# Looper - Time Travel Movie



## Badgers (Sep 25, 2012)

> In 2072, when the mob wants to get rid of someone, the target is sent 30 years into the past, where a hired gun awaits. Someone like Joe, who one day learns the mob wants to 'close the loop' by transporting back Joe's future self.


 
Looks like a good film to me, I like a bit of Bruce Willis time travel capers.


----------



## Firky (Sep 25, 2012)

I may go see this on Friday.


----------



## Biddlybee (Sep 25, 2012)

trailers look quite good.


----------



## The Octagon (Sep 25, 2012)

Getting very good reviews from what I've read, like the way they've used prosthetics to subtlely turn JGL into a potential young Bruce Willis.

Hopefully will see it over the weekend.

Brick (Rian Johnson's debut feature) is a great little film.


----------



## Badgers (Sep 25, 2012)

Some good reviews on IMDB



> There's only one way to watch Looper: suspend all disbelief, put your logic in stasis and get on with enjoying the romp. With that frame of mind employed, it's a superb film. No, it's not as intelligent a film as Inception, but it kicks the ass of Wanted and Gordon-Levitt is potentially a bigger star in the making than either Leonardo DiCaprio or James McAvoy.


 



> Overall there was little I didn't like about Looper and it has gone straight into my Top 10 films of the year so far as well as being probably my favourite Sci-Fi since 2009's Moon. It treats its audience with respect and isn't afraid to keep you them of the loop for a while as it teases them with false and sometimes seemingly false information. It is well designed and acted and features a wonderfully multifaceted and intelligent story which rewards patience and concentration with a fantastic ending.


 


> So does it live up to the hype that its currently getting from press critics? No, not really but thats because the hype was too high. Its a very good film, it tells a superb moralistic high concept story and I reckon it is still the best sci-fi film of the year. I just cant help the feeling that its a missed opportunity, given its excellent storyline, it could have had a much bigger impact with a more punchier and exciting execution. Its just not the all round entertaining experience as I perceived it would be from the general consensus.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 25, 2012)

What happened to Cybil Shepard. Remember when she wore those red trainers to that big doo?


----------



## Badgers (Sep 25, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> What happened to Cybil Shepard. Remember when she wore those red trainers to that big doo?


 
She dumped Elvis, stood up Jack Nicholson and turned down Robert De Niro...


----------



## Superdupastupor (Sep 25, 2012)

I read an article about the film last night and then fell asleep and had a dream about being asked to kill people.

Which I did with a heavy conscience.

might go and see the film


----------



## miniGMgoit (Sep 26, 2012)

I want to have rampant sweating grunty sex with Bruce Willis so I'll be watching this


----------



## Firky (Sep 26, 2012)

miniGMgoit said:


> I want to have rampant sweating grunty sex with Bruce Willis so I'll be watching this




Poofta ey? <said in an Edward from league of gentlemen voice>

I rarely read reviews about films I intend to see, I like to see it without knowing the foggiest about it. Prometheus was hard work to avoid and when I did get to watch it I wondered why I bothered avoiding trailers and all sorts


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 26, 2012)

I'm going to hazard a guess and say that these questions are never explored: How is a process which surely involves some _seriously_ exotic physics getting into the hands of the mob.

and

Why go to the effort of sending people back in time to whack them given that they have plenty of other options that don't involve violating all logic.


this is going to be another Timecop


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 26, 2012)

I'm a big fan of the writer/director, Rian Johnson, and JGL, so will check this out on duty.

As such, I am now self-banned from this thread until I've seen it 

Oh, and I hope they haven't nicked my idea


----------



## The Octagon (Sep 26, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> this is going to be another Timecop


----------



## Firky (Sep 26, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm going to hazard a guess and say that these questions are never explored: How is a process which surely involves some _seriously_ exotic physics getting into the hands of the mob.
> 
> and
> 
> ...


 
The idea was born from a writer who's two favourite things are the Sopranos and Terminator.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 26, 2012)

Time Cop was great. Not seen a time travel film since Primer. Don't think this will be as good but will probably watch it.


----------



## Reno (Sep 26, 2012)

I love time travel films, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Emily Cunt Blunt, so I'll be seeing this on Saturday.


----------



## Badgers (Sep 26, 2012)

Twelve Monkeys is my favourite TT film


----------



## hegley (Sep 27, 2012)

The Octagon said:


> the way they've used prosthetics to subtlely turn JGL into a potential young Bruce Willis.


Every time I see the trailer for it, this completely freaks me out - the prosthetics are v cleverly done.


----------



## Epona (Sep 27, 2012)

Ooh this looks like my sort of thing.  Not sure my finances can stretch to cinema tickets mind you


----------



## Mation (Sep 27, 2012)

Biddlybee said:


> trailers look quite good.


Apart from claiming it's 'this decade's Matrix'. But it's a Bruce Willis time travel film so there's not much chance I won't like it, however rubbish it is


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 27, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> Time Cop was great. Not seen a time travel film since Primer. Don't think this will be as good but will probably watch it.


 
Time cop is horse shit. If they touch they turn into blobs??? WTF
Primer could have been better, I like the idea but I think it gets off track in an attempt to find a (probably) unnecessary 'proper' story.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 27, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Time cop is horse shit. If they touch they turn into blobs??? WTF
> Primer could have been better, I like the idea but I think it gets off track in an attempt to find a (probably) unnecessary 'proper' story.


 
You have to accept Time Cop for what it is: another backdrop for Van Damn kicking ass.  It's never gonna be Best Film Ever, nor win an oscar, but I doubt that was ever the plan.  It's like Chronicles of Riddick for the 90s.  And I really enjoyed it.

Primer is completely the opposite.  They were really trying to understand the implications of time travel there, not make a switch-yer-brain-off blockbuster.  And its budget was tiny.  It also worked, but I need to see it again as I didn't fully understand the multiple timelines thing first time around.  The story was a bit crap, yeah, but the film was really about the 'realities' of time travel existing.

