Looper (Rian Johnson, 2012)

[oldsheperd]

I agree with you. I just wonder why the police and other law enforcement wouldn't hear the same whispers and of course, if the mob can run whole US cities in the future, with little need to hide the fact that they possess time traveling abilities, why/how did things change so much in 30 years that in the future they have to keep it a secret. Anyway, I basically agree with your original post that Looper is closer to just missing being a failure/collapse, than just missing being a masterpiece.

Basically, no body, no case. Habeus Corpus and all that.

Jeff Daniels runs the city in 2044. There is enough to suggest controls got tightened somewhere in the future.
One idea is that:

Spoiler

China perhaps won a global war financially. The currency being used was Chinese(Mao Tse Tung's face is on the bills) I imagine logistically, China's dominance was still spreading slowly across the globe. That's why in 30 years' time from 2044 the future is a bit more Dystopian. Don't forget that Jeff Daniels suggests that Young Joe go to China instead of France and Daniels' character is from the future

[jindianajonz]

I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum - I thought this was pretty well crap. The story is just nonsensical and illogical, but I can't really cover it without spoilers, so

Spoiler

1. If Joe cut himself and got shot when young, Old Joe should have already had those scars when he arrived. Same goes for Paul Dano's character: he should have already been dead, or at best, torso boy by the time he arrived from the future. The scars/injuries should not magically appear on the older man all of a sudden without his knowledge - the younger man is his own past self, which means they'd already be there. This is just laziness in time travel writing.

2. If Joe committed suicide as a young man, then that means he never got old, never went back in time, and none of this ever happened. Which means the ending is impossible and stupid.

3. Old Joe should have known every thing that was going to happen. He already lived through all of it as his younger self.

If time travel exists, then logically speaking that means every single point in time exists simultaneous with all others - you can't travel to a destination that no longer exists, or doesn't yet exist. So literally everything that has happened and everything that ever will happen, it's all happening at once. Which means, logically speaking, that the past, present and future cannot be altered, because if they were changed they would change every other moment in time following...but if they all exist already, they're pretty well immutable. So if Old Joe, as a young man, killed his older self and retired, then he too should have been sent back, killed by his younger self, and nothing else. But this movie just throws that all out the window right off the bat and stops making sense altogether. I guess they just thought that magically-appearing scars and vanishing Bruce Willis were just so darn cool to see that they couldn't be bothered to care. Or, as a friend put it "Dude, time travel means anything is possible, so it doesn't have to make sense to be good".

This was one part that I actually thought made more sense than a lot of time travel movies. If you accept the fact that somebody can go back and change the past, then you also have to disregard the whole idea that the past is fated- after all, the time traveler CAN change things. Just because Old Joe had something happen a certain way in his timeline doesn't mean that it's going to happen the same way again. The future is open to possibilities.

Also, Old Joes timeline and Young Joes timeline are both the same and different at the same time. The way I understood things, Young Joe's present is OVERWRITING Old Joe's past. Because Young Joe's future is still open to all possibilities, these overwrites don't occur until the moment they actually happen. This is why

Spoiler

Old Joe panics when Young Joe almost starts a relationship with Emily Blunt- he is clearly afraid he is about to lose his memories of his wife. But even when they sleep together, the memory doesn't disappear- I believe this is because Old Joe met his wife somewhere in the 2060's, so they can't be overwritten until the 2060's roll around again.This also explains why Old Seth (Paul Dano) suddenly started losing limbs- up until the moment the doctor actually cuts off a limb, there is no guarantee that it would happen. But as soon as it was cemented in Young Seth's timeline, it gets cemented into Old Seth's timeline as well.

This makes a lot more sense than a movie like Goldmember where

Spoiler

(Do I really need to spoiler tag this?) Austin's "mojo" disappears at some arbitrary point in the present because "at that exact same time in the past" it was removed.

"At that exact same time in the past" is only meaningful because that's the order the film chose to show the events; in physical terms it makes no sense at all. But the fact that the effects of an event in Looper appear to the future self at the exact same time they occur to the younger self- well, that make's just about as much sense as I could ever hope time travel to make.

Now, that being said, there are still two major plotholes in Looper:

Spoiler

1: If my theory on how this movie handles time travel is correct, then there is no way for Old Joe to remember how he killed Older(?) Joe in his timeline. As soon as he escaped, then his memory would be overwritten with that escape, and the memories of him killing his older self would be erased.

