and yet his wife still gets killed by the Rainmaker's goons. No matter what he could have done, with exception of killing the Rainmaker, his future wife still would of gotten killed.

By killing himself, he not only save the life of his wife in the future, but he (he hopes or gambles with) sacrificed his life for this CHILD. Like I said, this was ONLY a gamble, because the film WISELY left it ambiguous in actually showing how the child actually BECOMES the Rainmaker! Throughout the movie you only got suspicions and assumptions of not only about his origin, but about his future as well. However, showing that not all Loopers are evil through this sacrifice, Joe gambles with hopes this will not make Cid transform into the person that he's depicted as becoming. Of course, we never will know this, which is why it was smart leaving BOTH his future and his origin ambiguous, because quite possibly, the events that happened PRIOR to meeting Joe would of made Cid to transform into the Rainmaker anyway!

Morally complex, ambiguous in regards to the choice's success, etc.

I had a mild problem with the tone of it. We have a short sighted narrator not necessarily the wisest when it comes to doing "what's best," so the movie feels bittersweet at the end, when I feel it could have had complexity in regards to its success in addition to its emotional complexity. If that makes sense.

Also, the focus of the ending being its effect on the child rather than its impact on future self was a strange choice for me. Self-sacrificial, okay... but not necessarily the most interesting path to take in a film about time travel, in my opinion.

I'll revisit the film and see if it plays better second time around.

Well, I think Joe wasn't thinking about how this will alter the future, rather than assuming this would kill two birds with one stone. By sacrificing himself out of existence, he believes his future wife would be spared and the lives of Cid and Sarah would change into a positive outcome (possibly).

I believe the ending had to be bittersweet, and not exactly happy in a traditional movie-sense. Nor was the film actually ABOUT time traveling, instead more a about vengeance and sacrifice with time traveling being used as a method of telling the tale of these moral ambiguity between them.

I personally loved it, but I can understand if anyone else didn't.

Just so many layers that it tackled. Brilliant.

oh yeah the movie.

it was aight, about as interesting as you can make a time travel movie. no super super happy ending

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

she really nailed that accent too...almost forgot she was english

>she really nailed that accent too...almost forgot she was
>english

keep up

Just got out of it. It's not what I expected that's a good thing. Avoided most of the trailers was the whole tk thing mentioned in them? If not that was a good lil twist.

but I didn't see many

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

The Boys from Brazil.

Did anyone else think of this? The last half of the movie really felt like an homage.

I liked it. Of course as with any time travel movie when you think about it long enough it doesn't work. But it was good, and well done.

SPOILERS:

I kept wondering if Jeff Daniel's main henchman dude was actually his younger self. It wasn't clear, and I wonder if that was on purpose.

I also was hoping the main character would've somehow still been alive in the end. Because by shooting himself he wouldn't have been able to come back in time later on, and there wouldn't have been a Rainmaker so the whole ordeal wouldn't have happened and he wouldn't have had to shoot himself. This is confusing to write. I think some of you probably understand. But it would have been a fun ending that would have confused half of the audience.

>
>SPOILERS:
>
>I kept wondering if Jeff Daniel's main henchman dude was
>actually his younger self. It wasn't clear, and I wonder if
>that was on purpose.
>
>I also was hoping the main character would've somehow still
>been alive in the end. Because by shooting himself he wouldn't
>have been able to come back in time later on, and there
>wouldn't have been a Rainmaker so the whole ordeal wouldn't
>have happened and he wouldn't have had to shoot himself. This
>is confusing to write. I think some of you probably
>understand. But it would have been a fun ending that would
>have confused half of the audience.
>


I believe Abe and "Kid Blue" were indeed the same individual. It explains, in his own way, Abe was "protective" with him, and Kid Blue fought so hard to prove himself towards Abe to show he was indeed competent.

Well, and I just thought about it after you posed this question, Joe prior to his self-sacrifice still would exist UP to that point at least, however, by not only altering the future to where Cid won't become the rainmaker, the old Joe killed off all the loopers, including ABE in which alters THAT part of the future too. Which very well possible that he would become somewhat similar to the RAINMAKER due to the fact prior to meeting Abe, he had the same EXACT motives for the same EXACT reasons as Cid!

he would have walked with a limp.

All it would've taken was one discreet shot of him limping to set it up. But it's not there.

Young people try to prove themselves to mentor figures regardless of relation.

i wasnt really paying attention to that part. the only time i remember them showing him walk was when he opened the door to meet joe the 1st time and towards the end to hide. every other time he was sitting if i remember correctly, right?

The only way it could have been indicated is through the walk. Or, you know, some other direct reference.

The whole film is about abandoned children with chips on their shoulder and something to prove. Some prove to themselves, some to the world, some to specific others. Unless there's a clue I missed, no reason to think this one kid is Jeff Daniels.

After JGL falls on the car and Bruce Willis pulls him away, he mutters something like, 'stupid ass kid' or something like that.

It then cuts to Jeff Daniels and his henchman, and Daniels says the exact same line like right away.

