LOOPER -- new, original scifi from Rian Johnson

SPOILERS

An interesting thing to consider about the ending, is that the kid became The Rainmaker in the version of history before older Joe went back in time. Younger Joe's assumption that the moment the kid saw his mother killed by older Joe is what turned him bad is flawed then, because that didn't happen yet. So it's possible the kid will still grow up to be The Rainmmaker, still take over all crime syndicates, and still start closing all the loops, but for a different reason. The only thing that's changed really is that the mother got all of Joe's gold, which may be enough to set him on a better path. But it wasn't seeing his mother killed by Joe that caused him to become the holy terror...I'd say if the film has a weakness from a character standpoint, its that Joe's self sacrifice at the end seemed a bit of an abrupt change of character. Joe is defined in the story, in both versions, as a fighter and survivor, not the type to consider suicide at a whim. It works from a story standpoint beautifully, but character-wise I would have liked to have seen some clue in the film that he would consider that option.
 
Last edited:
Batutta said:
SPOILERS

An interesting thing to consider about the ending, is that the kid became The Rainmaker in the version of history before older Joe went back in time. Younger Joe's assumption that the moment the kid saw his mother killed by older Joe is what turned him bad is flawed then, because that didn't happen yet. So it's possible the kid will still grow up to be The Rainmmaker, still take over all crime syndicates, and still start closing all the loops, but for a different reason. The only thing that's changed really is that the mother got all of Joe's gold, which may be enough to set him on a better path. But it wasn't seeing his mother killed by Joe that caused him to become the holy terror...I'd say if the film has a weakness from a character standpoint, its that Joe's self sacrifice at the end seemed a bit of an abrupt change of character. Joe is defined in the story, in both versions, as a fighter and survivor, not the type to consider suicide at a whim. It works from a story standpoint beautifully, but character-wise I would have liked to have seen some clue in the film that he would consider that option.
Click to expand...

I think that was the character arc. Remember that in the first act he gave up his friend for his silver, an incredibly selfish act, yet in the end he sacrifices his life for the mother, child and world (sort of). However deep down he was a good guy at heart. He reflected when he almost drove over a kid in the first act, and "protected" the mother from the beggar coming out of the fields for no apparent reason. He just had nothing to live for except himself, until he met a woman that saved him.
 
Ryan-Guy said:
I think that was the character arc. Remember that in the first act he gave up his friend for his silver, an incredibly selfish act, yet in the end he sacrifices his life for the mother, child and world (sort of). However deep down he was a good guy at heart. He reflected when he almost drove over a kid in the first act, and "protected" the mother from the beggar coming out of the fields for no apparent reason. He just had nothing to live for except himself, until he met a woman that saved him.
Click to expand...

I know that was his arc, but they went from A to Z without going through the rest of the alphabet first. It's not an arc, it's a line. The pieces are there, but I didn't feel it from the character. I didn't see any reflection on his part. Nothing about the way he was written made me believe he would kill himself in a split second. He didn't seem either emotionally bereft enough, or ideologically driven enough to do something like that, and the didn't really show that growth. It's little things like that which keep the film from being a masterpiece for me. As is, I consider it a pretty good movie. But there is sort of an uncanny valley type effect with films where the closer a movie gets to greatness, the more apparent it becomes that it's not great.
 
Yah i agree with you on that completely. Technically there was an arc or line, but I didn't FEEL it.
 
I disagree completely. I think the arc was shown beautifully in the way we see Joe slowly start to genuinely care about the boy and the mother more than himself. It was subtle, but it was there.
 
jghenderson said:
I disagree completely. I think the arc was shown beautifully in the way we see Joe slowly start to genuinely care about the boy and the mother more than himself. It was subtle, but it was there.
Click to expand...

But killing yourself is not a subtle act. Can I roll with it? Sure. But I don't buy it 100 percent.
 
First I gotta say, great film. Very fresh and original. For that alone it gets an extra bonus point in my book. Joseph Gordon Levitt at times just 'felt' like Willis. It also really caught me by surprise with an unexpected ending that unexpectedly ended everything nicely.