2. Not really a plothole as much as a bit of a let down, but Young Joe's "epiphany" at the end of the Reign Maker's origins are completely wrong. He believes that the Reign maker because evil because Old Joe killed the Reign Maker's mom. This couldn't possibly have happened, though, since in that timeline Young Joe succeeded in killing Old Joe, therefore Old Joe could never have killed the mom. As I said, this isn't really a plothole since I don't doubt Young Joe really believed that sequence of events, but it kind of takes the dramatic weight out of the whole movie when you realize that maybe it was some completely unrelated event somewhere down the line that turned the Reign Maker evil, and that Young Joe's sacrifice was completely in vain.

All in all, I still really liked the movie. It's nice to see mainstream movies at least try to be smart instead of just pandering to the usual slackjawed audience.

[Professor Wagstaff]

I'd like to establish a rule that all future Bruce Willis movies need a scene where he sits down with a younger man for a meal and conversation, nothing else. This and Moonrise Kingdom both had it, the first two occasions in a very long time that I can remember Willis having to carry emotional heavy scenes. He could always pull off a good monologue, but seeing him do it now, much older, with his voice low and his words filled with more regret, gives those scenes real weight. The shame is that Looper didn't offer more opportunities for him remind us of his skills, but what it did provide was highly satisfying.

[Jeff]

I'm with Wagstaff. Great Willis performances in both films and those scenes in particular. I would love to see him nominated for Best Supporting Actor for Moonrise in particular, and take on more of these kind of roles in the future. He's got a world-weariness to him that seems very natural.

[gcgiles1dollarbin]

Spoiler

If time travel exists, then logically speaking that means every single point in time exists simultaneous with all others - you can't travel to a destination that no longer exists, or doesn't yet exist. So literally everything that has happened and everything that ever will happen, it's all happening at once. Which means, logically speaking, that the past, present and future cannot be altered, because if they were changed they would change every other moment in time following...but if they all exist already, they're pretty well immutable. So if Old Joe, as a young man, killed his older self and retired, then he too should have been sent back, killed by his younger self, and nothing else. But this movie just throws that all out the window right off the bat and stops making sense altogether. I guess they just thought that magically-appearing scars and vanishing Bruce Willis were just so darn cool to see that they couldn't be bothered to care. Or, as a friend put it "Dude, time travel means anything is possible, so it doesn't have to make sense to be good".

Spoiler

Time travel only means as much as the restraints and "laws" you impose on it. There are quantum theories that allow for parallel universes in which it might be possible to destroy something in the past that would only prevent one's self from time-traveling in the future... if that one branch or thread of time did not exist as just one strand of a massive cable of alternate histories. (Old Joe would have to worry, in this case, that there is always a thread in which his wife was murdered.) Then there is the one you speak of, in which the paradox of suicide precludes the very appearance of the future self and thus would have to prevent that past self from committing suicide. There are theories that would necessitate spatial as well as temporal displacement, thus rendering it impossible to relocate anywhere near a particular place if one were to travel back in time. You add an interesting kind of Augustinian view that attempts to account for the paradox of free will and God's omniscience by making all points in time a concentration or simultaneity, at least from God's point of view (the time machine would access this position, acquiring God's perspective through technology).

Like you, I had trouble with Johnson's story, but for a slightly different reason: he combines theories. If there were parallel universes, then scars and amputations would not appear, because Old Seth would always come from a strand of time intact, a persistent eventuality. (And, as I mentioned above, time travelers would have to worry that any actions in the past would only bifurcate a strand of time, not erase it.) On the other hand, if there was only one course of time, the paradoxes you mention would preclude the entire story. So, all told, unless Johnson (and Carruth, maybe) is blowing our minds with some time travel idea that can accommodate all these things, then the story will inevitably disappoint science fiction nerds. But then we wouldn't have the marvelous/terrifying sequence during which Old Seth watches his body dissolve. As a visual trope for despair and the dissolution of opportunities, it was pretty striking.