It's a stretch, but given Daniels' reluctance to kill the henchman no matter how much he screwed up, and how rabid the henchman was to get revenge later on, it was almost implying it.

I think it was intentionally left open for that reason.

Remember when Abe hits Blue on the hand with the hammer? That could be crippling himself severely for the rest of his life.

However, I could be misremembering the scene... In my head I can see Abe reacting to the hit, but it doesn't make sense for him to do so.

I think I just confused myself.

after watching it again.

remember when kid blue captures bruce willis?

The Dude doesn't know that he did it until he gets back, because they don't share memories. They aren't the same person.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I'm currently under fire from one of the writers here, who is asking perfectly logical questions about the movie, regarding time travel and the criminal organization... and I don't have any answers other than, "Logic doesn't matter, that's not what the story is about." And I feel like a dickhead for answering like this, but it really is true... right?

Like, he wondered why, if this time travel was so perfect and exact (which I argued it actually wasn't), why couldn't the mob just send guys to volcanoes or other areas of disaster? My point was that the time travel wasn't so perfect since it was almost immediately outlawed once it was created...

Sorry, my brain is exploding right now and I'm frustrated because I can't answer these "questions"

__________________________________________________________________________
WORLD STAR IN THIS BITCH!!!! WORLD STAR IN THIS BITCH!!!!

if you look at it

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>Like, he wondered why, if this time travel was so perfect and
>exact (which I argued it actually wasn't), why couldn't the
>mob just send guys to volcanoes or other areas of disaster?


it seems perhaps the guys were sent back to the exact spot where the machine was, so their solution seems the most efficient, unless the mob set it up on top of a volcano (or other dangerous spot)
Though I'm hazy on whether Bruce Willis was in China when they try to send him back, or if they'd brought him to the machine in the US after kidnapping him

>it seems perhaps the guys were sent back to the exact spot
>where the machine was

They provide assurance that nothing has gone wrong.

I mean, your fellow writer isn't "wrong." He/she's just trying to remove the plot device that creates drama and replace it with one that negates drama.

I wouldn't bother trying to figure it out. It really doesn't work. I think that one of the reasons the movie ended the way it did was to avoid having to answer questions that would have complicated it even more. Like the fact that a lot of the characters that died should be alive again based on the character(s) that died at the end.

is that by saying 'we're not going to get into the nuts and bolts of the time travel shit' it's getting a pass when for as smart and as rich as the film is thematically and considering Johnson brought in Shane Carruth as a consultant the time travel stuff has some HUGE gaping holes that are really distracting.

Time travel is never going to be air tight but damn in a movie that is this smart and this precise they could've made sure their central conceit didn't fall apart under the slightest bit of scrutiny.

I really loved so many things about the movie most of all the blend of so many different generic conventions into a unique, believable and well-realized world.

If anything Johnson should get credit for making it work at all much less making it work really well. Because with all the moving parts and pieces a lesser filmmaker would have made this into an absolutely terrible movie

That's what I appreciated about Looper. It didn't try to bog you down with the specifics because Time Travel is VERY EASILY BROKEN when you start to discuss it enough.

All you need to know is:

- Time travel exists.
- It was outlawed.
- And like anything that's outlawed, only the outlaws have it.
- People use it to dispose of dead people.

I can't bother to delve too much into the mythology of time travel in this world because they didn't give me enough. And that's completely fine. Anything else would be replacing a crucial plot device with something else in order to answer a question that really doesn't need to be asked.

I mean. Feel free but I really see no point.

i'm out.
_____________________
"WHOLESALE REUSABLE GROCERY BAGS!!"
@etfp

That shit kept distracting me. Looked like some botched plastic surgery on some Bruce Jenner shit. I understand they did it to try to make JGL look like Willis...but didn't really work for me.

But overall, the flick was really good. Definitely liked the final third.

my exact thoughts.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"

It started out promising but then when they introduced the child and mother, it got real stupid. By JLG killing himself how did that gurantee anything? why not just off his older self? So was tht rainmakers mom or not? did he essentially sleep with his mom? has all the events in the movie happend b4 and it's just 1 big loop? bruce killing off a whole army just like that and then struggling to murk lil man dont add up. i realy thought blue's character was really a waste , didnt add anything to the movie.

>why not just off his older self?

he wasn't close enough to hit him with the gun he had. just saying.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

bruce killing off a whole army just
>like that and then struggling to murk lil man dont add up.

Well he said that he can remember stuff right after his younger self experiences it.

So he could remember the whole time of bonding with the kid.

Add to that how hard it was for him to cap the other innocent kid.

He just couldn't go through with it.

I'm not saying the movie didn't have massive story problems. Cause it did. But I don't think that's one of them.

By JLG killing himself
>how did that gurantee anything?

It didn't. But he believed (foolishly, in my opinion) it at least gave him a chance, whereas Willis killing Blunt would merely ensure a horrible future.

why not just off his older
>self?

Can't hit him with that gun from far range. They talk about the blunderbuss's range roughly a billion times in the film.

So was tht rainmakers mom or not?

Yes. The backstory of this character is spelled out pretty clearly.

did he essentially
>sleep with his mom?

