CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › Looper Post-Release Discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Looper Post-Release Discussion - Page 15

post #701 of 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post
 

I remember some theory of storytelling that went something along the lines that you can break one rule, or ask the audience to go along with one big suspension of disbelief, and that's okay so long as everything else is internally consistent and doesn't cheat in other ways. I'd say this film is an example of that - so long as you're willing to roll with it and accept that this is just how things work, it holds up okay.

The Avengers say hi. As does Star Trek, Star Wars--

 

Think of it this way. Cid is the first child to be Force-sensitive on a planet that's slowly developing hyperdrive, blasters, speeder bikes, etc. 

post #702 of 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

I haven't seen it since the theater, just the impression I was left with. Maybe it was just not generally the feeling that the entire movie reboots once the kid and farm are introduced an hour in.

Well they don't establish that TK people can disintegrate people in mid air is probably what you mean.
post #703 of 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by avian View Post
 

The Avengers say hi. As does Star Trek, Star Wars--

 

Think of it this way. Cid is the first child to be Force-sensitive on a planet that's slowly developing hyperdrive, blasters, speeder bikes, etc. 

 

Again, tone and setting.

post #704 of 849

I think the issue is that so many people participating in the Discourse are amateur writers who've read a lot of books and articles on how to write good. But then it's gotten to the point where suggestions to help them write a story then become gospel for how a story should be. So instead of viewing a story in the context of how effective it is, it's about how well it follows 'the rules' (which are themselves totally arbitrary) and whether it gets a 4.2 or an 8.8 on the Implausible Events Meter. "I really liked this movie, but it didn't feature the hero refusing the call for a sufficient amount of time or being introduced with a sympathetic moment, so thumbs down."

post #705 of 849

Avian, I like your rebellious nature.

 

But expect to be crucified at the stake.

post #706 of 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ska Oreo View Post


I cannot stress how much I hated this video, and it actually is the reason why i gave the movie a rewatch--because fuck that guy. What these armchaid critics fail to understand is that watching movies is an EMOTIONAL experience; you cannot just approach a film analytically. It just seems like an awful way to watch a movie.

I'm not crazy about his ourve, but of the post Plinkett, post guys with Angry in their name school of youtube reviews, he's one of the better ones.  He tends to skew foreign and art movie and has little truck with hallowed geek properties.

In general I agree;  accountancy of perceived errors is no way to review a movie.  But like Bucho says, it's often a symptom of some other more indefinable flaws you can't get past for whatever reason.

In this one I think a reasonable case gets made that Looper, despite its insistence to the contrary, actually invites being picked apart like this with its use of time travel and actually does do a few things that don't make sense but are in there just because "they're cool"  (this is somewhat made more pronounced by Johnson generally seeming to be a smart, writerly craftsman of a filmmaker).

There's nothing essentially wrong with that either, but if you're not making The Lake House or something yer time travel is going to be scruitinised.

post #707 of 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by avian View Post
 

I think the issue is that so many people participating in the Discourse are amateur writers who've read a lot of books and articles on how to write good. But then it's gotten to the point where suggestions to help them write a story then become gospel for how a story should be. So instead of viewing a story in the context of how effective it is, it's about how well it follows 'the rules' (which are themselves totally arbitrary) and whether it gets a 4.2 or an 8.8 on the Implausible Events Meter. "I really liked this movie, but it didn't feature the hero refusing the call for a sufficient amount of time or being introduced with a sympathetic moment, so thumbs down."

 

Except several people in this thread have commented on how effectively it works in this movie: not very. Like I said several posts ago, The Terminator very successfully introduces two major science fiction concepts into a real world setting by tying them together in a way that feels, for lack of a better word, "natural." Here though it just seemed overly and unnecessarily serendipitous, like a character discovering they have ESP and winning the lottery on the same day. It didn't work for me and a handful of other posters, and I don't think we're all wannabe Max Landis types.

post #708 of 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by avian View Post

So instead of viewing a story in the context of how effective it is, it's about how well it follows 'the rules' (which are themselves totally arbitrary) and whether it gets a 4.2 or an 8.8 on the Implausible Events Meter. "I really liked this movie, but it didn't feature the hero refusing the call for a sufficient amount of time or being introduced with a sympathetic moment, so thumbs down."

I think it's more that you watch the movie and it doesn't work for you somehow, so you try to figure out the why, and that leads you to the analytical side of things. If the story is told effectively you don't get distracted enough by crooked bones in the structure to want to pick them apart.