[dad1153]

Caught this Monday morning at a matinee. For most of its running time "Looper" had me by the balls and loving every minute of it never-confusing-but-always-loopy (get it?) story. I mean, hitmen from 30 years in the future dumping their victims in "present-day" 2044 Kansas for disposal by other hitmen? OK, super fantastically wild improbable stuff but (a) different-enough premise to stand out and (b) different-enough setting (probably chosen to maximize the bang-for-buck budget) that gives "Looper" a personality all its own. Aside from outstanding performances by J.G. Levitt, top-billed Bruce Willis (the meeting of the two Joe's at a diner is the movie's highlight and it's all on Willis' shoulders) and an OK-but-heh Emily Blunt (Jeff Daniels and Piper Perabo are wasted in their supporting roles though) the unsung star of "Looper" is the production design by Ed Verreaux that imagines a futuristic Kansas that's simultaneously believable-enough to buy (old trucks and appliances won't all immediately go away because it's 'the future') while also being wildly unrealistic (think "Equilibrium" with self-restraint).

Also, because of the FX houses contracted and scenes set in "future" China, "Looper" has a very "Serenity"-like vibe of American and Chinese cultures intertwined so deeply that the characters don't even acknowledge it (more prominent in the movie's 'urban' Kansas scenes than the rural one's in the farm). Also liked that all the SFX is very practical and always at the service of the characters/story and never just to show-off. At one moment J.G.L. is in a corn field and the background behind him does a cool wavey effect, but it shows how hot and baking-under-the-sun the character is.

Alas, "Looper's" final act has too many balls up in the air (figuratively and... well, you know) that are solved in a way that didn't live up to great premise and execution we'd gotten for the first two thirds.

Spoiler

Yes, emotionally it's satisfying that young Joe sacrifices himself to keep his own loop from starting, but that opens a whole can of worms about how that affects past/present/future timelines...

My head literally hurts trying to make sense of these, but it's like that "My Heart Will Go On" Celine Dion song. While playing at the end of the credits of "Titanic" it's perfect, but outside of that setting it's nails-on-chalkboard. I'm definitely seeing "Looper" again to see if if the movie's issues can be overlooked, but from memory they don't bother me until

Spoiler

the movie goes all "Akira" on us out of the blue, although it was telegraphed smoothly with the 'floating quarters' scenes

.
"Looper" is still a gas and definitely worth seeing, one of the better 'high concept' genre pictures to come out of Hollywood in a good long while.

[Kellen]

Nice interview with Rian Johnson about the flick

[Jeff]

I love this movie, but definitely had this same thought...

Spoiler

Funny 'cause it's true.

[warren oates]

Here's Rian Johnson introducing the first midnight screening at the Arclight Hollywood.

Spoiler

What's especially amusing to me is how dead-on his impression of the standard pre-screening greeting/intro is. He never breaks character. Never once intimates that he's actually the director of the film. He kind of looks the part as well. From his delivery I'd grade him near the top of all the Arclight employees I've heard give that spiel. If, indeed, nobody was told he'd be there before or after what we seen in the video, it's all even funnier. As most of the audience seems not to notice who he really is, though there are a few knowing giggles near the end.

[matrixschmatrix]

Just saw this-

Mfunk compared it to Prometheus, which is a thought I also had, in that both movies have a lot of sort of messy character and logical beats that mostly slide by while you're watching but get a bit suspicious in retrospect. But I think Looper is the more successful movie, because while Prometheus sets up a lot of big questions only to lose them in the course of running around and shooting at monsters, Looper gets distracted from the running around and shooting in pursuit of some fairly fruitful (and sizable) thematic concepts- namely, good and bad parenting, and the reverberations created by either.

Definitely there are some holes in the underlying logic:

Spoiler

the whole looper thing never makes any sense, both for 'why not just send them back into a volcano' reasons and because the logistics of it aren't really worked out, and more broadly the movie refuses to commit to a concept of time travel, as gcgiles points out. But the movie only kind of cares about such things, and seems far more to be using time travel as a way to set up any number of parallel parental relationships and questions of people's responsibility to themselves and to others, and sort of simultaneously smash cut the results of those choices in. As the loopers are a bunch of hard living drug addicts, obviously the idea is that the way they live is murdering their future selves, but they so lack responsibility that they ignore this- and, of course, they don't take responsibility for one another, either.

Whenever the characters do get a parental figure, we see both how much that can change their lives and how devastating losing or failing or being betrayed by that figure can be- everything from Gordon-Levitt's relationship to Dano, where he refuses to take meaningful responsibility, to Jeff Daniels' relationship to the Blue Kid, and how desperate the Kid becomes to live up to his father figure (was he Daniels as a younger man? I kept expecting to be told that) to Willis' relationship with his wife in the future, and how blindly he pursues reunion with her. And, of course, the climax is all about this: the kid and his mom have a relationship forged by one person totally accepting responsibility, and the future hinges on whether that relationship can be kept alive. Gordon-Levitt, who has both become a father figure to the kid and also a sort of under the table future self to him, takes responsibility for his choices and ends the abusive loop of loss and bitterness. And Willis, a projection of a future self made hard and cruel throughout, no longer exists. The logic only sort of works, but for me the emotional arc succeeds well.