Did JGL sleep with the Rainmaker's mom? Yes, he did.

has all the events in the movie happend b4
>and it's just 1 big loop?

Don't see how this is possible. It's thematically a loop in this world about mothers and sons, but no, JGL killing himself doesn't create a loop.

bruce killing off a whole army just
>like that and then struggling to murk lil man dont add up.

Well, that one little man was someone he was emotionally attached to who also had superhuman crazy Garrett Dillahunt exploding powers.

> has all the events in the movie happend b4
>>and it's just 1 big loop?
>
>Don't see how this is possible. It's thematically a loop in
>this world about mothers and sons, but no, JGL killing himself
>doesn't create a loop.


based on the physics of the film, there are an infinite number of realities that are all playing out the same way so who's to say these events couldn't have occurred in the past or future tense. it's the paradox of most time travel films.


> bruce killing off a whole army just
>>like that and then struggling to murk lil man dont add up.
>
>Well, that one little man was someone he was emotionally
>attached to who also had superhuman crazy Garrett Dillahunt
>exploding powers.


what does this have to do with him basically turning into an expert assassin midway through his life?

Must be cause they showed lil man on the train and then the mother brushing his hair when he was dying.

Didnt JLG say something about ending this never ending loop likee as if to say that all the events just kept on looping?

If lil man is JLG why didnt JLG have them powers and does that mean that he becomes the rainmaker at a later time?

>Must be cause they showed lil man on the train and then the
>mother brushing his hair when he was dying.

No.

>Didnt JLG say something about ending this never ending loop
>likee as if to say that all the events just kept on looping?

By killing himself, he's no longer part of the next thirty years.

>If lil man is JLG why didnt JLG have them powers and does that
>mean that he becomes the rainmaker at a later time?

He's not.

did they show lil dude on the train and JLG spoke about how he never met his Mother and how he was on a train and sold to some junkie just like lil dude was and did? Why did JLG talk about how felt like he remembered mother running her fingers through his hair and then that lady did when he was dying? huh why why why?!?!?!

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

- when joe was with the hoe in the beginning and alls he did was cuddle and he told her how his mom used to run her fingers through his hair and then at the end sarah was running her fingers through his hair. Sarah was never cids mom. Joe talked about how he was given to a junkie/bagabond and sarah admitting that she was a junkie/bagabond in the city coincidence? Joe also mentioned how when he was little he ran away to the city alone on a train and hey hapend to show cid on a train alone. coincidence?


you are a fucking retard for not seeing that. how fucking obvious. the offing of joe changes the outcome for cid cause dude grew up with sarah so there was no raimaker just plain old joe. old joe would have screwed shit p and turned cid into the raimaker with no sarah to guide him. there were more loops than what happend than thy showed in themovie, joe even mentioned the only way of ending the never ending cycle was by offing himself.

... it somehow does.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

<------ Boho Model Madness Presents: Andy Allo

http://www.gifsoup.com/view3/2298233/andyallo2-o.gif

http://soundcloud.com/djshinobishaw
http://www.rareformnyc.com
http://twitter.com/DJShinobiShaw
PSN: ShinobiShaw

"Arm Leg Leg Arm How you doin?" (c) T51

i'm out.
_____________________
"WHOLESALE REUSABLE GROCERY BAGS!!"
@etfp

Also: Darth Vader was Luke Skywalker's father.

And so was Obi Wan.

some one needs to go watch the movie again

If it is, I recommend seeing the film again rather than me explaining to you the ending in detail.

i'm out.
_____________________
"WHOLESALE REUSABLE GROCERY BAGS!!"
@etfp

It was confusing to me too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA2Y6WUqaY8&feature=player_embedded

but this was probably the best imagined future since Children of Men. shit was gorgeous and grimy.

i thought Brick was annoying and really ran the noir gimmick into the ground, but Looper nailed the noir. Blade Runner should be proud.

JGL was more Bruce Willis than Bruce Willis.

the ending was fine.

coolest flick of the year. way more style than the overhyped summer superhero flicks (insert requisite Avengers hate here).

i actually liked the whole TK aspect of the film. I thought it was an interesting addition that hasn't yet been done the same way in a sci-fi film.

my issue was more with the nonsensical logic of the actual LOOPING. but aside from that i agree, probably the best sci-fi flick since COM.

Was the Blue character in the gang...the one that kept fucking up.... Abe's (Jeff Daniel's) younger self? Why did Abe have this personal relationship with him...treating him like the fuck-up son or little brother.

Not sure if it was spelled out or implied but obviously I missed that.

http://www.examiner.com/review/looper-amidst-the-time-travel-a-tale-of-mothers-and-sons

Enjoy. Or don't. But, preferably, enjoy.

but what of fathers/sons?

it's something that i think can't be ignored due to a couple of key pieces:
-consider the scene between Young Joe and Old Joe in the diner which really plays like a father and son
-the relationship between Kid Blue & Abe
-young Joe & Cid
-There's an interesting inverse(or mirrored) Oedipal things going on with the Old Joe wanting to kill the son while Young Joe beds the mother.