Batutta said:
SPOILERS

An interesting thing to consider about the ending, is that the kid became The Rainmaker in the version of history before older Joe went back in time. Younger Joe's assumption that the moment the kid saw his mother killed by older Joe is what turned him bad is flawed then, because that didn't happen yet. So it's possible the kid will still grow up to be The Rainmmaker, still take over all crime syndicates, and still start closing all the loops, but for a different reason. The only thing that's changed really is that the mother got all of Joe's gold, which may be enough to set him on a better path. But it wasn't seeing his mother killed by Joe that caused him to become the holy terror...I'd say if the film has a weakness from a character standpoint, its that Joe's self sacrifice at the end seemed a bit of an abrupt change of character. Joe is defined in the story, in both versions, as a fighter and survivor, not the type to consider suicide at a whim. It works from a story standpoint beautifully, but character-wise I would have liked to have seen some clue in the film that he would consider that option.
Click to expand...

I feel like she was a good mother, and had a chance of making this kid alright. What I got out of the film in terms of the 'mother' getting killed making this kid the rainmaker, was part of the paradox this film seemed to accept.

Take the first guy that let his loop escape. The loop was running, yet suddenly lost a finger, then a leg, then an arm, etc. However if he had lost a leg and arm he probably wouldn't have been running in the first place, maybe he'd have gotten a mechanical limb, or tried to regrow one somewhere in the 30 years after having lost it. However what this film is saying is that you keep your memories, if something happens out of the usual things change immediately, but without the gap being filled immediately (or at all). Doesn't make so much sense, but it works. Maybe with the 'next' loop it would close things up.

Now what I believe happened, was the rainmaker "came out of nowhere". This was emphasized. So I believe it really began with Willis Joe meeting this woman and marrying her, because clearly the last Joe didn't have this motivation and was killed without having fought his captors. So this new joe met this woman and things changed. So then this rainmaker, now without a mother, comes out of nowhere and takes over the syndicates.

This lack of the gap being filled is also apparent with the final moments of the film. Think about it, if Gordon Levitt's joe had killed himself, and 'changed things', then not only would bruce willis disappear, but they wouldn't be in a field, they would be elsewhere and maybe they wouldn't have met future joe (but then more paradox's come).

I think it's just a strange way of the time lines correcting themselves to keep paradox's from sucking the world into itself.
 
Jon Starr said:
Now what I believe happened, was the rainmaker "came out of nowhere". This was emphasized. So I believe it really began with Willis Joe meeting this woman and marrying her, because clearly the last Joe didn't have this motivation and was killed without having fought his captors. So this new joe met this woman and things changed. So then this rainmaker, now without a mother, comes out of nowhere and takes over the syndicates.
Click to expand...

You may be onto something with this, and while I think it might be what they were doing here, things make even less sense with that idea. Why would the Rainmaker seem to come out of nowhere to everyone? I can see how subjectively, it would seem that way temporarily to Joe as his memories get re-arranged, which they established is a gradual process as possible futures start to collapse. But to the rest of the world it would seem like the Rainmaker was always there.
 
Batutta said:
You may be onto something with this, and while I think it might be what they were doing here, things make even less sense with that idea. Why would the Rainmaker seem to come out of nowhere to everyone? I can see how subjectively, it would seem that way temporarily to Joe as his memories get re-arranged, which they established is a gradual process as possible futures start to collapse. But to the rest of the world it would seem like the Rainmaker was always there.
Click to expand...

Well before old joe meets his wife, the rainmaker is just a regular guy who was raised well and can control his TK powers. As soon as Joe meets his wife and changes things (or presumably does something different from the last joe that would lead to meeting his wife), the rainmaker becomes that kid without a mother and very dangerous powers. I don't think they imply that he suddenly has control over all the syndicates, but rather he just comes out of nowhere. He starts using his powers and takes over everything out of spite and hate. Why he didn't 'before' (the gap), doesn't matter, or may not even exist.

Perhaps in the 'next' loop, if young joe hadn't killed himself, the rainmaker wouldn't have come out of anywhere, but instead would have risen to power.