[rs98762001]

It's been some years since I've seen a film that shoots itself in the foot as badly as this. A wonderful first hour descends into pure loopiness and high camp, as silly as Graham Chapman trying to teach a self-defense class against men armed with fruit.

[pzadvance]

For all its logical inconsistencies, for me this movie suffered most from not doing the emotional legwork to justify the drama in the second half of the film.

Spoiler

Personally, it'll always be an uphill battle to effectively intimidate via an adorable little kid (especially one this cute who's already had his cuteness played for laughs). The only way all of these slow-motion dramatic outbursts won't seem like the silliest thing in the world is if the filmmaker's done an effective job of conveying exactly how dangerous this kid could ultimately become. This Reign Maker (is that really how we're spelling it?) guy is nothing but a rumor, really, until Willis confirms his existence, and even then, what we know of him doesn't seem to indicate some sort of telekinetic Hitler. Perhaps my memory's failing me, but isn't he just closing loops left and right? Weren't these loopers already prepared for this? If the Reign Maker's solely trafficking in mobsters, why are we so invested in preventing him from achieving his potential?

I suppose the argument would then be that he killed Willis's wife. Pretty nasty, to be sure. And putting aside for a moment the fact that that one action seems to completely discount the need for Loopers to exist at all (as has been discussed), what sort of impact does that really leave on us? As much as I love the montage that takes us through Willis's timeline, it happens at the expense of the audience gaining any real connection to his wife, rendering her subsequent murder sort of emotionally inert.

So as it is, we get a power play for the future of this kid who, truth be told, doesn't seem all that bad. Certainly not bad enough to justify the moral dilemmas at the heart of the film. And his meltdown scenes just read as giggle-worthy for me.

Additionally, I appreciated that the film took the time to show Willis's breakdown after killing the first kid, but wish that had been an even more present dilemma for his character. As it is, we get that beat, but he then continues on as a sort of single-minded killing machine, feeling at some moments not unlike Schwarzenegger's Terminator. There was a genuinely interesting shifting of allegiances in the first half between young and old Joe, but at a certain point Old Joe just becomes the straight-up villain of the piece. Again, without more emotional investment in his cause, it was hard to see his actions as anything more than purely immoral.

[Professor Wagstaff]

When I saw this a few weeks back, I was surprised it opened with the Tristar Pictures logo, something I feel like I haven't seen in front of a movie since the 1990s. Is Tristar distributing again under their own banner or have they been doing so over the years and I haven't noticed (perhaps not seeing those movies they release)?

[HJackson]

I agree with matrixschmatrix really in that the film isn't about time travel and it isn't setting out to coherently answer questions about how time travel would work. It's more interested in agency and personal responsibility and I think it's a great success in that regard. The conclusion is very satisfying indeed.

[Drucker]

Just got back from this film, and all of the above contradictions surely caught up with me at the end, but I really felt it succeeded more as a cool sci-fi picture than anything else. I actually enjoyed the second hour more than the first one, and felt that Willis' introduction to the movie made it a lot better.

I kind of agree with Willis' character in the movie that young Joe is a dick and someone needs to teach him some manners and responsibility in his life. Anyway, overall an enjoyable movie. Just one thing that pzadvance mentioned almost but nobody has seemingly brought up:

Spoiler

During Willis' breakdown after killing the first kid, there's a baby heard crying. Not specified if it's 2070s or 2040s Did anyone else think that for some reason he now had a kid in the future? He seems to regret not having a child with his wife, and perhaps he doesn't because he knows he too would eventually have his loop closed, thus, abandoning his child. So maybe by killing one of the kids, he is somehow closer to getting what he wants, and that includes having a child of his own?

Just a thought.

[TheDudeAbides]

Just watched Looper last night. It was pretty decent but it wasn't the groundbreaking sci-fi I was anticipating or anywhere near as good as Johnson's Brick. The whole film felt very Christopher Nolan, in fact if it didn't have Johnson's name attached I would have sworn this was Nolan's latest film. I felt like the first two acts were very good and entertaining; loads of fun, very stylish and pretty unique, I was thinking at this point it had the potential to be this year's Drive (but not nearly as good though). But by the time they got to the farm, I felt the whole film took a real downturn.

