# Looper (2012)



## Dante DiBenedetto (Sep 29, 2012)

So I checked out Looper yesterday.

From a Sci-Fi standpoint, nothing really too new or groundbreaking. However, it was a fairly good film. The acting was well done, the plot was solid, and the characters were likable.

The opening seemed a bit weak (First ten or so minutes) but then after that, it got pretty interesting.

If you're a Bruce Willis / JGL fan, check it out for a matinee if nothing else.


----------



## Mouse (Sep 29, 2012)

I couldn't watch the film, simply because the title is hilarious. 'Looper' means a complete lunatic over here in the UK. Not sure what it means in the US! I can't watch The Mentalist for the same reason.


----------



## kshRox (Sep 30, 2012)

Dante DiBenedetto said:


> So I checked out Looper yesterday.
> 
> From a Sci-Fi standpoint, nothing really too new or groundbreaking. However, it was a fairly good film. The acting was well done, the plot was solid, and the characters were likable.
> 
> ...


 
I'm excited to see this, I'll probably go next weekend.
I like both Bruce Willis and JGL so should be good.
The concept may not be avant garde but it's nice to see any kind of SF with strong actors, good writing and a decent budget. (there's so much cheese out there in the genre)


----------



## Dante DiBenedetto (Sep 30, 2012)

Mouse said:


> I couldn't watch the film, simply because the title is hilarious. 'Looper' means a complete lunatic over here in the UK. Not sure what it means in the US! I can't watch The Mentalist for the same reason.



I fail to see how that detracts from the film. Were a movie to come out in the States titled "Complete Lunatic" starring Bruce Willis, I would consider that a boon.


----------



## Mouse (Sep 30, 2012)

If it was a comedy it wouldn't bother me at all but I presume it's a serious sci-fi. Imagine if there was a serious Brit film coming out called _Super Jerky Assholes_. Wouldn't that put you off just a wee bit?


----------



## Dave (Oct 1, 2012)

*Re: Looper (2012) ****Spoilers Included*****



Dante DiBenedetto said:


> The opening seemed a bit weak (First ten or so minutes) but then after that, it got pretty interesting.


Certainly it was an info dump, and while necessary I don't particularly like that talking to camera. Still better to do it that way rather than draw it out, and then get quickly into the action.



Dante DiBenedetto said:


> From a Sci-Fi standpoint, nothing really too new or groundbreaking. However, it was a fairly good film. The acting was well done, the plot was solid, and the characters were likable.


I agree, the advertising in the UK says _The Matrix for the Decade_ and I hardly think it has the deep philosophy of the _Matrix_. As far as time travel paradoxes go, it isn't as complicated as _Time Cop_ or _Terminator_. 

Alternative Timelines were created when Loopers were sent back and went on the run. Therefore I don't really buy into the ideas of the cutting symbols into arms, cutting off body parts, or killing the Looper and his older self dies. I won't make a big deal of that though, because without it there would be no story. However, I did have a problem with the basic premise = the Rainmaker was closing down all the Loopers. The kid said he was going to kill all the bad guys. But these aged Loopers were hardly the bad guys - they were reformed characters - they had earned their Gold and long ago stopped being assassins. So, what was achieved by closing them down 30 years hence. Far better to target the real criminals who were still sending people back to be executed, and among them, didn't the Rainmaker stand out as one of the future _bad guys_ himself?

Also, I'm not sure that in the revised future that kid will grow up to be a functioning adult. He still has a few issues. I think a better solution would have been for Bruce to have killed him. He had already killed two innocent kids and that kid had evil written all through him. The future would be a different one anyway because the whole present day gang had already been executed.

Hmmm! Quite a lot of mindless shooting in this film. 

Other thoughts - the telekinesis becomes a major plot point, yet the explanation and genetic origin is skated over. 

I did think the vision of the future was interesting though, if a little dystopian. The drug eye-dropping; those rocket fly-cycles; people living in old warehouses; the large number of, and the attitude to vagrants.

Not enough to make it a stand out film, but worth seeing. There were a few other places where the pace ran a little slow too, not just in the first 10 minutes.


----------



## Dante DiBenedetto (Oct 1, 2012)

Mouse said:


> If it was a comedy it wouldn't bother me at all but I presume it's a serious sci-fi. Imagine if there was a serious Brit film coming out called _Super Jerky Assholes_. Wouldn't that put you off just a wee bit?