I think the trick is to think that the 'gap' just doesn't exist until it happens in the new loop, which is why old joe's memories were changing as they happened. Still a bit of a mind f*** but it's a bit easier to swallow.
 
Probably best not to ponder all this stuff. The whole premise of the film is slightly goofy when you get down to it. I mean, couldn't they just transport people directly into a furnace or something? Another thing, wouldn't it have been better for young Joe at the end to just blow his hand off so old Joe wouldn't be holding the gun any more. He could have saved them and still keep his own life. I suppose he didn't have much time to think about it.
 
Batutta said:
Probably best not to ponder all this stuff. The whole premise of the film is slightly goofy when you get down to it. I mean, couldn't they just transport people directly into a furnace or something? Another thing, wouldn't it have been better for young Joe at the end to just blow his hand off so old Joe wouldn't be holding the gun any more. He could have saved them and still keep his own life. I suppose he didn't have much time to think about it.
Click to expand...

Just what I was thinking last night when I saw it.
The Tk thing went abit overboard imo and the story became less and less about gangsters. For me this movie is just another reason why I dislike timetravel movies...so many options but the one the writers/directors choose in the end almost never makes sense to me. I did enjoy most of the movie so much about it feels orginal as "advertised" But the Firestarter Timecop mix ...no no. If I may I think Butterfly effect 1 told a better story. I felt that the story started to fall apart when Emily Blunts Character pressed the frog :) The audience in the theatre started to cough and stretched their legs after that scene.

Why do I always fall for time travel:badputer:.
 
I'm relieved to read criticism of this movie... I expected this thread to be a love-fest. I give it a "B"... liked it... didn't love it. I had several problems with the (critically praised) storyline. The TK thing, and The Rainmaker thing... felt like plot devices required for a second and third act. I'd have loved to see the story play out some other way after the first act... I was completely dug in for the story... loving it. I'm a huge fan of both Willis and JGL... so I was willing to overlook some nitpicks... I thought the same thing, beam 'em back into a furnace, or whatever... but okay, I can suspend that logic for sake of a story, or another budget related annoyance that's handled in all manner of ways through future flicks... like 2012 model trucks with dust on them, or a cherry miatta vs. the flying bike... still... accepting it for the story.

Frankly... the kid was great in it... (well-directed and well-acted)... but I didn't enjoy his part of the story... and in light of a cold hearted killer, I had a hard time accepting his (or his mom's) logic within the story. How about a film where a guy goes back in time to kill Hitler as a child... but then decides he may turn out differently... or, for some reason, decides he likes him? Whatever... I gotta' defer to Spock-logic on this one... 'cap him. Mom has to hide for her own safety?... Mom's unconditional love of her brat has never worked for me... especially under the premise that this kid is likely to be the next global menace. *sigh*

The frog-push was a jump the shark moment though... that's pretty much where I raised an eyebrow and it stayed up to the end of the flick. I was already getting progressively bugged by the Willis-JGL relationship... or lack thereof... as in the beginning of the film JGL narrates a self-awareness of Loopers... and their lack of long-term thinking... but he still seems to despise his future self anyway (as his future self also dislikes him, yet accepts the provision of his young-sustainability... while young Joe doesn't care about old Joe...)... Did anybody see the South Park where Cartman goes into the future and tries to convince the past version of himself to make better choices? (They both hate each other.) I'm willing to bet the writers of this story saw that episode.

I think the story could have gone in a completely different direction for the 2nd and 3rd act... it would have been interesting to see old Joe having to save young joe through assaults and puzzles, even while young Joe wanted to kill his future self... which the story was addressing well... and then in the end young Joe is his own worst enemy... wrapped up in a single sentence of "clarity"?

*shrugs*

So anyway... yeah... "B".
 
I have never seen a perfect time travel film and probably never will. If you think about it too much, you can always find things that bother you. Always.

That being said, I loved this movie. Wasn't bothered by many of the complaints I read on here. Not at all.
The general theme of the movie was that motherless children grow up to be empty.