What's a TT film you like?  12 Monkeys is another good one, IMO.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 27, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> You have to accept Time Cop for what it is: another backdrop for Van Damn kicking ass. It's never gonna be Best Film Ever, nor win an oscar, but I doubt that was ever the plan. It's like Chronicles of Riddick for the 90s. And I really enjoyed it.
> 
> Primer is completely the opposite. They were really trying to understand the implications of time travel there, not make a switch-yer-brain-off blockbuster. And its budget was tiny. It also worked, but I need to see it again as I didn't fully understand the multiple timelines thing first time around. The story was a bit crap, yeah, but the film was really about the 'realities' of time travel existing.
> 
> What's a TT film you like? 12 Monkeys is another good one, IMO.


 
Yes I liked primer for the real 'implications of time travel' but I thought it fell down when they tried to make an unnecessary story. I think I should also give it a re-watch though. It's in CSX for 70p so I might pop down there.

12 monkeys is too long. On paper it should be great and I can't even think off the top of my head without a re-watch why it isn't. I just know it just about get's a 'good enough' from me.

As for a TT film I liked a lot?

Black Knight is okfor what it is.
Returner is ok for what it is.
I did like Primer.
Back to the Future
Time Bandits
Groundhog day


----------



## Reno (Sep 27, 2012)

The only way I started to understand anything that happened in Primer past the first 20 minutes was when I listened to the directors commentary. It may all have been very clever, but it didn't do much for me. Even the directors admitted that much of it was impossible to get without some sort of outside help.

Triangle is an underrated little film, where Melissa George gets stuck in a rather sinister time loop with lots af allusions to Greek mythology. It's superficially similar to the Spanish film Timecrimes, but that film went off track after its first act.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Sep 27, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Time cop is horse shit.


 
I thought Ron Silver was pretty good as the nasty senator.


----------



## laptop (Sep 27, 2012)

Badgers said:


> Twelve Monkeys is my favourite TT film


 
Hated it at the time, for the cardboard-cutout activists. Is it time to re-watch it?


----------



## Reno (Sep 27, 2012)

laptop said:


> Hated it at the time, for the cardboard-cutout activists. Is it time to re-watch it?


 
Yes. And also watch La jetee of which it is a remake:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_jetée


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 27, 2012)

Reno said:


> Triangle is an underrated little film, where Melissa George gets stuck in a rather sinister time loop with lots af allusions to Greek mythology. It's superficially similar to the Spanish film Timecrimes, but that film went off track after its first act.


 
Yes, Triangle is on my list as is Timecrimes. This thread has reminded me to have a look in my lunchbreak.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Sep 27, 2012)

The Spaceman and King Arthur!


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 27, 2012)

Reno said:


> Triangle is an underrated little film, where Melissa George gets stuck in a rather sinister time loop with lots af allusions to Greek mythology. It's superficially similar to the Spanish film Timecrimes, but that film went off track after its first act.


 
That one from Neighbours???

Is it worth £3


----------



## Reno (Sep 27, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> That one from Neighbours???
> 
> Is it worth £3


 
Yup. She's carved out a niche for herself since mostly starring in horror films and she's not a bad actress. If they can't get Radha Mitchell, they get her.

I think it's worth £3, but you hate almost everything, so don't ask me for the money back later on.


----------



## Cloo (Sep 27, 2012)

I loved Brick, and I do fancy seeing Looper - reviews suggests multiple plot holes, but high entertainment value. I also really like Joseph Gordon Levitt - I think he has a nicely understated but impressive screen presence.


----------



## Mation (Sep 27, 2012)

laptop said:


> Hated it at the time, for the cardboard-cutout activists. Is it time to re-watch it?


Definitely. Of all time, I'd say it's one of my all time favourite films of all time


----------



## Biddlybee (Sep 27, 2012)

Mation said:


> Apart from claiming it's 'this decade's Matrix'. But it's a Bruce Willis time travel film so there's not much chance I won't like it, however rubbish it is


I don't remember them mentioning the Matrix  (only seen the trailer at the cinema mind).


----------



## Mation (Sep 27, 2012)

Reno said:


> Yes. And also watch La jetee of which it is a remake:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_jetée


I saw that at the cinema - it was on before Primer, I think. I wasn't paying attention during the title and wasn't expecting it to be on, so it took me a while to work out that it wasn't a modern advert taking the piss out of beatnik pretentiousness, and then that I was actually enjoying it, and then think, "hang on! This is the story of 12 monk... oh" and realise it was La Jetée


----------



## Mation (Sep 27, 2012)

Biddlybee said:


> I don't remember them mentioning the Matrix  (only seen the trailer at the cinema mind).


It was one of the press reviews flashed up as text on the ad I saw on telly.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 27, 2012)

Great. More "you just have to turn off your brain" sci fi.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 27, 2012)

Cloo said:


> I loved Brick, .


Brick was shit.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 28, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Brick was shit.


 
idiot


----------



## Reno (Sep 28, 2012)

I too thought Brick was rubbish.


----------



## Random (Sep 28, 2012)

Reno said:


> I too thought Brick was rubbish.


You too are an idiot


----------



## Reno (Sep 28, 2012)

Random said:


> You too are an idiot


 
...and you are a gullible idiot.

I'm all for for updating and blending film noir with other genres (The Long Goodbye, Blade Runner), but here the film noir conceit was clumsily crafted onto the high school movie. It was just a director showing off with an idea that seemed clever, but which wasn't followed through well and which lacked any sort of conviction or depth. These kids spouting hard boiled dialogue felt more like a school theatre production of a film noir rather than a successful blend of two genres.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 28, 2012)

Reno said:


> ...and you are a gullible idiot.
> 
> I'm all for for updating and blending film noir with other genres (The Long Goodbye, Blade Runner), but here the film noir conceit was clumsily crafted onto the high school movie. It was just a director showing off with an idea that seemed clever, but which wasn't followed through well which lacked any sort of conviction or depth. These kids spouting hard boiled dialogue felt more like a school theatre production of a film noir rather than a successful blend of two genres.


 
Agreed, at times it felt like Max Fisher production.

I think that even if you put that aside it was pretty dull, maybe because that was all there was to the film.