I don't think a movie title has ever put me off from watching a movie. It's typically the content within, but to each their own.


----------



## Fried Egg (Oct 2, 2012)

Mouse said:


> I couldn't watch the film, simply because the title is hilarious. 'Looper' means a complete lunatic over here in the UK.


Really? I've never heard it used in that way...


----------



## Metryq (Oct 2, 2012)

*Re: Looper (2012) ****Spoilers Included*****



Dave said:


> As far as time travel paradoxes go, it isn't as complicated as _Time Cop_ or _Terminator_.



THE TERMINATOR was not a paradox. TERMINATOR 2: JUDGMENT DAY might squeak past as not a paradox if one assumes Judgment Day still happened. Most companies back up their computer files off site—which would mean the T-800's data was correct, but not complete. The first movie stand-alone is not a paradox. The franchise gets very shaky after that.

I know I've seen TIMECOP, but anything with Van Damme in it isn't likely to be memorable.


----------



## Dante DiBenedetto (Oct 2, 2012)

*Re: Looper (2012) ****Spoilers Included*****



Metryq said:


> I know I've seen TIMECOP, but anything with Van Damme in it isn't likely to be memorable.



It was memorable, like having one's leg broken, or losing their virginity to a geriatric.


----------



## Dave (Oct 2, 2012)

*Re: Looper (2012) ****Spoilers Included*****



Metryq said:


> The first movie stand-alone is not a paradox. The franchise gets very shaky after that.


You don't think John Connor being the son of Kyle Reese, who isn't yet born, isn't a paradox? 

And in _Judgement Day_, creating Skynet from the the chip from a destroyed Terminator that came from the future is a circular argument. Who invented the chip technology to begin with?

Anyway, I didn't say I disliked _Looper_, there was lots to think about, only that it doesn't live up to the advertising hype.

What I still don't understand is the point of the Rainmaker closing down all the Loops. I've been thinking on it more and he is putting an end to the careers of Loopers, but it would be easy just to hire some more from other kids in the gutter.

Anyway, it has become the first film to take a higher box office in China than the US. Screening in China has not been subject to the restrictions on foreign films because it was a joint US/Chinese co-production.


----------



## Rodders (Oct 3, 2012)

I'm quite looking forward to this. I'll see if the guys at work fancy going to see it.


----------



## Dante DiBenedetto (Oct 3, 2012)

*Re: Looper (2012) ****Spoilers Included*****



Dave said:


> Anyway, it has become the first film to take a higher box office in China than the US. Screening in China has not been subject to the restrictions on foreign films because it was a joint US/Chinese co-production.



Speaking of China...

"You're going to want to move to China."
"Why China?"
"Trust me, I'm from the future."


----------



## Ian Whates (Oct 3, 2012)

I enjoyed the film.  Flawed, yes, with several logic holes and a couple of significant shortcomings in the plot department, but, to be honest, I don't go to see a film expecting perfectly plotted high-concept science fiction (I read books for that) -- I go to be entertained.  And I found this entertaining.


----------



## Rodders (Oct 6, 2012)

I enjoyed it, but found it a little predictable. The make up was pretty good as you could really see JGL being a younger Bruce Willis with those features. Just above average in my opinion.

I would've like to have seen an alternative ending showing the Rainmaker's future with a happy upbringing.


----------



## Dave (Oct 6, 2012)

What if nothing changed? 

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Cid was already damaged goods. He murdered people even as a young child. His real mother may have abandoned him, but nothing in the film suggested that he hadn't been loved by his aunt.


----------



## megamaniac (Nov 24, 2012)

It was a pretty good movie.  A solid 4 stars.  Yes, the time travel paradoxes are weird.  However, how does it operate anyway?  No one knows as there arent any real time travelers.

Now, yes, you could say a time traveler was sent back to 1941 from 2563 to assure that Adolf Hitler is not assassinated... no matter what.
Why?  Well, history as we/they know it exists only because WWII happened, and if Hitler is dead then history changes and god knows what it'll be like.
So, to prevent any changes, or paradoxes, or to assure the eventual rise of a certain emperor in the future, all historical events must take place, no matter how bad, 9/11, JFK, Napoleon, Genghis Khan, crucifixion of Jesus, etc.