There's a lot of really interesting stuff at work

>but what of fathers/sons?
>
>it's something that i think can't be ignored due to a couple
>of key pieces:
>-consider the scene between Young Joe and Old Joe in the diner
>which really plays like a father and son
>-the relationship between Kid Blue & Abe
>-young Joe & Cid
>-There's an interesting inverse(or mirrored) Oedipal things
>going on with the Old Joe wanting to kill the son while Young
>Joe beds the mother.
>
>There's a lot of really interesting stuff at work

I wanted to focus more on the mothers as Johnson fills the plot with far more *literal* mothers, whereas the fathers are more figureheads. Plus the imagery of the shooting of the belly and the fingers through the hair are such visceral pictures that it's easier to focus on.

Kind of a shitty movie if you were orphaned in real life, lol.

seeing as how humans could be emotionally compromised when faced with killing themselves.

obviously it doesn't matter who kills the looper as long as they die.

The organization wanted to ensure the past and the future remain in tact and the best way for that to happen was for the looper to close his own loop.

the loopers know they are going to die. what difference does it make who kills them? if anything, if they wanted to truly insure that the loopers died, they would have them killed by a stranger who is completely apathetic.

It's cleaner if the Loopers kill their own future selves because there is no one else for them to blame.

i could keep going on about this but i'll just end it here. not the biggest logical glitch but just something i was curious about.

>i could keep going on about this but i'll just end it here.
>not the biggest logical glitch but just something i was
>curious about.

He goes over this point and how he wanted to explain it in the movie.

This was a complex movie where the plot and its explication didn't get in the way of the characters like it often does in Nolan's flick. Rian became A-list for me with this one.

midway through, I thought to myself, "this feels like a Christopher Nolan movie, except it's actually fun and enjoyable to watch." Nolan movies can feel like work, the way you have to piece all this shit together just to follow along. Looper found a nice balance with explaining a heady concept without providing too many details and complexities.

http://loopermovie.tumblr.com/post/32950683762/our-in-theater-commentary-track-is-up-i-recorded

if he got away
how did he end up killin' his older self to live 30 years into the future?
that divergent reality shit don't add up
not at all
that's why time travel ain't possible
in theory or practice

>if he got away
>how did he end up killin' his older self to live 30 years into
>the future?
>that divergent reality shit don't add up
>not at all
>that's why time travel ain't possible
>in theory or practice
>

...the performance of that little kid...wow. that little guy just stole every scene he was in.

that's saying a lot too, because there were multiple multiple really solid performances throughout the entire cast....very nicely done...

...i also appreciated <what i consider to be> a relatively realistically represented future...

good stuff through and through....

I havent read the other posts above yet, and this is likely mentioned already & obvious to folks....but...

<SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER FOLLOWS>>>>>>

...cid obviously is the one who eventually develops the time travel technology in the future, i presume using the silver left by young joe to purchase whatever materials needed to create the device... but...there's something else going on at the end and i couldn't put my finger on it exactly.... when the Blunt character caresses young Joes hair like his mother used to do... is there yet another level to this that just isn't quite as clear to me yet?....


will be seeing this one again, its worth a second view even when you already know 'the reveal' & the end, if just for the solid performances of the cast....

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

.

Why not just have young Joe end up with Blunt and cid. You could clearly see that Old Joe's memories of his wife were fading and instead being replaced with those of Sarah's. It would make sense for Young Joe, who had never had that love, to find it in Sarah AND live to raise Cid to ensure that Cid doesn't become the Rainmaker.

In this scenario, Old Joe would still have to die, but he probably would welcome it as the last of his memories fade away. Would Young Joe only have 30 years after this point? Who knows. Who knows if Cid becomes the Rainmaker but at least Joe would have a chance to stop him without having to kill him. Without the threat of the Rainmaker, maybe Joe can outlast the 30 years, or maybe Cid could do some good with the time travel and his TK.

This type of ending just seemed more plausible than Joe just shooting himself in the chest after he "realizes" the paradox. It just seemed hokey to me.

... to get a love interest instead of to save a kid. And if you make it about Joe and Sara finally uniting heading forward into the future, that's tonally a waaaaay different call than Joe realizing his life isn't as important as insuring (in his mind) the life of a child.

I had a similar issue as you the first time I saw it, but I'm not sure they could have ended it any other way. I still have the issue... but it didn't make me feel as iffy. He can't end up with the girl without distracting from the whole children-and-their-fates theme, so how else can the film end?

This is where the film was going.....Joe's memories of his wife were being replaced with Sarah's....and Young Joe.....even when he wanted to kill Cid.....saw that he was just a kid who needed to be loved when he saw him in the field......if you want to save that kids life you PROTECT him and you stick aorund and help raise him. Cid became the Rainmaker even without his mom getting killed by Old Joe before. Who's to say he doesn't become the Rainmaker anyway. The signs were all there on the farm pointing to young Joe finding his soul earlier in life AND being able to stop teh Rainmaker without killing him. BUt Old Joe would have to die.....