Spoiler

I didn't like the turn the story took at this point, the whole rainmaker plot with Willis trying to hunt down and kill this kid was really weak and poorly conceived. Felt very Spielbergian. Had I wrote this film I would have done away with this story line completely. I also felt that Gordon Levitt's Joe was very poorly conceived, how stupid is he supposed to be that he is trying to murder himself from 30 years in the future. Just a very stupid conception.

All things considered though, I'd still recommend checking out this film if you haven't yet, quite stylish and entertaining for a mainstream movie; yet unfortunately troublesome and middling. 7/10 (all 7 for the first two acts)

[Grand Illusion]

If this was a Nolan film, the diner scene would've been a heavily-scored 30 minute explication about the mechanics of time travel.

[TheDudeAbides]

If this was a Nolan film, the diner scene would've been a heavily-scored 30 minute explication about the mechanics of time travel.

hahaha very true, and the majority of the film would have been dedicated to the mechanics of time travel rather than advancing the narrative. That said though I felt this film was too Nolan/Spielbergian for my taste, Nolan in the sense of style and Spielberg in the films conclusion.

[Forrest Taft]

Uhhh...

Spoiler

Does a subplot about Bruce Willis killing children feel "Spielbergian" to you? :-k

Wasn't bothered by whatever lack of logic there is with regards to the time travel stuff. What I did think was odd, was the fact that Emily Blunt stayed behind on the farm with her son. If I'm ever told someone's coming to kill my child, I'll take the kid, and go on a vacation.

I side with the ones who liked it. After the unbearably tedious Total Recall, it was great seeing a good sci-fi picture again. The kid was good too. And scary. Noah Segan was a new acquaintance to me, and I thought he was pretty funny as an unusually emotianally henchman. Also, Looper is further proof that Garret Dillahunt is one of today's very best working actors.

[pzadvance]

Also, Looper is further proof that Garret Dillahunt is one of today's very best working actors.

Hear, hear. Somebody give this man a starring role.

[TheDudeAbides]

Uhhh...

Spoiler

Does a subplot about Bruce Willis killing children feel "Spielbergian" to you? :-k

Wasn't bothered by whatever lack of logic there is with regards to the time travel stuff. What I did think was odd, was the fact that Emily Blunt stayed behind on the farm with her son. If I'm ever told someone's coming to kill my child, I'll take the kid, and go on a vacation.

I side with the ones who liked it. After the unbearably tedious Total Recall, it was great seeing a good sci-fi picture again. The kid was good too. And scary. Noah Segan was a new acquaintance to me, and I thought he was pretty funny as an unusually emotianally henchman. Also, Looper is further proof that Garret Dillahunt is one of today's very best working actors.

No that aspect doesn't feel overtly Spielbergian, but the whole way that they were setting up the ending felt like they were going to lead to this typical happy Spielberg ending

Spoiler

in which they stopped the rainmaker from ever happening because of the power of a proper mother.

Although it didn't quite wrap up completely in a happy Spielberg type ending, I just felt like the ending was very weak; poorly conceived and poorly executed. Personally I would have completely done away with the rainmaker plot element and done something different; but again that's just me. It felt to me like Rian Johnson must have struggled for a long time on how to end this movie and just could not find a properly satisfying ending that could be deemed acceptable by the masses (who crave that happy ending) and by those who are looking for a more realistic/cynical ending.

[The Narrator Returns]

I'm not sure the ending is entirely happy.

Spoiler

The kid is so screwed-up that even Joe's sacrifice doesn't ensure that he won't become The Rainmaker. After all, the person he thinks is his mother is dead already.

My father pointed out a posssible plot hole when we were leaving the theater; the gold bars in the truck may not have existed if the Rainmaker didn't exist. This may also point to the kid still being the Rainmaker.

[eerik]

I guess the TV rights for Looper were sold a long time ago for a cheap price as it's TV premiere in Estonia is scheduled for next Monday. And it's on a nationwide free-to-air channel.

[dad1153]

Are you sure it isn't a pirated version? Standards for broadcasting illegally obtained movies/TV shows in some countries (Russia and some former Soviet republics, for example) aren't exactly iron-clad.

[eerik]

It's on a channel called TV3, which is part of a big Nordic company, so I doubt it. I did some googling and it turns out they already showed it in Latvia on 8th and in Lithuania on 11th November.