I mean, isn't the Fury Road thread a near-unanimous love-in? That thing breaks story rules galore but most of the same folks in here pulling Looper up for falling short gush like fire hydrants over Miller's masterpiece. Meanwhile The Force Awakens follows the rules slave-Leia-ishly and (eventually) has taken a proper kicking. I'm not sure there are any rules for when Chewers get het up about the rules. It just depends on whether the movie's magic is powerful enough.
post #709 of 849

Unlike most posters, seeing Mad Max Fury Road once was enough for me.

 

BLASPHEMY (sorry. I went ahead and spoke for everyone else)

post #710 of 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post

Unlike most posters, seeing Mad Max Fury Road once was enough for me.

BLASPHEMY (sorry. I went ahead and spoke for everyone else)

It gets better the more times you watch it Carno.

Don't trust me on that. Test me on that.
post #711 of 849
What 'rules' galore does Fury Road break?

Also, watching Pooper. That TK stuff is introduced very early on, but the manner of integrating it is kinda clunky. Hehehe
post #712 of 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

What 'rules' galore does Fury Road break?

Two thirds of the movie is a chase scene. Then the last third is a chase scene back to where it started.

Show me the screenwriting book that tells you to write THAT movie.
post #713 of 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucho View Post


It gets better the more times you watch it Carno.

Don't trust me on that. Test me on that.

 

Oh I've seen it a second time.

 

Not as a great. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucho View Post


Two thirds of the movie is a chase scene. Then the last third is a chase scene back to where it started.

Show me the screenwriting book that tells you to write THAT movie.

It's on Amazon. It's called "How to make a Mad Max Fury Road" by George Miller. 

post #714 of 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post

Unlike most posters, seeing Mad Max Fury Road once was enough for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post

Oh I've seen it a second time.

Quit playing games with my heart Carno, you slippery devil.
post #715 of 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucho View Post



Quit playing games with my heart Carno, you slippery devil.

 

I keep thinking of ways to ruin our friendship. 

 

Until next time... muahahahahaha!

post #716 of 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucho View Post

Two thirds of the movie is a chase scene. Then the last third is a chase scene back to where it started.

Show me the screenwriting book that tells you to write THAT movie.

That doesn't seem like rules broken. There are entire movies that are essentially characters on the run. And they sometimes go back to where it all started.

Fury Road simply takes the essence of that kind of plot and does it amazingly well with a grand villain and great heroes and anti-heroes.
post #717 of 849

The Terminator is a great example of a long chase movie. 

post #718 of 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

That doesn't seem like rules broken. There are entire movies that are essentially characters on the run. And they sometimes go back to where it all started.

Fury Road simply takes the essence of that kind of plot and does it amazingly well with a grand villain and great heroes and anti-heroes.

Show me the book I said.
post #719 of 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucho View Post

Meanwhile The Force Awakens follows the rules slave-Leia-ishly and (eventually) has taken a proper kicking.

 

I don't know about that, the amount of co-incidence that film relies on has got to be breaking some kind of rule. I think that one is something along the lines of 'co-incidence and unlikely circumstances can only hinder a hero, not help'. A lot of that is just copying and then adding to A New Hope though.

 

Plus, if there's not a rule that your bikini wearing slave pets should not strangle you with their own chains, there really should be.

post #720 of 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucho View Post

Show me the book I said.

you find it yourself
post #721 of 849
OK YOU GUYS CALLED MY BLUFF I DON'T READ SCREENWRITING BOOKS AND DON'T KNOW THE RULES.

I just heard that's what you guys do and wanted to be part of the gang, ok?
post #722 of 849
You forgot the major screenwriting rule that Fury Road broke:

it didn't even really have a screenplay as it was initially 'written'
post #723 of 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by flint View Post
 

 

I don't know about that, the amount of co-incidence that film relies on has got to be breaking some kind of rule. I think that one is something along the lines of 'co-incidence and unlikely circumstances can only hinder a hero, not help'. A lot of that is just copying and then adding to A New Hope though.

 

 

Ooooh, I'm opening up this kettle of fish again but...Force Awakens doesn't actually rely on that much co-incidence. In fact, the movie only has two moments that fall under that; The Falcon being on Jakku and R2 waking up at the end. Neither of which is on par with something like Spock being on the same planet and in walking distance of where Kirk is marooned or copying from ANH really. 