You throw out that lame blunderbuss hinderance and you have Young Joe step up with the "gat". I thought this was the whole reason that weasily guy was coming at the end. To intoduce the other gun to the equation.

OR

You have Cid kill Old Joe to protect his mother. You mean to tell me this kid was going off and he wouldn't go off when this guy is trying to kill him and his mother?

>You throw out that lame blunderbuss hinderance and you have
>Young Joe step up with the "gat". I thought this was the
>whole reason that weasily guy was coming at the end. To
>intoduce the other gun to the equation.

He took that gun, took the chamber out and ditched it in the cornfield. It was absolutely worthless.


>OR
>
>You have Cid kill Old Joe to protect his mother. You mean to
>tell me this kid was going off and he wouldn't go off when
>this guy is trying to kill him and his mother?

Were you paying attention? The kid was going to kill Old Joe, but seeing his mom plead with him earnestly to calm down is what redeemed him... it also caused him to call her "Mom" for the first time ever.

I'm talking somewhat outside of what actually happened. With as many leeway was taken with the actual ending, I'm well within my rights to take some of my own.

I jsut didn't feel like the ending I saw was justified given what I had saw for the previous hour.

of the ending which was solely on the kid rather than on a love connection between Blunt and JGL.

I think Rian did a great job in terms of not going the conventional route and having JGL kill old Joe and raise the kid with Blunt, as a family. Instead Joe has to make a far tougher choice, one that puts the focus squarely on the child's development with a mother vs without one. Obviously there are variables involved in whether the child indeed does turn out well, but the movie veered away from all of that (particularly in regards to the Time Travel, loved Jeff Daniels tongue-in-cheek rant about it lol. Great writing.) and just focused on its main themes which imo made it that much better.

You fight to stay around and protect him. It's not about jsut staying with Blunt. It's about making sure the kid doesn;t become the Rainmaker. He has a bond with the kid.

>I think Rian did a great job in terms of not going the
>conventional route and having JGL kill old Joe and raise the
>kid with Blunt, as a family. Instead Joe has to make a far
>tougher choice

Reminded me exactly of Bruce Willis end in Sin City

nm

..not that its horrible or that the film doesn't move

but honestly, the kid is the only thing i cared about watching this film.

i give jlg props for nailing his "bruce impression" sitting across from jeff daniels. the smirk was spot-on.

unfortunately, the same can't be said for his scene opposite willis in the diner. they blew a perfect opportunity to really have some fun with this film.

*props to the art department/dop for the visuals


introducing Sunny Jones:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7e8YUhWALA&lc=ts9yNP2l863zBVUuutKLq4F-MQNeoDODXLO9OlcYSAE&feature=inbox

www.sunnyjonesmusic.com


..and miles to go before i sleep...

but as soon as young Joe got to that farm I saw the ending coming a mile away.

and I'm evil so I'd prefer if the kid had been shot, but I know that would complicate the plot and having young Joe X him self off the set was actually the best way to have the movie make sense, any other change would have started messing with the time travel logic and old Joe kind of didn't have any way home.

but the squeezing of the frog to get some dick was classic, that shit had me cracking up.

but am I the only person who thinks JGL looked more like Edward Norton than Bruce?

SPOILERS-------

Time 1:
JGL is waiting to kill to BW
BW appears withOUT a hodd/hands tied
BW knows JGL out
JGL wakes up and goes back to his apartment
JGL traps the guy in the safe and goes to the fire escape
JGL falls off of fire escape
Screen goes blank
Then Time 2 IMMEDIATELY happens:

Time 2:
JGL is waiting to kill BW
BW shows up WITH hands tied
JGL kills him
JGL lives for 30 years and becomes married Bruce Willis

Okay, after the time 1 what happens to have timeline 2 occur?

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I'm still a little lost I guess on this one point I guess.

Sequence 1)JGL first doesn't kill BW.
Sequence 2)JGL does.
Sequence 3)JGL doesn't kill BW.

1 has a point where JGL gets knocked out, then 2 has a timeline where that doesn't happen. 2 happens before 1 in that reality or 1 is never able to happen.

You think the falling off the fire escape in 1 and cut to black and start 2 is a flashback that sets up 3.

But why does 3 repeat that steps of #1 up until the fire-escape, and then divirge? (Or is the narrative switch to BW the reason for the repetition?)

I think the real reason is because the director said (on one of the interviews in this thread) that he wanted the movie to follow JGL and not BW. So having JGL kill BW, live 30 years and become BW, and then go back without the hood should have happened first, but didn't.

like I get that you don't get simple stuff.

but bruce willis was first.

jgl's timeline we follow in the movie was second.


when you see bruce willis' youngerself kill his older self in the standardway and live out his life...THAT IS BRUCE WILLIS HAVING A FLASHBACK TO WHAT ALREADY HAPPENED TO HIM

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>like I get that you don't get simple stuff.

Hey, thanks for understanding.

>but bruce willis was first.
>jgl's timeline we follow in the movie was second.
>
>when you see bruce willis' youngerself kill his older self in
>the standardway and live out his life...THAT IS BRUCE WILLIS
>HAVING A FLASHBACK TO WHAT ALREADY HAPPENED TO HIM

Not sure if I got that part of it because I don't recall being able to tell when the flashback started vs. when another loop starts. (I usually want to see wavy lines and have harp music playing.)