----------



## Reno (Sep 28, 2012)

Yes, it was really sluggishly paced.


----------



## The Octagon (Sep 28, 2012)

I thought Brick worked beautifully.

Expecting the two genres to 'blend' seems like missing the point somewhat to me, the incongruous nature of having the kids speaking in slang and engaging in criminal enterprise gave the film an unsettled, out-of-place feeling. Apart from an exchange between JGL and the Principal (Shaft ), there's nothing deliberately 'cool' about it either, plenty of humour undercuts the po-faced investigation.

The plot was tight and went unexpected places and the violence is actually violent - quick, brutal and horrible. I'm not sure how you can claim a lack of conviction, what does that even mean in this context?

Not everyone's cup of tea certainly, but hardly 'shit'


----------



## Firky (Sep 28, 2012)

Stop and start kinda film but I sortaliked it, for a time travel movie there's not an awful lot of time travel and best of all it doesn't have loads of unnecessary CGI, stunts, tits and big bangs.

Joseph Gordon-Levit does a good young Bruce Willis.

I'd give it 6/10.

Loses points for plot holes but they're not as audacious as Prom'


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 29, 2012)

Saw it tonight, really liked it.


----------



## Reno (Sep 29, 2012)

Me too !


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 30, 2012)

Nicely done science fiction I thought. Loved how the mutation 'talent' seems incidental then utterly relevant!


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 30, 2012)

Reno said:


> Yes, it was really sluggishly paced.



I liked its pace, the film felt like it was going at its own pace in defiance of expectations.


----------



## Reno (Sep 30, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> I liked its pace, the film felt like it was going at its own pace in defiance of expectations.


 
What or whose expectations ?


----------



## Firky (Sep 30, 2012)

Spoiler



How did they find out the three possible locations of the kid / rainmaker? I missed that bit.


----------



## Reno (Sep 30, 2012)

firky said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> How did they find out the three possible locations of the kid / rainmaker? I missed that bit.


 
I'm still too dumb to use the spoiler code but I suppose the answer doesn't make sense to anybody who hasn't seen the film:

They were all born at the same hospital on the same day and then I suppose he looked them up, Terminator style.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 30, 2012)

Reno said:


> What or whose expectations ?



Hollywood films starring big names like Bruce Willis.


----------



## Reno (Sep 30, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Hollywood films starring big names like Bruce Willis.


 
Bruce Willis wasn't in Brick, which is the film the discussion was about you quoted me from.

Unlike Brick I liked Looper, which I've only just seen tonight. I said so under your post.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 30, 2012)

Oh right that wasn't clear from your post itself, sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Reno (Sep 30, 2012)

What I liked about Looper was that despite it having a twisty, complicated plot as would be expected from a film that jumps around in time, with several time frames running parallel, is that it never really gets confusing. It does a terrific job of keeping everything clear and understandable. The other thing I liked was that the film doesn't neglect its characters, who have a surprising amount of depth, considering this is such a plot based film. Sure, there are plot holes as there are with pretty much all films that deal with a time travel paradox, but I happily put up with that as the film doesn't decsent into tiresome exposition scenes required to explain everything, which would hinder its pace and would come at the expense of character development. The film doesn't do anything particularly new with time travel, it just uses the elements we are familiar with to re-configure them to spin a great yarn.

One thing I've noticed is that critics who weren't so keen on the film didn't like the second half. When it starts to focus on Emily Blunt's character there is indeed a massive shift and it becomes a different, slower paced film, but that's another thing I thought was great. That's where the film gets to tackle its more intriguing ideas and where it becomes more character based. I liked the change of locale and pace and the telekinesis scenes are beautiful and eery.

The cast are very good too. Seeing Joseph Gordon-Levitt with his Bruce Willis make up is odd at first, but he does a fantastic job in mimicking Willis. Emily Blunt brings some heart to the film in the second half. Bruce Willis hasn't really seemed invested in a role for a while, like he is here. The kid was just the right mixture of likeable and creepy.


----------



## metalguru (Sep 30, 2012)

I enjoyed it a lot overall, so any criticism is minor -but I wasn't that keen on the telekinesis angle.

Really liked the direction, the acting and the overall feel of it.


----------



## Apathy (Sep 30, 2012)

errr it wasnt that good


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 30, 2012)

It was.


----------



## Firky (Sep 30, 2012)

It's better than the shite that was inception


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 30, 2012)

firky said:


> It's better than the shite that was inception


 
Lol not hard though is it?


----------



## Firky (Sep 30, 2012)

No, but with all the hype and OMGZ I stupidly expected a really good film.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 30, 2012)

firky said:


> No, but with all the hype and OMGZ I stupidly expected a really good film.


 
I didn't expect a good film because of the hype but because of the director tbh. Afterward I remembered he did Insomnia, a film that's surely a cure for the condition...


----------



## Lea (Oct 1, 2012)

I thought it was good but not as good as the critics made it out to be.

I like Joseph Gordon-Levitt but what's with his caterpillar eyebrows in the film?


----------



## Reno (Oct 1, 2012)

Lea said:


> I thought it was good but not as good as the critics made it out to be.
> 
> I like Joseph Gordon-Levitt but what's with his caterpillar eyebrows in the film?


 
He wore prosthetic make up to make him look more like Bruce Willis, which included changing the shape of his eyebrows (and his nose, chin, lips and forehead)


----------



## Lea (Oct 1, 2012)

Reno said:


> He wore prosthetic make up to make him look more like Bruce Willis, which included changing the shape of his eyebrows (and his nose, chin, lips and forehead)


 
But Bruce had no eyebrows!


----------



## Reno (Oct 1, 2012)

Lea said:


> But Bruce had no eyebrows!


 
Not Bruce Willis now, Bruce Willis when he was young. For obvious reasons. And he had eyebrows just like that. Ever seen Moonlighting ?


----------



## Lea (Oct 1, 2012)

Reno said:


> Not Bruce Willis now, Bruce Willis when he was young. For obvious reasons. And he had eyebrows just like that. Ever seen Moonlighting ?


 
Yes, I saw a few episodes of Moonlighting but don't remember the caterpillar eyebrows. I'll have to google for pictures of a younger Bruce.