Hell, even the hooker didn't want a better life for her child that was offered up to her on a silver plate. Pun untended.

I went with that theme and enjoyed the heck of it. Loved the TK stuff as well.

I get that this film won't work for everyone. Totally understandable.
Worked for me though, big time.

And anyone who has raised a kid will know that Sid was at a crucial age in development. I bought that something like that could sway him one way or the other.
Completely believable for me. Didn't see him as a brat either, but as a kid that knew he was responsible for the death of who he thought was his real mother, while struggling with ultimate power.
 
Last edited:
Saw it tonight.

It was fun, but I had a lot of trouble turning off my brain with all the stupid/silly things that were happening on screen.

I saw the ending coming a mile away, so I guess I was hoping for something more interesting.

I guess the one thing I wish they had explained better is how the crime syndicate would know that the Looper had not killed his future self? It did not appear that they were keeping track of anything, unless they were getting messages back from the future?
 
I thought that Looper was a very well made film, well executed to the director's vision, but the story did some weird things that I think made the film less compelling that it could have been.

***SPOILERS***
I thought that it took away much of the drama of the film's premise having it a regular occurrence that Looper's had to kill their future selves. It would have been more interesting and more mysterious if Joe was the first Looper who was faced with killing his future self. It also didn't really make a whole lot of sense that they would have Looper's kill their own future selves when they could have very easily had the Looper's killing each other's future selves and none of them would have been the wiser.

If I'd written the film I would have had the Paul Dano character have to take the night off for some reason, secretly asking Joe to stand in for him, and it would be at that point that Joe discovers that Dano's target was to be Old Joe. I personally feel that that would have been a more interesting direction for the story to go. Then there would be some mystery about why the Future Loopers are being killed off, and in my opinion, more mystery is always a good thing.
***END SPOILERS***
 
SPOILERS

Finally seen it. It was on the good side of okay. All the potential surprises were telegraphed so well in advance that nothing in it was surprising. But it was still rather satisfying. It is not the movie that's going to bring back original scifi but it was certainly a little fresher than most I've seen lately. The ending was a little hamfisted but tied up neatly. I thought the writing throughout was a little underdone but it did get through all the motions and hit the all the obvious notes. There were a lot of overlooked opportunities, for example there was a second potential candidate for future Rainmaker, the loopers' boss. They could have easily milked that red herring a little longer.

The whole TK thing smacked of a common scifi failing...realising your first idea doesn't have enough legs for 90 minutes and throwing a second scifi element into the mix. I did like the way the kid was introduced, reminiscent of ET. But it was obvious as soon as he showed electronic aptitude who he was. That his 'power' was TK was the most disappointinf element of the film. Surely being a genius with eidetic memory and instant maturity is power enough?

The time travel in this film could have very easily been removed without too much damage to the story. I think he probably started with the idea of a self-sacrifice to avert a known future and eventually time travel became the mcguffin. It's not very fleshed out, I wouldn't be surprised if Shane Caruth's contribution was contained entirely within Bruce Willis little 'fuzzy memory' speech in the diner, which is an interesting enough take on it but also smacks of "c'mon dude, I already did a time travel movie...okay hows about this so you leave me alone and i can get back to my lunch...".

The sci-fi makeover of the city was really good (with the exception of the solar panels glued onto the rusty cars) but the farm didn't even look present day, let alone 20 years in the future. Almost everything in the farmhouse looked to be from the 70s and 80s. I can't recall a single thing other than the robotic aerial sprayer that serviced a futuristic premise. It's all well and good to say that an older couple in a farmhouse today will have a lot of 50s relics inside...but they'll have modern taps at the sink, a flat screen tv etc...a few things that are modern mixed in with that.

It harks back to a slicker version of the b-movies of the 80s and 90s I love, so in spite of it's failings (actually failing is the wrong word...missed potential is better) I really enjoyed it. This could have been a great van damme vehicle (in his younger days)...cyborg/timecop meets that one that's almost a chick flick where he spends half the movie gaining the trust (and booty) of a woman in a lakehouse, before 'reluctantly' delivering roundhouse kicks to the heads of all comers...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top