 

While I don't agree with a lot of the criticisms/backlash against TFA I can at least see where people are coming from. This one though, doesn't really hold water.

 

Oh, and Looper is great. Like, really great. Telekinesis and all. 

post #724 of 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codename View Post
 

Neither of which is on par with something like Spock being on the same planet and in walking distance of where Kirk is marooned or copying from ANH really. 

 

And Scottie being walking distance on the same planet.

 

There really isn't anything like the coincidences in that film. 

post #725 of 849

Right, first thing first:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

Pooper.

 

Genius.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucho View Post


Two thirds of the movie is a chase scene. Then the last third is a chase scene back to where it started.

Show me the screenwriting book that tells you to write THAT movie.

 

Try Joseph Campbell's THE HERO WITH A THOUSAND FACES, though, as we all know, it really isn't a screenwriting book. NERD-OFF TIME, MOTHERFUCKER.

post #726 of 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splatoon View Post
 

 

Except several people in this thread have commented on how effectively it works in this movie: not very. Like I said several posts ago, The Terminator very successfully introduces two major science fiction concepts into a real world setting by tying them together in a way that feels, for lack of a better word, "natural." Here though it just seemed overly and unnecessarily serendipitous, like a character discovering they have ESP and winning the lottery on the same day. It didn't work for me and a handful of other posters, and I don't think we're all wannabe Max Landis types.

 

Luke Skywalker happens upon an incredibly important droid that leads him to the last Jedi Knight in the universe, and discovers he himself is the son of a Jedi/has Force powers.

post #727 of 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by avian View Post

Luke Skywalker happens upon an incredibly important droid that leads him to the last Jedi Knight in the universe, and discovers he himself is the son of a Jedi/has Force powers.

Bingo, so how did Lucas and Cameron make such things come across as natural, while Rian Johnson (an indie darling everyone was rooting for) was found to have unfolded this story in a way in which his coincidences felt forced? If you're correct that some folks are so read up on screenwriting books they're too hung up on rules to see the art for the trees, why doesn't every movie that breaks the rules get raked over a coal or three?

I mean, your point that the rules don't matter is well-made I reckon, and Splatoon, with the Terminator example, seems to agree with you even though you replied in a way which made it seem as if he didn't, so how does it work beyond that?
post #728 of 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by avian View Post
 

 

Luke Skywalker happens upon an incredibly important droid that leads him to the last Jedi Knight in the universe, and discovers he himself is the son of a Jedi/has Force powers.

 

And for the third time, Looper and Star Wars are two very different movies with very different settings and tones. One is based on a grounded near future version of our world, the other is Star Wars. Also, my ESP/lotto may have been a poor example as I didn't mean to suggest that normal plot serendipity/contrivance is the culprit here. It's the introduction of fantastic elements in a decidedly un-fantastic world, only one of which is central to the story and fleshed out in a way that passes the (subjective of course) smell test. The TK doesn't ruin the movie, but it feels tertiary to the time-travel/emotional drama, world-building that doesn't really contribute much and doesn't gel as neatly with the technological focus. Again, if there was some link between technology/telekinesis, or conversely if the looping ability was in some way tied to mutation, I think it would fit more naturally.

post #729 of 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splatoon View Post
 

Except several people in this thread have commented on how effectively it works in this movie: not very. Like I said several posts ago, The Terminator very successfully introduces two major science fiction concepts into a real world setting by tying them together in a way that feels, for lack of a better word, "natural." Here though it just seemed overly and unnecessarily serendipitous, like a character discovering they have ESP and winning the lottery on the same day. It didn't work for me and a handful of other posters, and I don't think we're all wannabe Max Landis types.

 

Your ESP + lottery example actually sounds like something you'd find on the Black List, I think there have been several of those kind of mash-ups in the 2000s. This, PACIFIC RIM, HORNS (the Daniel Radcliffe film) and Max Landis' and David Ayer's BRIGHT come to mind. I don't know how intentionally the writers are breaking these rules though.

post #730 of 849

I'm just curious as to why telekinetic powers is being excluded from the general sci-fi milieu of robots, space travel, alien life, etc. as this fantastical, game-breaking concept. Is it that Harry Potter and other fantasy films have pulled mental powers too close to being magic? Is it association with the superhero genre? I mean, would we be having this discussion if Looper had featured the Rainmaker inventing faster-than-light travel, or robots?

post #731 of 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virtanen View Post
 

 

Your ESP + lottery example actually sounds like something you'd find on the Black List, I think there have been several of those kind of mash-ups in the 2000s. This, PACIFIC RIM, HORNS (the Daniel Radcliffe film) and Max Landis' and David Ayer's BRIGHT come to mind. I don't know how intentionally the writers are breaking these rules though.