----------



## Reno (Oct 1, 2012)

In any case, I thought considering the two actors look nothing alike they did a good job of making JGL look like someone who could feasibly age into Willis.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Oct 1, 2012)

I bought that Triangle today, and for some more time fun, Frequency.
I was just on a bit of a roll.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 1, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/oct/01/looper-sci-fi-blockbuster-china

Wasn't aware of the chinese connection, their weird rules or the massive investment going on.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Oct 1, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/oct/01/looper-sci-fi-blockbuster-china
> 
> Wasn't aware of the chinese connection, their weird rules or the massive investment going on.



Interesting didn't know this either, thought the bigging up China in the film was just speculative geo political commentary...


----------



## Firky (Oct 2, 2012)

Lea said:


> But Bruce had no eyebrows!


 
He did before he got old.


----------



## Firky (Oct 2, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Interesting didn't know this either, thought the bigging up China in the film was just speculative geo political commentary...



Ditto.


----------



## Lea (Oct 2, 2012)

Spoiler



Why does JGL kill himself in the end?


 


Spoiler



Also is the little boy the same person as JGL and Bruce Willis' character?


 
Obviously I did not understand the film very well.


----------



## Firky (Oct 2, 2012)

Spoiler



Because by killing himself as a young man in the present he can't live to be an old man see the future.

If it was me I'd have shot the mum then myself just because men like me like to watch the world burn.


----------



## Reno (Oct 2, 2012)

Lea said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Now I'm not surprised you didn't like the film that much. 




Spoiler



First question:

Because he realises that if the boy sees his mother shot by Bruce Willis he will turn out bad.

Second question:

No, the boy is the evil crime lord of the future who kills all the loopers. If he doesn't turn evil then that won't happend.


----------



## elevendayempire (Oct 2, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Interesting didn't know this either, thought the bigging up China in the film was just speculative geo political commentary...


Slightly pissed off about that, tbh – the "he wants to go to France" thing was such a key element of his character, and relocating him to China completely changes the character arc. Originally he goes to the place of his dreams and it clearly doesn't work out for him; in the new version he takes the boss man's advice and goes to a different place, and it doesn't work out for him.

Plus all the "your puny Western economies will never stand up to the might of China" stuff was very jarring.

Iron Man 3's being co-funded under the same arrangement. Fuckles.


----------



## Lea (Oct 2, 2012)

Spoiler



Another thing I don't understand is JGL kills Bruce Willis at one point and then lives his life in Shanghai, meets his wife etc and then comes back to the past. If he has already closed the loop once, how can Bruce come back a second time?


 
I need to watch this film a second time. As with most time travel films, I can never get my head around the mechanics of it!


----------



## Reno (Oct 2, 2012)

elevendayempire said:


> Slightly pissed off about that, tbh – the "he wants to go to France" thing was such a key element of his character, and relocating him to China completely changes the character arc. Originally he goes to the place of his dreams and it clearly doesn't work out for him; in the new version he takes the boss man's advice and goes to a different place, and it doesn't work out for him.
> 
> Plus all the "your puny Western economies will never stand up to the might of China" stuff was very jarring.
> 
> Iron Man 3's being co-funded under the same arrangement. Fuckles.


 
No, the whole changing your destination because of being aware of future events was a key element to his character and the film, not going to France just because it's romantic. What does it matter what country he goes to instead of France ? Maybe if China had not had money in it he had gone somewhere else, but he would still have changed his destination. The point is that he meets his wife there who turns his life around, which may be what Abe was implying. And China is at least less of a trite cliche than "romantic France" for that kind of thing.

All sorts of films, especially smaller, smart ones like this one, are co-funded by several countries, because Hollywood doesn't have that much interest in smart films anymore. if It wasn't for the Chinese funding, you may have never seen this film at all.

Blade Runner was co-founded by Run Run Shaw, btw.


----------



## elevendayempire (Oct 2, 2012)

Reno said:


> No, the whole changing your destination because of being aware of future events was a key element to his character and the film, not going to France just because it's romantic. What does it matter what country he goes to instead of France ? Maybe if China had not had money in it he had gone somewhere else, but he would still have changed his destination. The point is that he meets his wife there who turns his life around, which may be what Abe was implying. And China is at least less of a trite cliche than "romantic France" for that kind of thing.


Yes, it was a key element to his character, but that was _a change from the original script_. It's clearly stated in the Grauniad feature that in the original version of the film, he goes to France as he originally planned. Regardless of whether it's a beneficial change to the film, it's a massive change to his character arc. And I resent changes like that being imposed at the behest of the financiers.


----------



## Reno (Oct 2, 2012)

elevendayempire said:


> Yes, it was a key element to his character, but that was _a change from the original script_. It's clearly stated in the Grauniad feature that in the original version of the film, he goes to France as he originally planned. Regardless of whether it's a beneficial change to the film, it's a massive change to his character arc. And I resent changes like that being imposed at the behest of the financiers.


 
If a country co-finances a movie often part of it has to be shot there or crew from that country will have to get employed. As I said, if it wasn't for the Chinese money, there may well not have been a film. Films are huge financial ventures, even mid-budget ones like this one and to believe that every single decision has to be artistically "pure" is just not that realisitic.

And I still think that him changing his destination thanks to Abe's advice ties into the themes better.


----------



## elevendayempire (Oct 2, 2012)

Reno said:


> If a country co-finances a movie often part of it has to be shot there or crew from that country will have to get employed. As I said, if it wasn't for the Chinese money, there may well not ahve been film. Films are huge financial ventures, even mid-budget ones like this one and to believe that every single decision has to be artistically "pure" is just not that realisitic.
> 
> And I still think that him changing his destination thanks to Abe's advice ties into the themes better.


I know that films are as much about art for the sake of bums on seats as they are for art's sake (_ars gratia arse_ vs _ars gratia artis_, if you like) – but when the money sticks its oar into creative decisions too much, very often they end up fatally compromising the film. I don't think that's happened with Looper, but it comes perilously close, with all the bigging-up of China.


