"Looper" worth a watch

[Chris D]

This sci-fi thriller is worth a watch. Set in 2044, time travel has been invented and outlawed even further into the future. Therefore, it's only used by crime mobs, illegally, as it's also impossible to get rid of a body in the future because of improved forensics. The mob in the future sends victims back to the past, where a "looper" hit man is waiting and takes them out.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays one of these Loopers that one day has his future self (Bruce Willis) thrust in front of him to kill. The rest of the movie takes many different turns and storylines.

Many sci-fi movies rely on one particular plot device that they introduce, or sci-fi concept, or theme, such as time travel conundrums. But I appreciated that this movie introduced several of these things as the movie went along, and wove a decent story plot to boot, giving it some depth and complexity.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is very much a future full-quality movie actor, and does very well, particularly the efforts at portraying a young Bruce Willis. The studio used prosthetics with Gordon-Levitt to make his face appear more Willis-like, which are pretty good, albeit at times slightly excessive.

Not the best, but very much a worthy entry in my book and worth a watch. Yes, like many movies with time travel, unadressed time paradoxes do pop up in the film, but they're not show stoppers.

:4: out of :5:

[George Bellefontaine]

I actually watched this last night and was going to talk about it but you summed it up nicely, Chris. I found it to be smartly written, well directed and acted. But after the first half I was turned off upon the realization that the plot line included the cold blooded murder of children. If not for this, I likely would have purchased the disc for future viewing. I just find the killing of children much too distasteful, even though it's only fiction. By mentioning this, I do not feel it gives anything away storywise, but I didn't use blockers because I feel members here should be aware, in case, like me, they find that sort of thing hard to take.

[aud19]

Yeah I keep flip-flopping on whether to watch this one. Seems an interesting premise but I've heard (at least partially) iffy reviews here and there. Probably watch it at some point...

[Ovation]

Just watched it today and enjoyed it immensely (I took great pains to avoid any spoilers for this film). I agree that the killing of children is a difficult aspect of the film (it harkens in some ways to the old pub discussion of "if you had a time machine and found yourself meeting Hitler as a child, would you kill him?") but at the same time, I admire the filmmakers for not shying away from the logical implications of the plan to alter the future undertaken by Willis. The killing is not gratuitous.

I was actually going to open a thread about this film and another one I watched last night. They could not be more different (Shoot Out with Gregory Peck, a western directed by Henry Hathaway in 1971). They do have, tangentially, one thing in common. Each contains something that audiences would find disturbing regarding children, though with respect to Shoot Out, 1971 audiences probably had no issues at all with the scene. In the film, Peck's character becomes responsible for a six year old girl (the particulars are worth seeing in the film). At a specific moment, he decides she needs bathing, so stops by a lake, takes off her clothes and proceeds to lather her up with soap. It is all very innocent and no different from a parent washing a child, but the fact that it is onscreen, rather than implied by a cutaway, stands out today. Just an observation about perceptions and behaviours.

In any event, I recommend both films (though Shoot Out might be harder to find--I recorded it in HD on my PVR).

[George Bellefontaine]

(though Shoot Out might be harder to find--I recorded it in HD on my PVR).

I vaguely remember seeing this film in the theater. I am a huge Peck fan, and especially love him in westerns. I had completely forgotten about it until I read your post. I don't know if it is on dvd but I am going to do a search.

Also, regarding the scene between Peck and the little girl. In the 70s little attention was given to even the mere thought of child pornography because it was rarely in the news. In the past 3 decades, anyway, child porn seems to have grown to almost epidemic proportions due to the internet, and few filmmakers today would even consider such a scene as that in The Shoot Out.

I should also say I agree, Paul, that I admire the filmmakers of Loopers for not shying away, but that doesn't change the fact that I found it distasteful and because of it I would not want to watch the film again, which ruled out a purchase in my case. Aside from that particular part of the plot, I really saw this as an extremely well done film that may end up being either a sci-fi classic or a cult favorite in the future.

[Ovation]

Well, it has been said by more than one knowledgeable observer of art that good art is sometimes good because it is unpleasant--this may be one of those times.

The scene in the western (I thought you might recall this film, even if only vaguely) did not seem out of place within the context of the film itself, nor of the time in which it was made. But it did stand out in a way that would likely have been unimaginable to the filmmakers, from today's perspective. It serves as a good lesson about the constancy of change in social mores (may even make a good point in one of my classes).

[bigburner]

I agree that Looper is definitely worth a watch. It's an intelligent science fiction film that held my attention throughout.

The only issue I have is Bruce Willis who exhibits the same mannerisms in every film. I would have preferred a relatively unknown actor. Does anyone else think Bruce is a bit one dimensional?

Nigel.