 

Again I obviously chose poorly with that example, however I think you're circling a better explanation that I've offered. ESP + Lotto as a "mash-up" implies a deliberate mixing of normally disparate concepts for effect. I'm not sure what that would be with Pacific Rim (the others I haven't seen) but you get the idea that the contrast/interplay/unusual mixing of those ideas is somehow integral to the film. That's not the impression I got here. I didn't feel like the TK was mean to represent some bizarre mixing of concepts or contrast between disparate elements of man vs. machine or what have you. As presented it seemed like it was supposed to be just a natural bit of world-building, and in that sense it felt superfluous and awkwardly integrated compared to the time travel. Again, I don't want to harp on the same points ad naseum, but using my own dumb example if you took ESP or Lotto out of the ESP/Lotto movie I think it would fundamentally change it. Here, I feel like you could remove the TK and have essentially the exact same story/larger meaning.

post #732 of 849

I get what you're saying. I felt that the ESP thing worked fine (both in LOOPER and your black script idea:) but you're right in that you could remove it from the former and it would work just as well. It was probably just a way to visualize the Rainmaker's threat.

 

And I'm not saying those mash-ups are necessarily good or bad (or even very successful), it's just something that for some reason seems popping up in current films. In PAC RIM it's giant robots + giant monsters from an interdimensional portal, HORNS is about a guy wrongfully accused of his wife's murder who grows a set of horns and gains telepathic powers, BRIGHT is buddy-cop film where an officer and an Orc investigate the murder of a Fairy. 

post #733 of 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by avian View Post
 

I'm just curious as to why telekinetic powers is being excluded from the general sci-fi milieu of robots, space travel, alien life, etc. as this fantastical, game-breaking concept. Is it that Harry Potter and other fantasy films have pulled mental powers too close to being magic? Is it association with the superhero genre? I mean, would we be having this discussion if Looper had featured the Rainmaker inventing faster-than-light travel, or robots?

 

avian, you're killing me here. Maybe I'm being obtuse with the "different movies/tone/settings" thing, so let me take another crack at examples: I didn't bat an eye at the Bill & Ted sequel introducing robot doppelgangers and the literal personification of death to the proceedings because those movies exist in a wacky, cartoonish universe where anything goes. I've got no problem with magic and sci-fi tech being part and parcel in something like The Fifth Element or Star Wars because again, those are movies largely abstracted from a sense of reality. This though feels more akin to Children of Men or Time Crimes or Moon, a movie with a very focused central sci-fi conceit which the TK distracted from by highlighting the fantastical nature of the proceedings. As Schwartz said way back, I think there were two very interesting movies in here (though I'd argue maybe one and a half), that didn't fit together super smoothly.

post #734 of 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virtanen View Post
 

I get what you're saying. I felt that the ESP thing worked fine (both in LOOPER and your black script idea:) but you're right in that you could remove it from the former and it would work just as fine. It was probably just a way to visualize the Rainmaker's threat.

 

And I'm not saying those mash-ups are necessarily good or bad (or even very successful), it's just something that for some reason seems popping up in current films. In PAC RIM it's giant robots + giant monsters from an interdimensional portal, HORNS is about a guy wrongfully accused of his wife's murder who grows a set of horns and gains telepathic powers, BRIGHT is buddy-cop film where an officer and an Orc investigate the murder of a Fairy. 

 

Yeah, it felt like a quick (and again, impressive) shorthand for the kid as a threat, which etc. etc. YMMV and all that.

 

The Pacific Rim comparison is interesting to me though, that's definitely not a movie I would have pegged as being a mash-up. It felt like a very cohesive world that was essentially adult Power Rangers. The other two definitely sound like they fit the bill though, very deliberate high-concepts designed to evoke a "huh, ain't that somethin'" when you scan the synopsis. Turbo Kid was kind of along those lines, though again I think the tongue-in-cheek approach sold it there. As you said, it's all in the execution.

post #735 of 849

I don't really find the TK to be all that fantastical though. Especially with how it's used through most of the film with random jackasses just floating small things in bars to impress women. If anything, it made the universe feel even more authentic for me for just that little detail. And the way it was tied to the Rainmaker was clever and made me buy him as the real threat he's made out to be throughout the entire movie that him just being a gangster who's super good at his job might not do. 
 