----------



## Reno (Oct 2, 2012)

elevendayempire said:


> I know that films are as much about art for the sake of bums on seats as they are for art's sake (_ars gratia arse_ vs _ars gratia artis_, if you like) – but when the money sticks its oar into creative decisions too much, very often they end up fatally compromising the film. I don't think that's happened with Looper, but it comes perilously close, with all the bigging-up of China.


 
Ironically, the Chinese money is probably exactly what afforded this film the integrity and intelligence missing from so many bigger Hollywood blockbusters, which are almost entirely led by financial decisions.


----------



## Lea (Oct 2, 2012)

elevendayempire said:


> I know that films are as much about art for the sake of bums on seats as they are for art's sake (_ars gratia arse_ vs _ars gratia artis_, if you like) – but when the money sticks its oar into creative decisions too much, very often they end up fatally compromising the film.* I don't think that's happened with Looper, but it comes perilously close, with all the bigging-up of China.*


 
Example?

I think it's great that films are filmed in different locations.


----------



## elevendayempire (Oct 2, 2012)

Lea said:


> Example?
> 
> I think it's great that films are filmed in different locations.


JGL's character being paid in Chinese cash. "You don't want to go to Paris. I'm from the future. Go to China."

All smacks of "Your Puny Western Economies Will Be Ground Beneath The Heel of Chinese Financial Might."

I hope the influx of Chinese money into Hollywood means we don't start getting peddled the... uncomfortable messages of films like Hero. And it'll be interesting to see how they approach Iron Man 3 - the villain of that film is The Mandarin, originally a terribly racist Yellow Peril villain in the comics, now recast as a terrorist that Tony Stark teams up with the Chinese government to take down. Given the Chinese government's definition of "terrorist," that one will be interesting to watch.


----------



## Lea (Oct 2, 2012)

elevendayempire said:


> JGL's character being paid in Chinese cash. "You don't want to go to Paris. I'm from the future. Go to China."
> 
> *All smacks of "Your Puny Western Economies Will Be Ground Beneath The Heel of Chinese Financial Might."*
> 
> I hope the influx of Chinese money into Hollywood means we don't start getting peddled the... uncomfortable messages of films like Hero. And it'll be interesting to see how they approach Iron Man 3 - the villain of that film is The Mandarin, originally a terribly racist Yellow Peril villain in the comics, now recast as a terrorist that Tony Stark teams up with the Chinese government to take down. Given the Chinese government's definition of "terrorist," that one will be interesting to watch.


 
And you have a problem with that? Would it have been different if it were reversed and JGL said he wanted to go to China but was advised to go to France? Or would it have been different if he went to say Brazil (or any other country) because he was told that the future was there?

Does Chinese government definition of "terrorist" differ from any other countries? Interesting!


----------



## elevendayempire (Oct 2, 2012)

Lea said:


> And you have a problem with that? Would it have been different if it were reversed and JGL said he wanted to go to China but was advised to go to France? Or would it have been different if he went to say Brazil (or any other country) because he was told that the future was there?
> 
> Does Chinese government definition of "terrorist" differ from any other countries? Interesting!


He was told that the future was there _because China's putting up the cash for the film_. I have a problem with films being used to peddle propaganda.


----------



## Reno (Oct 2, 2012)

elevendayempire said:


> All smacks of "Your Puny Western Economies Will Be Ground Beneath The Heel of Chinese Financial Might."


 
That's what I thought initially was the reason, but when he meets his wife and his life turns around we find out why he's really advised to go there instead. And bad shit still happens in China. It's just a location. As I said before, investment money means that crew or location from that country have to come into play. it happens all the time in co-productions. You've read about it in an article, the concept was new to you, now you see some conspiracy to "big up China".

The real deal in this case was that in China only a limited amount of foreign films can get released every year. Looper got around that by being partly a Chinese production and it means that the film will make its profit there, not in the US where it is a little too off the wall to strike big. It's already a huge success in China. How China is shown is fairly irrelevant and its role in the film is neither good nor bad. To say its mere presence as a location is "propaganda" is just plain daft and you are putting the bees you've now got in your bonnet above what actually happens in the film.


----------



## Lea (Oct 2, 2012)

elevendayempire said:


> *He was told that the future was there because China's putting up the cash for the film.* I have a problem with films being used to peddle propaganda.


 
Source?


----------



## elevendayempire (Oct 2, 2012)

Lea said:


> Source?


The Guardian article upthread.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Oct 2, 2012)

elevendayempire said:


> Slightly pissed off about that, tbh – the "he wants to go to France" thing was such a key element of his character, and relocating him to China completely changes the character arc. Originally he goes to the place of his dreams and it clearly doesn't work out for him; in the new version he takes the boss man's advice and goes to a different place, and it doesn't work out for him.
> 
> Plus all the "your puny Western economies will never stand up to the might of China" stuff was very jarring.
> 
> Iron Man 3's being co-funded under the same arrangement. Fuckles.



I didn't think it was jarring and tbh after nearly a 100 years of US cinematic dominance isn't it a bit refreshing?


----------



## Lea (Oct 2, 2012)

elevendayempire said:


> The Guardian article upthread.


the artcle said that the location had been changed from Paris to Shanghai but it did not say that in return for Chinese funding the film had to state the the future is in China.


----------



## elevendayempire (Oct 2, 2012)

Lea said:


> the artcle said that the location had been changed from Paris to Shanghai but it did not say that in return for Chinese funding the film had to state the the future is in China.


That's a bit naive. It's a sweeping change that's been made (swapping Paris out from Shanghai as the character's dream destination) that occurred after they accepted Chinese funding. It's an implicit thing. In the same way that, say, the Fox-funded sitcom Raising Hope peddles a pro-life message.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 2, 2012)

elevendayempire said:


> ..It's an implicit thing. In the same way that, say, the Fox-funded sitcom Raising Hope peddles a pro-life message.


Not sure about that, Raising Hope is very funny and I don't see an agenda in it, I look for that stuff.   Raising Hope is very good imo.