[wkhanna]

You mean mono-dimensional sorta like Sly Stallone or Arnnie Schwartz?

Noooo. Bruce is way more sophisticated.

I think I remember hearing someone even caught him reading once. :W

[George Bellefontaine]

Well, it has been said by more than one knowledgeable observer of art that good art is sometimes good because it is unpleasant--this may be one of those times.

I would say it definitely is, Paul.

[aud19]

Noooo. Bruce is way more sophisticated.

Yeah I actually think sometimes Bruce doesn't get ENOUGH credit. You look at some of the subtleties in his roles in say 6th Sense or 12 Monkeys..even Pulp Fiction and more recently Moonrise Kingdom. When he's given quality material to work with he shines IMO.

I think his problem is that the vast majority of his roles have been more of the action/adventure variety which don't tend to spotlight acting/subtleties :lol: Can't blame him though, they sure do pay the bill I bet!

[wkhanna]

Yeah I actually think sometimes Bruce doesn't get ENOUGH credit. You look at some of the subtleties in his roles in say 6th Sense or 12 Monkeys..even Pulp Fiction and more recently Moonrise Kingdom. When he's given quality material to work with he shines IMO.

I think his problem is that the vast majority of his roles have been more of the action/adventure variety which don't tend to spotlight acting/subtleties :lol: Can't blame him though, they sure do pay the bill I bet!

I agree, he has been type cast. & producers love it cuz it sells tickets at the box office.

I love 12 Monkeys, btw. Yeah, like I said, he can at least read. :W

[Ovation]

Like most actors, Willis is at his best in the hands of a capable director. Otherwise, again like most actors, he reverts to playing some variation of himself. I thought he was good here as he did not exhibit the excessive smirkiness to which he is prone.

[Alaric]

You mean mono-dimensional sorta like Sly Stallone or Arnnie Schwartz?

I would add Clint Eastwood to that list , excluding his work in Unforgiven , and John Wayne. Some actors nail the screen presence and just ride that horse into the sunset.
Reading this thread has convinced me to watch Loopers , however. Mr. Willis' Thespian attributes notwithstanding.

[Chris D]

Interesting side-subject. In contrast, I definitely agree that Willis acted wonderfully in 6th sense and 12 Monkeys. (one of my favorite movies) And don't forget that Willis really broke into big time from "Moonlighting", which is a sharp contrast from his recent roles.

For Stallone, you guys HAVE to watch "Oscar". It's a very surprisingly delightful play-comedy with Stallone that I guarantee all will like, and surprise you with Stallone's chops. I'll also remind everyone that he wrote the original "Rocky" which people tend to forget how wonderful it was, (not to mention how it REALLY ends) and won multiple awards, including "Best Picture". Now, I've never seen his supposed soft-porn beginnings...

For Eastwood, I do think his on-screen grizzled character, while fairly consistent in his movies, does work without getting tired and repetitious at ALL. And he's become quite the director!

I really have little for Arnold. Stuff like "Junior" really wasn't good. Kindergarten Cop was pretty good though. Not even going to open the box as to whether he was a good politician or not.

Somebody like Harrison Ford, though, who would have thought, back in 1977, that he'd turn out to be such a prolific and wonderful actor?

Now, Van Damme-- yeah, he's pretty much a one-trick pony. (not a bad trick pony to have, though)

[Hdale85]

I've never been to fond of Arnold's acting.

[bigburner]

smirkiness

That's the word I was looking for.

Nigel.

[George Bellefontaine]

Getting back to Willis. If you get a chance, rent or buy Nobody`s Fool, starring Paul Newman. Willis has a bit part in it and his acting just might surprise some of you here. Though small, it`s one of my favorite Willis performances.

[aud19]

Finally watched Looper... we thoroughly enjoyed it :T Not sure it's quite a "keeper" but definitely worth a watch.

The matter of the kids is definitely disturbing...I immediately thought of the child-Hitler conundrum/comparison as well.

The biggest issue the wife and I actually had was Willis' future wife. Without giving much of the plot away hopefully...

The main premise of the movie and reason for "Loopers" to exist is that it's too hard to murder in the future. Yet his future wife....get murdered... in the future...?

Have to wonder if this sets up some sort of sequel with the kid. I'd love to see what happens now and they could probably do something interesting with divergent timelines.

[wkhanna]

I saw this a while back.

As huge fan of 12 Monkeys, I also V much enjoyed this film.
I much appreciated the unique yet to me plausible twist given how the future & past intermingle as a result of time travel. Any holes in the plot were not glaring IMHO & caused no issue with my enjoyment of the film. Unanticipated plot twists kept my attention as did decent dialogue & solid acting.

Good Sci-fi is hard to come by.
This one makes my short list.