I guess it just comes down to personal preference. Whether the TK jibes with you or doesn't. Speaking personally, if I have to buy a concept like time travel I'm cool with telekinesis. Especially since telekinesis is a thousand times more plausible than actual time travel if you're looking at things from a purely scientific standpoint. 

post #736 of 849
Telekinesis has always been filed under 'fantasy', at least as far back as 1977 (aka the beginning of time). It's pretty much the reason Star Wars is considered not hard sci-fi, but sci-fi/fantasy.

Code's right that it's no less scientifically plausible than time travel, but the distinction has less to do with plausibility and more to do with whether a gadget is required.
post #737 of 849

Spock has telepathy and Star Trek's somewhat hard sci-fi.

post #738 of 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by avian View Post

Spock has telepathy and Star Trek's somewhat hard sci-fi.

Not when telepathy is involved it's not, even if it is employed by a non-human.
post #739 of 849
Quote:

Originally Posted by Codename View Post

 

I don't really find the TK to be all that fantastical though. Especially with how it's used through most of the film with random jackasses just floating small things in bars to impress women. If anything, it made the universe feel even more authentic for me for just that little detail. And the way it was tied to the Rainmaker was clever and made me buy him as the real threat he's made out to be throughout the entire movie that him just being a gangster who's super good at his job might not do.

 

See, I'd argue that having it be a common thing undermines him as a threat, because people being familiar with TK makes you wonder how exactly this is a huge advantage. It would be one thing if he had this incredible power no one understood, but you'd think the minute one of his rivals was like "FYI, dude's got strong TK" they'd just blow up his car and be done with it. This isn't exactly Akira over here, from I what I remember he basically has the ability to kill someone in a way significantly more impressive, but also way less efficient, than just shooting them. Actually, the more I think about it the more I think it might have actually worked better to limit it to him, because you could tie the TK into him being the super-genius who invented time travel. It's not about the concept itself being scientifically plausible, just narrative and thematically cohesive. Speaking of which...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucho View Post

Telekinesis has always been filed under 'fantasy', at least as far back as 1977 (aka the beginning of time). It's pretty much the reason Star Wars is considered not hard sci-fi, but sci-fi/fantasy.

Code's right that it's no less scientifically plausible than time travel, but the distinction has less to do with plausibility and more to do with whether a gadget is required.

 

This is some grade A Bucho right here.

post #740 of 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splatoon View Post
 
See, I'd argue that having it be a common thing undermines him as a threat, because people being familiar with TK makes you wonder how exactly this is a huge advantage. It would be one thing if he had this incredible power no one understood, but you'd think the minute one of his rivals was like "FYI, dude's got strong TK" they'd just blow up his car and be done with it. This isn't exactly Akira over here, from I what I remember he basically has the ability to kill someone in a way significantly more impressive, but also way less efficient, than just shooting them. Actually, the more I think about it the more I think it might have actually worked better to limit it to him, because you could tie the TK into him being the super-genius who invented time travel. It's not about the concept itself being scientifically plausible, just narrative and thematically cohesive. Speaking of which...

 

Actually him having TK explains perfectly why it's never brought up till the big reveal, cause it's common knowledge. And it's not really having to do with him killing people one on one though. I remember in the future Willis scenes we see a news report about an entire building he brings down, presumably with his TK. Which kind of explains everything perfectly to me. It's not JUST that he can kill you with his mind. He can quite literally bring down everything around you AND THEN kill you. And if he could do that, what's to stop him from being able to contain an explosion (like a car bomb). And makes it feel like even in the future-future that there aren't people that can quite match him in terms of psychic POWAH levels. Which, to tie it back into the narrative, justifies Willis wanting to kill the kid. Because he's obviously a huge danger and not just to mobsters and hitmen. It's very much the idea of 'going back to kill Hitler' being played out.

post #741 of 849
Man I love looper.
post #742 of 849

post #743 of 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucho View Post


Two thirds of the movie is a chase scene. Then the last third is a chase scene back to where it started.

Show me the screenwriting book that tells you to write THAT movie.