The director mentions it here:
http://www.slashfilm.com/ten-mysteries-in-looper-explained-by-director-rian-johnson/

1. The first time Old Joe pops back to the present, he escapes. Later we see him die in the same place. Which happens first and why the deception?

The first time we see Old Joe and he escapes is actually the second time he appears in the straight story. According to Johnson, and evident upon a second viewing of the film, the straight line of narrative is that Joe becomes a looper, closes his loop by killing Old Joe (this is the second time we see the scene in the field), goes to China, meets his wife, then gets sent back without the hood and escapes, setting off the rest of the movie, which is the first and third time we see him.

“The reason I made the break and decided to invert it was the problem, narratively, is our main character is now – for all intents and purposes – Old Joe. Because now we’re following him and I wanted the protagonist to be young Joe,” Johnson said.


So, I think it was just an editing choice that didn't trigger it being a flashback for me.


Email the director and let him know it was a flashback.

And can you explain why in Pulp Fiction Vincent gets killed in the middle, but then he's back alive at the end??

and you still don't get it.

you clearly don't understand what he means by "straight" time line

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

It was something they did in post. No way to "get it" other than to accept it.

If you have to read an interview online to "get it" and then the director explains it was to shift the narrative structure around because he didn't like it as written and shot, well then it's not exactly obvious.

it was blatantly obvious while watching.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

...

JGL kills BW, his future self (the 2nd time we see BW)
JGL grows old and into BW
BW goes back in time and escapes being killed by JGL (the first time we see BW)

Make the character an anti-hero that kills people with TK...

Also, I wonder how many times did Bruce Willis have to go back into the past to get things right?


On The Lookout 4:
some new music. WTF is going on this year?

This level of biting is acceptable to y'all?

----------------------------

Young Broadway Star Urgently Needs a Bone Marrow Donor. Is it you? http://MatchShannon.com/







O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

If you're going all the way back to La Jetee, I agree that it's been a major source of inspiration for many a science fiction film over the past 50 years, but other movies, like 12 Monkeys, have taken ideas from it at least as directly as Looper did.

Whatever. I just look at it, especially in this case, as variations on a theme.

As for the movie itself, I didn't make a very big impression on me. It barely even crosses my mind when I think of my favorite movies from 2012...

More later.

----------------------------

Young Broadway Star Urgently Needs a Bone Marrow Donor. Is it you? http://MatchShannon.com/







O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

Great premise, great visuals, great performances...but that ending was weak.

************************

Especially liked the little details about this possible future. The drug use, the gadgets, the particular type of disintegrating social order, the global economic condition, etc.

But I'm annoyed that 'the Matrix' has created a premise-based focus in quality hollywood action flicks. Nerds are loving this shit cause they can't appreciate true storytelling and character development. I can't even think of one adjective to describe Joe as a person. All the characters are just vessels to carry the premise.

Movies like this are just as effectively described as watched. I could get just as much out of reading a synopis of this film as I could from seeing it. You have to watch 'Alien' to CARE about Ripley. You have to watch 'Jaws' to give a shit about Brody. You have to watch 'Die Hard' to give a shit about McClain. This movie doesn't have that. Neither does the Matrix, or the Batman movies, or Inception, or this one. Won't stand the test of time imo. In 15 years, this stuff will just bore people.

>Movies like this are just as effectively described as watched.
> I could get just as much out of reading a synopis of this
>film as I could from seeing it. You have to watch 'Alien' to
>CARE about Ripley. You have to watch 'Jaws' to give a shit
>about Brody. You have to watch 'Die Hard' to give a shit
>about McClain. This movie doesn't have that. Neither does
>the Matrix, or the Batman movies, or Inception, or this one.
>Won't stand the test of time imo. In 15 years, this stuff
>will just bore people.


It's not really the Matrix's fault (and it didn't start with the matrix); it's kind of an issue in sci-fi/fantasy in general...the world the characters inhabit comes off more intereresting because that's where the creators put most of their effort in. I don't think the lack of characterization means it can't be a classic; as flawed as it is(and shitty the prequels were) the Matrix is still highly regarded. But there's a reason why Alien is regarded as one of the greatest movies of all times, while the Matrix is just one of the coolest, lol.

Also, Inception tried to make DiCaprio's character fully dimensional; they dedicated more then a few scenes towards this goal...it's just Nolan has a problem creating genuine characters.

*Imho, it's why Game of Throne is such a cult hit and stands out above the average guy with a sword fighting dragons genre, it's almost TOO much characterization.

you're absolutely right...save for maybe that cool montage sequence, reading a breakdown of all the concepts of this movie would be just as fulfilling as watching the damn thing.

and you're right...nerds are more interested in those broad concepts than the actual craft of storytelling. Hence the popularity of the Transformers franchise.

>and you're right...nerds are more interested in those broad
>concepts than the actual craft of storytelling. Hence the
>popularity of the Transformers franchise.