----------



## Lea (Oct 2, 2012)

elevendayempire said:


> That's a bit naive. It's a sweeping change that's been made (swapping Paris out from Shanghai as the character's dream destination) that occurred after they accepted Chinese funding. It's an implicit thing. In the same way that, say, the Fox-funded sitcom Raising Hope peddles a pro-life message.


it's agreed that the article says that part of the filming had to be shot in China to get funding from the Chinese and to get around the issue of having the film released in China because of the quotas but I don't agree that it was implied that the producers of the film had to agree to write into the dialogue where Abe says that China is the future. Can't it be that the writers thought that as China's economy has been increasing in the past couple of decades, this is just a prediction.  I don't think that they would have been forced to writing that into the movie.


----------



## Reno (Oct 3, 2012)

elevendayempire said:


> That's a bit naive. It's a sweeping change that's been made (swapping Paris out from Shanghai as the character's dream destination) that occurred after they accepted Chinese funding. It's an implicit thing. In the same way that, say, the Fox-funded sitcom Raising Hope peddles a pro-life message.


 
Shanghai wasn't the characters dream destination. That was made clear in the film. The point was that he took advice from someone who knew his future and he abandoned his dream destination. Had they wanted to, they could have just not mentioned France at all and you would have been none the wiser for it had you not read the article. You seem totally blinkered by trying to read some sort of conspiracy into the fact that you read in a paper that China put up money for the film. You are merely resorting to point scoring by now and instead of genuinely engaging what others have to say, you just keep repeating yourself.


----------



## elevendayempire (Oct 3, 2012)

Lea said:


> it's agreed that the article says that part of the filming had to be shot in China to get funding from the Chinese and to get around the issue of having the film released in China because of the quotas but I don't agree that it was implied that the producers of the film had to agree to write into the dialogue where Abe says that China is the future. Can't it be that the writers thought that as China's economy has been increasing in the past couple of decades, this is just a prediction. I don't think that they would have been forced to writing that into the movie.


 
Oh look:

http://io9.com/5738264/first-images-of-rian-johnsons-dystopian-future

http://io9.com/5902441/how-will-chinese-co production-change-iron-man-3


----------



## Lea (Oct 3, 2012)

elevendayempire said:


> Oh look:
> 
> http://io9.com/5738264/first-images-of-rian-johnsons-dystopian-future
> 
> http://io9.com/5902441/how-will-chinese-co production-change-iron-man-3


 
Wow! A lot of nationalistic bullshit as one commentator writes.


----------



## Idaho (Oct 3, 2012)

I have a points system I apply when choosing whether to watch an SF film.

Is it described as a romp? Yes = 0, No = 1
Is it reviewed as confusing? Yes = 1, No = 0
Are you asked to suspend disbelief? Yes = 0, No = 1
Does it have big name actors? Yes = 0, No = 1
Do people who like Prometheus and Inception like it? Yes = 0, No = 1
Have they added a pointless love interest, y'know, because films need that? Yes = 0, No = 1
Do non-SF people like it (in that I include Star Wars fans)? Yes = 0, No = 1


----------



## Biddlybee (Oct 3, 2012)

are you after Yeses or Nos?


----------



## elevendayempire (Oct 3, 2012)

Lea said:


> Wow! A lot of nationalistic bullshit as one commentator writes.


1. Chinese funding company made a propaganda hagiography of Mao.

2. The same company funds Looper.

3. The script is rewritten to relocate a major story thread from France to China. The finished film depicts China as a global superpower and shows Americans using Chinese money because the dollar is clearly devalued.

Do you not think that point 2) may not have led directly to point 3)? Whether as a result of direct instructions from the financial backers, or as the result of an implicit understanding, the tone of the film changed from the original script to big up China.

(As an example of the "implicit understanding" thing, the first Iron Man film had product placement from Audi, thus the film-makers were very careful to depict an Audi SUV not crashing into Iron Man when the driver applies the brakes, because to do otherwise would imply that Audi's brakes are not up to scratch. I doubt there was a memo stating "The Audi will not crash into someone," but the film-makers know who's holding the purse strings and will self-censor to avoid offending them.)


----------



## Idaho (Oct 3, 2012)

Biddlybee said:


> are you after Yeses or Nos?


 
A score of 6 or 7 and I may go and see it - and be dissapointed.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 3, 2012)

Is it described as a romp? Yes = 0, No = 1 (i think the second part of the movie is too slow paced to classify the film overall as a 'romp' - though there are plently of action sequences)
Is it reviewed as confusing? Yes = 1, No = 0 (it's fairly clear and linear for the most part except one split sequence that the film basically tells you to not really think about)
Are you asked to suspend disbelief? Yes = 0, No = 1 (it's about time travel - go figure)
Does it have big name actors? Yes = 0, No = 1
Do people who like Prometheus and Inception like it? Yes = 0, No = 1 (didn't bother with Promstheus, but I liked inception. That said, I liked this film for largely different reasons. It's got a number of things that Inception didn't have - humour, character development, not too much exposition. On the other hand, it didn't have the conceptual intricacies and what have you - not that it tried to)
Have they added a pointless love interest, y'know, because films need that? Yes = 0, No = 1 (the love interests are integral to the plot and at the heart of the film's message)
Do non-SF people like it (in that I include Star Wars fans)? Yes = 0, No = 1[/quote] (depends who you mean by non-SF people - do people who watch and enjoy the odd sci-fi movie but don't go to conventions, specialist internet forums and the like? I guess you do because if you mean people who don't like SF then none of them could like the film by definition)

I'd give the film a rating of 2 on your system. Whatever that means.


----------



## Idaho (Oct 3, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Is it described as a romp? Yes = 0, No = 1 (i think the second part of the movie is too slow paced to classify the film overall as a 'romp' - though there are plently of action sequences)
> Is it reviewed as confusing? Yes = 1, No = 0 (it's fairly clear and linear for the most part except one split sequence that the film basically tells you to not really think about)
> Are you asked to suspend disbelief? Yes = 0, No = 1 (it's about time travel - go figure)
> Does it have big name actors? Yes = 0, No = 1
> ...


 
Thanks 

(crosses film off list)


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 3, 2012)

BladeRunner doesn't do too well on that scale.