Surely, any time traveler would save Jesus, or James Dean, or Marilyn, or Elvis, or John Lennon, or SRV, or Hendrix, or JFK, or Valentino, or Mozart, or Poe, or Pushkin, or Shakespeare, etc.
However, all events lead to history as it exists in the future; thus nothing can be changed.


----------



## ctg (Nov 24, 2012)

I enjoyed the movie almost as much as I enjoyed Inception. Although it didn't go as deep as Inception, it was hugely enjoyable. But the thing was, even though they managed to fit everything 119 minutes, they could had expanded this to three hours and really showed the good stuff, as at the moment the watcher was left hanging in the air, waiting for something really tangible to happen. 

I don't know exactly what is it that left so sour taste in mouth, but I can suspect I'd have liked to see a bit more of life of a looper, another look into the future, and certainly more of interaction between Willis and Gordon-Levitt. They also could had explain why is that TT is banned in the future. 

In fact, all future TT movies should explain why such a things are deemed illegal. In this one, you see a paradox that cannot be explained. You see Willis disappering at the end, but yet, the mother finds the truck full of silver on the road. Why that didn't disappear? Who drove it there if Old Joe was eliminated before he got old? 

Yeah, I know. Tampering with paradoxes and trying to turn them on head creates even more impossible paradoxes. But anyways, good four star movie to anyone who likes bit of romance, action, scifi, mystery and supernatural elements.


----------



## Ogma (Dec 1, 2012)

I too really enjoyed the film.  I suspect though that if the film was longer, its logical flaws would overwhelm the energy of its execution.  The ending to me is a complete paradox because the young Joe would have never visited the farmhouse in the first place if the old Joe had not existed.  I can think of two possible reasons for this:

(1) Old Joe, if I remember correctly, said time travel was messy.  Maybe travellers from the future can interact with the past and cause changes up until when one of those changes eliminates them from the timeline.  So what happened before the climax of the film in this case would continue to stand.  

(2) The filmmakers were having too much fun with their ideas to worry about about their logic.

I suspect that it is probably option 2, given the other logical quirks in the film (e.g. murder in the future is so impossible that the victims have to be sent back in time to be killed, yet there was a murder in the future in the film).

To reiterate, I really enjoyed this film and I definitely want to rewatch it at some stage in the future.


----------



## ctg (Dec 1, 2012)

Let me give you guys another possibility. Timetravel isn't messy, and the criminals used it to get rid of the evidence that otherwise could had been found and them to brought on forward the court, because of the advanced technologies. So by using Loopers, certain elements are eliminated straight away. 

BUT...

... I wouldn't say Looper is this decade "the matrix" as they advertised on side of the London buses.


----------



## Steve Jordan (Jan 23, 2013)

I enjoyed the film for everything _except_ the time travel elements: The paradoxes got so ridiculous, to me, that after a short while I had to just block them out and watch the rest of it.  But we're talking about time travel, so that was pretty much a given going in.

The performances, the sets and SFX, all were first-rate, so when I didn't have to sweat the time travel stuff, I had a great time watching it.  I also thought the telekinesis element was interesting, and I felt that element alone could have carried the story without the time travel elements.



Ogma said:


> (2) The filmmakers were having too much fun with their ideas to worry about about their logic.



Yeah, that gets my vote.


----------



## MontyCircus (Jan 24, 2013)

I thought it was recommendable (I give it @@@ out of @@@@@), which makes it one of my favourite movies from 2012.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Feb 21, 2013)

I've just posted my review of Looper on my blog: http://sciencefictionfantasy.blogspot.co.uk/

I wrote it before I read the comments here, but my view echoes a few of the points raised in this thread:

This time-travel drama received very good reviews so was on my "must-watch" list as soon as it became available. 

Most of the film is set in 2044. Thirty years later, time travel had been invented and promptly made illegal. Which meant that criminals made use of it, for a bizarre purpose - the untraceable disposal of people they wanted to kill. They sent them back alive to 2044 at a prearranged time and place where they were promptly killed and disposed of by one of a group of killers known as loopers - all organised by a man from the future sent back to live in 2044. The loopers were well paid but there was a price: after thirty years they were sent back to be killed by their younger selves, a process known as "closing the loop". 

