Film Looper.

[old.user4556]

Meh.

Stupid film, silly plot holes, paradoxical, bit slow and boring in places. Really felt like it was going somewhere then... didn't.

 

[Scouse]

I was pissed last friday when I watched it and wondered whether it was down to that - but, frankly, when my shit radar screams to me that I'm missing something then I've learned to listen.

It seems to me that we had the same experience.

 

[PLightstar]

Still unsure if I liked it. It needed more information conveyed to the viewer. The world seemed fascinating, but it isn't explained. What annoyed me, was that Joe's decisions had consequences and we were shown each one, until the most important one at the end, and instead of showing the consequence, we were given the credits.

 

[Zede]

Awful awful sci-fi. Emily blunt was the only thing worth watching.

 

[MYstIC G]

Decidedly average

Spoiler

two loops... that's it? Just the fucking two? Ignoring all the usual plot holes, etc, etc the biggest pile of gash for me was the ending because you don't get to find out if the younger him blowing his own brains out and "breaking the circle" actually makes a fuck of difference

 

[old.user4556]

The more I've thought about this film, the more I've disliked it. Load of shite.

"this decade's matrix", I fucking think not.

 

[MYstIC G]

Loads of things so mind numbingly stupid in it as well

Spoiler

like when they say to the younger him, turn in your mate, then explain why it's a horribly bad idea to kill him (alter time, etc, etc.), then kill him anyway

If they've marketed it as this decades matrix then they've clearly never watched their own film after finishing it or indeed watched the matrix.

 

[opticle]

I enjoyed it, but agree with all of the above.

It wasn't the Matrix but I wasn't expecting it to be - so I had a good time

There were a lot of loose threads left hanging, and I think they could have done so much more with the material they had with a little more thought. I wish the kid had been a slightly better child actor too.

It felt like they'd rushed the story or maybe just decided to "Meh" it to avoid getting carried away trying to tie up and explain paradoxical plotlines.

I thought it was entertaining though But could have been much more so. And its not really the kind of film to watch again - the action was surprisingly meh for "this decade's Matrix".

 

[opticle]

Could have a sweet sequel if they really tried though, with telekinesis and time travel and uber action battles.

THAT would be this decade's Matrix.

 

[MYstIC G]

God I'd forgotten about the TK bit.

Craig Charles acted out better telepathic abilities in last weeks Red Dwarf than anyone in this movie managed and he was just squeezing the head of another actor.

 

[Lamp]

Bearing in mind I am at least 5 years behind the rest of the planet when it comes to new movies. So...

Looper holds a 93% "Certified Fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 241 reviews and an average score of 8.1/10, with the reported consensus: "As thought-provoking as it is thrilling, Looper delivers an uncommonly smart, bravely original blend of futuristic sci-fi and good old-fashioned action." On Metacritic, the film holds an 84/100 average rating based on 44 critics, indicating "universal acclaim".

Good job I checked here first. I was about to D/L it. I'll find something else to watch.Any decent science fiction movies come out in the last 3 years?

*scratches tweed under-underpants*

 

[Olgaline]

I've watched it twice
- No it wasn't better the second time

 

[Edmond]

I liked it, lots of plot holes, but hey its a movie

 

[Cerb]

I strongly disagree.

 

[DaGaffer]

I'm a bit of a snob when it comes to time-travel stories; this was a bag of shite.

 

[Bigmac]

Started good, turned boring, dull and predictable ending.

 

[Shagrat]

I'm a bit of a snob when it comes to time-travel stories; this was a bag of shite.

how can you be snobby about what is at best conjecture?

just curious. other than Einstein and Hawkings theories it isn't like there is a definitive "this is how time travel will work".

 

[DaGaffer]

how can you be snobby about what is at best conjecture?

just curious. other than Einstein and Hawkings theories it isn't like there is a definitive "this is how time travel will work".

Nothing to do with Einstein or Hawking, its to do with the one thing that time travel stories all need, and most fail to provide, an internally consistent plot. It doesn't matter which version of time travel (and causality) you choose, because as you say, they're all supposition, but pick one.

 

[dysfunction]

Why? Why not just enjoy the film without over thinking it.

Ignore the plot holes and inconsistency of time.

I enjoyed the film. I thought it was good fun.

 

[DaGaffer]

Why? Why not just enjoy the film without over thinking it.

Ignore the plot holes and inconsistency of time.

I enjoyed the film. I thought it was good fun.

No.

 

[dysfunction]

No.

Yes.

 

[DaGaffer]

Yes.

No. Won't. Can't. It always amazes me how people will forgive bad writing in film that they'd never forgive in a book, because "ooh pretty". And explosions.

 

[Raven]

It entirely depends on what you want to get from a film, not everything has to be some anal bore fest. Some films are made to be entertaining. If you are going to dislike films because they are unbelievable then you are going to have a pretty small choice in what to watch.

 

[dysfunction]

No. Won't. Can't. It always amazes me how people will forgive bad writing in film that they'd never forgive in a book, because "ooh pretty". And explosions.

Because books and films are very different. If a book has bad writing it affects the way you view the story in your head. A film like Looper already displays the story for you so you don't need your brain so much. Other films require your brain but this isn't one of them.

 

[DaGaffer]

It entirely depends on what you want to get from a film, not everything has to be some anal bore fest. Some films are made to be entertaining. If you are going to dislike films because they are unbelievable then you are going to have a pretty small choice in what to watch.

Its not a matter of believability, its a matter of consistency. I can suspend disbelief with the best of them, but a science fiction story needs a set of rules that its world is built around; if it doesn't, its called fantasy, and that's fine, Peggy Sue Got Married is a time travel fantasy, and it works perfectly well, but Looper pretends to be SF but simply throws in a complete cop-out "thinking about time travel can fry your brain maaan" and decides it can do what it wants with the rules, which is ultimately just insulting the audience and lazy. The whole last 15 minutes of the movie makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

 

[Scouse]

It entirely depends on what you want to get from a film, not everything has to be some anal bore fest. Some films are made to be entertaining. If you are going to dislike films because they are unbelievable then you are going to have a pretty small choice in what to watch.

I agree with Gaff completely. You need a ruleset in SF that must be followed 100% or it can fuck off.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well, oblivion wasn't a 100% best story ever, but it was worth it to see stuff, hear stuff, and yes explosions.

If you're entertained, then the movie is good for you, there's no universal rules on movies

 

[Scouse]

If you're entertained, then the movie is good for you, there's no universal rules on movies

There's a universal rule on SF and the simple answer to the dilemma is to not call the movie Science-Fiction. Just call it Fantasy and be done with it.

 

[leggy]

But it IS science-fiction. Just because it's bad doesn't mean it gets relegated to Fantasy.

It justifies the time travel with fictional 'science'. If he used brain magiks to travel in time, then it might be classified as fantasy.

 

[Scouse]

But it IS science-fiction.

If that's the case then it's demonstrably shit - because it doesn't make sense and doesn't work correctly.

If you write SF it has to work.