----------



## Idaho (Oct 3, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> BladeRunner doesn't do too well on that scale.


 
It gets about 5-6. But there is no reason to place Blade Runner as some kind of benchmark for what an SF film should be.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 3, 2012)

Idaho said:


> It gets about 5-6. But there is no reason to place Blade Runner as some kind of benchmark for what an SF film should be.


Benchmark?   Maybe.  Watchable, certainly.


----------



## Idaho (Oct 3, 2012)

The key question is the "confusion" one. All good SF films are slated as confusing. All shit ones are raved over as being exciting.


----------



## gabi (Oct 3, 2012)

I liked it. But as with all time-travel movies, the paradoxes are insurmountable. It just doesn't make sense. Entertaining though.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Oct 5, 2012)

Went to see it this evening and ebjoted it. Good performances, thought the little boy was excellent, and an intereting premise/storyline.

And having just been to Shanghai and with no desire to go to Paris I was happy with his choice


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 5, 2012)

QueenOfGoths said:


> Went to see it this evening and ebjoted it.


 
Did you ebjote some alcohol too?


----------



## Firky (Oct 6, 2012)

Idaho said:


> Are you asked to suspend disbelief? Yes = 0, No = 1


 

It annoys me when people say that you have to "suspend belief" as though it is a bad thing. It shows lack of imagination on their behalf.

Don't you believe in the Holy Ghost?


----------



## Reno (Oct 6, 2012)

Suspending your disbelief is one of the first steps to actively engage with a film instead of being a prat, sitting there with your arms crossed and chortling that the film is nothing like what the world looks like through their kitchen window. One of the most depressing things about forum discussions of films is that there is little understanding that films are supposed to be allegorical/metaphorical instead of being a copy of real life.


----------



## pauld (Oct 6, 2012)

Saw it last night, and after enjoying Rian Johnson's Brick so much, was REALLY disappointed.

Best thing about it was the marvellous soundtrack from Nathan Johnson http://nathanjohnson.tumblr.com/tagged/looper

great soul song over the closing credits too:


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Oct 6, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Did you ebjote some alcohol too?


Sadly not, I'm just a shit typist


----------



## HAL9000 (Oct 7, 2012)

I haven't read the whole thread, one bit I didn't understand was......

In one scene bruce willis is killed by his younger self, then that section of plot is ignored and the film carries on.   What happen?


----------



## Stigmata (Oct 8, 2012)

That was the original timeline, what Bruce Willis experienced when he was in the younger guy's position and what he then started to change when he came back.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Oct 8, 2012)

Reno said:


> Yup. She's carved out a niche for herself since mostly starring in horror films and she's not a bad actress. If they can't get Radha Mitchell, they get her.
> 
> I think it's worth £3, but you hate almost everything, so don't ask me for the money back later on.


Managed to get round to it last night, though dunkenly so, it managed an almighty four year queue jump of intrigue.
Actually pretty engaging, and even though it already carried on after they left the boat I wanted even  more. Apart from the obvious time continuum plot holes, her willingness to suddenly become a mentalist was a bit weird as was her final fate acceptance. Still it was a far more enjoyable fare than what is usually on offer and I was thoroughly entertained. 
Thank you for the recommendation. 
Also did back to the future 2 on the telly as the daughter goes nuts for it. Still a great fun film, I'm so glad sholtz didn't end up doing it, there would never have been a BTTF2. Star wars can kiss my arse.


----------



## Dandred (Oct 8, 2012)

It was a bit flat to be honest.

I though the TK aspect was interesting and felt it could have been expanded on.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Oct 8, 2012)

Not bad. A film worth a second watch


----------



## CNT36 (Oct 8, 2012)

Spoiler



The plot holes ruined it. Baby Bruce shooting himself for no particular reason was annoying. So in the original timeline did someone else shoot him in the face?


----------



## Reno (Oct 8, 2012)

He didn't get shot 'for no particular reason':


Spoiler



The first time we see Old Joe and he escapes is actually the second time he appears in the straight story. 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.


Rather than moaning about 'plot holes' try and get your head around it.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Oct 8, 2012)

I thought it was pretty damn clear tbh...


----------



## CNT36 (Oct 8, 2012)

Spoiler



Look at it from the rainmakers narrative. Old Joe's buddy explains the rainmakers origins in the future. This is in the timeline where the loop was closed. He was described as having a glass jaw and a dead mother. The kids life gone bad. Its implied this is down to old Joe's revenge mission and the events in the field with only young Joe's shooting himself averting this course of events. How can this be responsible for the rainmaker in the closed loop timeline if old Joe wasn't there to kick things off?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 8, 2012)

Seen it yesterday, it's a very good movie


----------



## Reno (Oct 8, 2012)

CNT36 said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Look at it from the rainmakers narrative. Old Joe's buddy explains the rainmakers origins in the future. This is in the timeline where the loop was closed. He was described as having a glass jaw and a dead mother. The kids life gone bad. Its implied this is down to old Joe's revenge mission and the events in the field with only young Joe's shooting himself averting this course of events. How can this be responsible for the rainmaker in the closed loop timeline if old Joe wasn't there to kick things off?


 
It's a sci-fi thriller that deals with themes of destiny and responsibility and not a fucking science lecture. Throwing your toys out of the pram because a time paradox story isn't "plausible" is exactly what I railed against on the last page. It seems people are unwilling to suspend their disbelief because they measure films films that deal with fantastical concepts against real life, rather than looking at them as allegories which is what a film like this is meant to be. Picking at 'plot holes" makes people think they are smart, but it completely missing the point of a film like this. The film is well aware that it's not exactly lining up because it just can't (it's is acknowledged by Bruce Willis in the Diner scene) That's the nature of this type of story and all that is excepted from you in exchange of a good time is a little leap of the imagination. It's the chicken and egg problem you get with any time paradox stories, like for instance The Terminator.


----------



## CNT36 (Oct 8, 2012)

Its not chicken and egg. It pretends to be but it isn't. I'm not  throwing my toys out of the pram but the ending is disappointing as i had enjoyed the film til then.