Transformers franchise is NOT popular to anyone who
is above 21 and knows a lot about Sci-Fi

Those are pop hits because of dumb people who know nothing
about Sci Fi...and I'm not even hating on the movies


----------------------------

Young Broadway Star Urgently Needs a Bone Marrow Donor. Is it you? http://MatchShannon.com/







O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

SPOILER:





















But if dude shot himself...he wouldn't have grown old and then gone back in time and he wouldn't have had to chase around his older/younger self and then he WOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO SHOOT HIMSELF. WHAT THE HELL *POP* <--Brain exploding

I loved everything else about this movie.

So, when Bruce goes back and meets JGL, all timelines are changed because the stream is interrupted. Everything that happens when Bruce goes back is new and becomes the altered, but now permanent timeline. Everything after that point becomes the new reality. JGL shoots self – Bruce vanishes. End of both of them, future is erased.

Make sense now?

>So, when Bruce goes back and meets JGL, all timelines are
>changed because the stream is interrupted. Everything that
>happens when Bruce goes back is new and becomes the altered,
>but now permanent timeline. Everything after that point
>becomes the new reality. JGL shoots self – Bruce vanishes. End
>of both of them, future is erased.
>
>Make sense now?

Yeah the future is erased, but then the past is all hella jacked up. The new timeline is based on things that never could have happened once young JGL shoots himself.

I never said it didn't make sense. I just think that it's a plot hole.

AND I think the movie ended abruptly so it didn't have to account for that plot hole.

Not trying to be attacking. I liked the movie, I just think it hit the same wall the most movies hit when the try to tackle time travel.

This movie was cornchips, fam

----------------------------

Young Broadway Star Urgently Needs a Bone Marrow Donor. Is it you? http://MatchShannon.com/







O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

Except for two that I can think of.

Primer and Time Crimes

************************

with no plot holes.

Haven't seen Time Crimes.

But Primer even has this flaw; it just tries to resolve the 'what if's' plot holes on so much that it because a part of the movie/plot itself (five or six different versions of themselves, etc).

The basic idea of someone travelling back in time and changing shit breaks pretty much everything because it negates everything that happened before it (if you start thinking deep enough character history and motivation disappear, etc)

You can use the whole 'alternate timeline' nonsense to fix it, but still you run into a dude hopping from basically different dimensions to different dimensions; what's happening in his OG universe of he hopped out of the timeline, etc...

That said, when done correctly, still entertaining as fuck.

But a thread on 'successful' time travel movies and why they would would be fun

There's a lot of posts and it wasn't until last night when I watched the movie that I clicked it.

So at the end JGL sees Cid's path to becoming the Rainmaker after BW kills his mother and basically turns him evil, so he kills himself to insure that his mother isn't murdered and he can grow up to be good...

If that's all that is stopping him from being evil, how does he end up being the Rainmaker in the first place (in Old Joe's lifetime)? In Old Joe's life he kills BW initially and none of this happens so Cid's mother isn't murdered, yet he ends up becoming the Rainmaker anyway. Who is to say that's not just going to happen again anyway, regardless of if JGL kills himself or not?

Disclaimer, I had to watch this movie over several sittings over a couple of weekends, sometimes while distracted doing other things. I will admit that greatly diminish my viewer experience and being absorbed into the world.

1#. I understand that while watching time travel movies you can't think too hard on it because it starts to unravel but unlike a movie like Terminator, time travel is soo central to the story telling and making sense of the events you are watching. Terminator is simple: folks in the future want to go to the past to protect someone important to the future. Sure Terminator added the kicker that the guy from the future was actually the father of the person he was sent to protect but that was a gotcha moment at the end that wasn't necessary to understand to enjoy 95% of the movie.

In this movie, for example, they made you think about things like well if you carve up a persons arm in the present to deliver a message in the future wouldn't he know during all this intervening time what his fate was in the future and couldn't he do things to change that outcome?

If you are going to use time travel like magic and ask people to not think too hard on it, you have to use it lightly I think.

I think that goes for the whole premise of the movie, time travel is only used by criminals to kill people in the future. That premise just begs you to ask well why is time travel only used for such a specific reason? Only because its a necessary plot device?


2#. The future setting was mostly plot device then a real fully form future setting. There were some things I really liked about the immediate future (not to be confused with the future of the future which we get no glimpse of) I like. Society seemed to have broken down, drug use was rampant. But most of the important aspects of that society were clearly just plot devices and not really a part of a fully formed vision of the future.

From the moment that TK was sort of casually introduced wasn't it clear that it's only real use in the film would be some twist later in the movie?

If society was mostly lawless and vagrants were on the prowl how could Emily Blount and that kid really be safe alone in such an unsecure big house? I mean that other looper just walked up to her door and forced himself in with little to no effort.

Doesn't touch Blade Runner, Children of Men or even Gattaca (which is the best comparison since we are talking low budget moderately different future).