This review contains major spoilers so if you prefer to be surprised, stop reading now - but do see the film if you can as it's exciting and intriguing, even though the logical structure doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

---------------------------MAJOR SPOILERS!-------------------------

The protagonist, Joe Simmons, is one of the loopers. He is played by two different actors: as a young man in 2044 by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and as an older man from 2074 by Bruce Willis. The inevitable happens and young Joe turns up for an execution to discover that old Joe is the target. He hesitates, allowing old Joe to escape - a dire crime for which he is pursued by the criminal gang. He goes on the hunt for old Joe, hoping to redeem himself, but when they do meet, matters become complicated. 

Old Joe tells his younger self that a powerful and evil criminal known as the Rainmaker had taken over the 2074 underworld and was shutting down the time travel operation, closing all of the loops. He had discovered information about the Rainmaker's identity which meant that he had to be the adult version of one of three 10-year-old boys living in the area - and old Joe meant to kill all three of them to make sure that the Rainmaker never lived to maturity. One of the boys lives on an isolated farm with his mother (Emily Blunt), and young Joe gets to them first, discovering that the boy has powerful telekinetic abilities - and must be the future Rainmaker. However, young Joe becomes involved with the mother who believes that her son will be a force for good if she can bring him up properly. When old Joe arrives, his younger self realises that he is about to shoot the mother as she protects her son, which will result in the boy becoming the embittered Rainmaker. Too far away to intervene directly, young Joe shoots himself, thereby causing his older self to disappear.

On the face of it, *Looper* is a slick, exciting, unusual and quite intelligent thriller, but on reflection the problems begin to pile up. Put simply, the plot contains some illogical events and major paradoxes - something hinted at in the film itself when old Joe tells young Joe not to try to think about it. For a start, why "close the loop" by killing the older assassins? And if you're going to do that anyway, why have them killed by their younger selves rather than one of the other loopers? If, as a result of young Joe's suicide, old Joe had never existed, then why was young Joe at the farm, and what could have made him kill himself? There are probably quite a few more examples which more analytical viewers can come up with.

Paradoxes of this kind are what you always get when you have single-timeline time travel, and they make a nonsense of the whole plot. This is a very old-fashioned limitation, having been replaced long ago in SF by the notion of the multiverse - parallel worlds, with new ones forever being created at branching points, whenever events change. With this concept, there are no paradoxes, because changes in the past create a different future in parallel with what would have happened without the changes. There is a suggestion of this in the film, with an unexplained scene in which the arrival of old Joe in the past results in young Joe instantly killing him, but this is not followed up (unless I missed something - always possible).

Despite this, it is an intriguing film and one that I am likely to watch again sometime, if only to try to figure out exactly what is supposed to be happening!


----------



## J Riff (Mar 21, 2013)

BAm bam bam. Good God... if I ever had such an inane idea...the 'mafia' sending people back in time so they can be shot and thrown in an oven... instead of just throwing them in an oven.... I would stop writing forever. How does hyperViolent mindless stuff like this get made?
 Fast forward ain't fast enough here. )


----------



## manephelien (Apr 6, 2013)

Ian Whates said:


> I enjoyed the film.  Flawed, yes, with several logic holes and a couple of significant shortcomings in the plot department, but, to be honest, I don't go to see a film expecting perfectly plotted high-concept science fiction (I read books for that) -- I go to be entertained.  And I found this entertaining.



Couldn't put it better myself. It was a fun movie.

Time travel in books or movies always gives me a headache (I call it my chronic headache), so I didn't even try to sort out the paradoxes.


----------



## Alex Mason (May 22, 2013)

I thought it was a fun movie and I enjoyed (as I always do) watching an actor have to emulate another actor. I didn't think it was as thought-provoking as they claimed. Everything was pretty straight-forward once you accept their version of timeline behavior (which is not uncommon in film and tv).

SPOILER 
I did think that whole scene where JGL first goes after his older self escapes was completely superfluous and didn't even fit into the film if you agree to use their version of timeline behavior. So that was jarring in that it seemed to created mystery and depth and then, by the end of the film it had unraveled itself by contradicting that scene as an impossibility.


----------



## J Riff (May 23, 2013)

Oh to be 14 again and hyperactively violent witout much thots at all.


----------