 

As Virtanen mentioned, there are screenwriting books that, taking their cues from Campbell, say that every movie should essentially be a version of The Wizard Of Oz.  The First Act should introduce the Hero at home, chafing under its strictures, the Second Act is them striking out in the world to experience their adventure, and the Third Act is their returning home, having gained a new perspective on it.  Fury Road is, arguably, extremely direct in following this trajectory.  To the extent it has a script, that's all it is.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by avian View Post
 

 

Luke Skywalker happens upon an incredibly important droid that leads him to the last Jedi Knight in the universe, and discovers he himself is the son of a Jedi/has Force powers.

 

Well, the jedi stuff is revealed fairly quickly to not be a coincidence.  And while the mystical nature of the Force provides an awful lot of cover for serendipitous events, I think it's just as much that one coincidence that kicks off the narrative is the most acceptable than one that pops up later in the game.  I haven't seen nu-Trek, but from what I've absorbed of its plot through osmosis, it doesn't sound like it has either cover.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by avian View Post
 

I'm just curious as to why telekinetic powers is being excluded from the general sci-fi milieu of robots, space travel, alien life, etc. as this fantastical, game-breaking concept. Is it that Harry Potter and other fantasy films have pulled mental powers too close to being magic? Is it association with the superhero genre? I mean, would we be having this discussion if Looper had featured the Rainmaker inventing faster-than-light travel, or robots?

 

The time travel is accomplished via machine.  The TK is presented as a natural, biological phenomenon.  They're two different smells with two different tests.  It's the difference between James Bond using a jet pack and Blofeld just being able to levitate and breathe fire.

post #744 of 849
Funny how every intentionally bad example in this thread somehow turns out AWESOME. Fire-Ernst for the win!
post #745 of 849
I think Pooper's minor attempt to worldbuild the TK with some quick VO ends up making it feel like it sticks out more than it could've.

If it had just been some minor detail always going on in the background... maybe it could've felt more natural.
post #746 of 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codename View Post
 

 

Actually him having TK explains perfectly why it's never brought up till the big reveal, cause it's common knowledge. And it's not really having to do with him killing people one on one though. I remember in the future Willis scenes we see a news report about an entire building he brings down, presumably with his TK. Which kind of explains everything perfectly to me. It's not JUST that he can kill you with his mind. He can quite literally bring down everything around you AND THEN kill you. And if he could do that, what's to stop him from being able to contain an explosion (like a car bomb). And makes it feel like even in the future-future that there aren't people that can quite match him in terms of psychic POWAH levels. Which, to tie it back into the narrative, justifies Willis wanting to kill the kid. Because he's obviously a huge danger and not just to mobsters and hitmen. It's very much the idea of 'going back to kill Hitler' being played out.

 

Yes, succinctly said. It's not that kid will grow up to be just a bad dude, it's that the kid already is on his way to becoming a huge threat to humanity. While Willis Senior is thinking about only his wife, Willis Junior is seeing the implications toward the world in general. 

post #747 of 849

I think Looper has some narrative issues pretty much inevitable with its type of narrative and while ambitious it's not especially original. hi, La Jetee and 12 Monkeys. also there are some weird tonal fluctuations, like when it suddenly becomes a sci-fi Die Hard. but it's still fairly cool that Rian was able to even get it made and it had some neat ideas in it.

 

The Brothers Bloom is very forgettable. it's like Johnson was trying to make a Wes Anderson movie. well-made but utterly non-compelling.

 

Brick is great. I love Brick. between that, the ambition of Looper, and his work on Breaking Bad--which is just phenomenal and is actually probably what excites me most about his future--yeah, I'm totally on board with Hollywood giving Johnson projects like Episode VIII. maybe it will lead to funding for some more of his original stuff, too.

 

he's got way more legit ideas as a storyteller and way more vision as a director than JJ or Trevorrow, at least.

post #748 of 849

Maybe I'm wrong, wasn't Johnson up for a Daredevil movie at one point?

post #749 of 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post

Man I love looper.
Yeah but you love ultron so looper must suck
post #750 of 849

Aw, you guys being so down on Brothers Bloom makes me sad. It's a wonderful caper film anchored by fun performances from Brody, Ruffalo and specifically Weisz. I also love that it makes a plot point out of the difference between movie blood and real blood. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Films in Release or On Video
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › Looper Post-Release Discussion