#3 Storytelling wise it was a mess. I think dropping that flashback of the life bruce willis eventually leads where it was in the movie was confusing and distracting. It's funny because I saw that clip of the director discussing the problem with telling that portion of the story (and trying to insert it in such a way that it doesn't shift the focus to BW) but I think its a problem he never really solves and I spent most of the movie thinking I was suppose to be rooting for Bruce Willis. Was I suppose to know earlier that he was the wrong headed one ? or that the Older Character was a psychotic single minded killer and the young YGL still had some humanity (the beginning of the movie they set it up the other way, YGL is a young cold killer and he grows into a better person as BW because he meets the love of his life).

Also you all say that its clear that Cid isn't a young JGL but there are things dropped in the movie that could leave you to at least consider that (more than just JGL seeing common ground between them). Either way it was distracting to leave that idea out there. Again, this might just have been my distracted viewing of the movie.

Also thought this movie missed a golden opportunity to tap into a very universal theme, if you got a chance to talk to your younger pig headed know it all self, what would you say?

Maybe the movie can't be enjoyed the way I viewed it, but I don't understand the love this movie is getting in this post.


**********
"naive as the dry leaves on the ground looking past the trees to the blue sky asking 'why me?'" -Blu

Why I still fuzz with the Lesson
http://open.spotify.com/user/brothersport86/playlist/3DhEhilho77Z0UCPbJlEJf

Disclaimer, I had to watch this movie over several sittings over a couple of weekends, sometimes while distracted doing other things. I will admit that greatly diminish my viewer experience and being absorbed into the world.

^^^That's the problem.

Watching Momento like this would also be a problem.

Rian Johnson swears that it all works out but I have my questions. For instance, wasn't there one loop in which young JGL dies (falling off of his fire escape). If he died, how is there an older version of him to be killed in the next loop?

The carving/cutting off hands thing was cool so I didn't think much about it but the point here does make sense; it's a little odd that changing the past in the present only affects the present and doesn't alter the decisions that would have been made by the older/future person to get to this point.

That being said...

>2#. The future setting was mostly plot device then a real
>fully form future setting. There were some things I really
>liked about the immediate future (not to be confused with the
>future of the future which we get no glimpse of) I like.
>Society seemed to have broken down, drug use was rampant. But
>most of the important aspects of that society were clearly
>just plot devices and not really a part of a fully formed
>vision of the future.

I think this is how most films work. Very rarely do you have important aspects of a future society that aren't plot devices.

>If society was mostly lawless and vagrants were on the prowl
>how could Emily Blount and that kid really be safe alone in
>such an unsecure big house? I mean that other looper just
>walked up to her door and forced himself in with little to no
>effort.

It's in the middle of a rural area. I doubt most of the city people venture out. I mean, there are currently safe rural areas not too far from violent urban centers. It's not like gang members from Oakland are driving out to wine country to do home invasions.

>#3 Storytelling wise it was a mess. I think dropping that
>flashback of the life bruce willis eventually leads where it
>was in the movie was confusing and distracting. It's funny
>because I saw that clip of the director discussing the problem
>with telling that portion of the story (and trying to insert
>it in such a way that it doesn't shift the focus to BW) but I
>think its a problem he never really solves and I spent most of
>the movie thinking I was suppose to be rooting for Bruce
>Willis. Was I suppose to know earlier that he was the wrong
>headed one ? or that the Older Character was a psychotic
>single minded killer and the young YGL still had some humanity
>(the beginning of the movie they set it up the other way, YGL
>is a young cold killer and he grows into a better person as BW
>because he meets the love of his life).

I actually thought this was one of the best parts of the movie. I've had a similar idea of trying to write a story in which your hero has to do terrible deeds to save the world. I thought it was done very well. If you went back and knew one of three babies was HItler; would you kill all three babies?
The fact that they switched your rooting interest on its head and turned the good guy into the bad guy isn't a story problem, it's a great twist. And it was especially well done because it just kind of happened naturally and all of a sudden you were like, "Holy shit, maybe I shouldn't be rooting for this guy."


>Also you all say that its clear that Cid isn't a young JGL but
>there are things dropped in the movie that could leave you to
>at least consider that (more than just JGL seeing common
>ground between them). Either way it was distracting to leave
>that idea out there. Again, this might just have been my
>distracted viewing of the movie.

Yeah, this one is one you. While there might be some red herrings about who Cid is (and I don't think there are many; wouldn't JGL have recognized Emily Blunt as the woman who raised him if he was Cid.), I think it's pretty obvious from early on (earlier than we were probably supposed to know) that Cid is the Big Bad Guy who takes over the city.

>Also thought this movie missed a golden opportunity to tap
>into a very universal theme, if you got a chance to talk to
>your younger pig headed know it all self, what would you say?

Eh, I don't think that would have really fit as much. And I'm not sure what it would have added. That's a different movie.

**********
"naive as the dry leaves on the ground looking past the trees to the blue sky asking 'why me?'" -Blu

Why I still fuzz with the Lesson
http://open.spotify.com/user/brothersport86/playlist/3DhEhilho77Z0UCPbJlEJf

:)

Actually, some of them could be handled by sitting down and watching the film in an uninterrupted manner.

People have a mixed opinion of the film.

And don't watch Children of Men in this manner.