----------



## Reno (Oct 8, 2012)

I thought it was the rare film these days that ended just as it should.


----------



## CNT36 (Oct 8, 2012)

I don't think its anything to do with plausibility more laziness. Huge amounts of the film lack plausibility and can be overlooked. The way his mate is dealt with for example. Utterly ridiculous but at least interesting. The gripe i have shits all over the themes you mention.


----------



## CNT36 (Oct 8, 2012)

Reno said:


> I thought it was the rare film these days that ended just as it should.


In a way I agree but the inconsistencies made it kind of hollow. I'd love to be wrong and told how it does work.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Oct 8, 2012)

I just got out of seeing it at the ritzy.

It was good. More of a drama than a sci-fi in many ways.

Nice Bruce Willis shoots everything scene.

Also.  I know it is more about themes than logic but...... he could have just shot his hand off.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 8, 2012)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> he could have just shot his hand off.


----------



## Firky (Oct 9, 2012)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> he could have just shot his hand off.


----------



## Stigmata (Oct 9, 2012)

CNT36 said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Look at it from the rainmakers narrative. Old Joe's buddy explains the rainmakers origins in the future. This is in the timeline where the loop was closed. He was described as having a glass jaw and a dead mother. The kids life gone bad. Its implied this is down to old Joe's revenge mission and the events in the field with only young Joe's shooting himself averting this course of events. How can this be responsible for the rainmaker in the closed loop timeline if old Joe wasn't there to kick things off?


 


Spoiler



That's implied but not spelled out. Jeff Daniels said all that stuff about the rainmaker was rumour. In fact the kid had already seen his mum killed, or so he thought. It's left open to interpretation.


----------



## CNT36 (Oct 9, 2012)

[=



Spoiler



I get that it could be interpretation but when we are given a piece of information about his jaw and later/earlier a character shoots/shot him in the face you kind of hope there is meant to be a connection. Sounds like Jeff Daniels thought that the story didn't hold together so decided it would be just rumour.


----------



## zenie (Feb 10, 2013)

Just put this on will come back in a bit


----------



## fucthest8 (Feb 11, 2013)

I'm endlessly fascinated by the way people react to sci-fi. It is my humble opinion that all *good* sci-fi simply uses whatever central premise they have settled on as a way of exploring a bigger theme (or themes) - in the case of Looper, I took it as the continuance of abuse, Larkin's "Man hands on misery to man. It deepens like a coastal shelf" if you will. Enjoying films for this reason (or _not_ enjoying them because they are just an excuse to blow shit up, in space) makes so called "plot holes" utterly irrelevant. I thought Looper was a good deal more thoughtful than the adverts made it seem. Mind you , I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with Trailers for movies concentrating on particular aspects, then when you turn up for the film it's completely different.


----------



## TitanSound (Feb 11, 2013)

I really enjoyed this. Totally mindfucked my gf though and I had to pause a couple of times to explain. When I say explain, explain what I thought was going on 

Luckily, I got it right!


----------



## ska invita (Feb 11, 2013)

spooky! I watched this last night. A few of the expected time travel affecting the past/future confusion plot holes but i was entertained.
The little kid stole the show. Reminded me of Akira


----------



## 8den (Feb 11, 2013)

I thought it was a bit crap. A mediocre episode of the 90s Outer Limits with a decent effects budget.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 11, 2013)

fucthest8 said:


> Larkin's "Man hands on misery to man. It deepens like a coastal shelf" if you will.


yeah the loop of revenge/violence is the ultimate loop.


----------



## Gromit (Feb 11, 2013)

If you follow paradox logic to the letter the whole ending makes no sense. 

Other than that it was relatively enjoyable.


----------



## Reno (Feb 11, 2013)

Gromit said:


> If you follow paradox logic to the letter the whole ending makes no sense.
> 
> Other than that it was relatively enjoyable.


 
How can a paradox ever be logical or make sense ?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Feb 11, 2013)

Spoiler: I didn't understand...



Why, when JGL realises how the story pans out, Bruce Willis doesn't then "remember" this realisation and thus simply stop himself. They'd already discussed how he started to remember stuff as and when JGL did it. Wouldn't have the paradox, and might have a nice moment between the two.

I suppose then you'd have the paradox that there'd be no reason for Willis to go back in the first place though. Ah hell...


----------



## Gromit (Feb 11, 2013)

Reno said:


> How can a paradox ever be logical or make sense ?



The logic that certain things just can't happen as they create a paradox. People add in parallel worlds to get around that but even that doesn't work in this particular instance.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 12, 2013)

Yes, it's pointless picking holes in the time travel bits, but having watched it again it struck me that the future mob should just kill their marks before sending them back in time for disposal. Or, if they're being squeamish, set their time machine up to spit people out in the middle of the ocean. Much tidier.


----------



## Gromit (Feb 12, 2013)

The premise was that forensics are so advanced that even with no body present there would be evidence of the killing at the scene of the death. 

DNA, firearm residue. Whatever. 

Sending them to the sea however...

I can see we need to keep an eye on FridgeMagnet


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 12, 2013)

I agree these sort of films shouldn't really be dissected too much but why on earth have 'loopers' kill themselves when looper x could be asigned to kill looper y? The temptation not to kill your future self would surely be greater than bumping off some other looper.


----------



## fucthest8 (Feb 13, 2013)

ska invita said:


> yeah the loop of revenge/violence is the ultimate loop.


 
Maybe, but again I didn't think that was really the point. More the thread that he'd been sold by his own mother and look at how he ended up ... and now he was chasing down a kid that had been abandoned by _his_ mother - if only for a while - but how much was that responsible for his TK ability being so out of control...




Jeff Robinson said:


> I agree these sort of films shouldn't really be dissected too much but why on earth have 'loopers' kill themselves when looper x could be asigned to kill looper y? The temptation not to kill your future self would surely be greater than bumping off some other looper.


 
Er, cause then there's be no movie


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 13, 2013)

That was enjoyable.   Gangster movie turning into Carrie/Scanners.

I just wish I hadn't watched the HISHE episode on youtube months ago.


----------

