Looper - time for another Bruce Willis and a Little Kid movie.

This is a discussion thread for the movie, Looper - a sci fi movie about Bruce Willis traveling through time to do irrational things. Are you excited to see a movie not based on a cereal box maze? Do you, like me, have a decades long man-cush on Bruce Willis' ageless, bald head? Let's pull the tracking devices out of our teeth and talk about it!

Used two free movie tickets (thank god) to see this turd last night with Thud. Going in, I knew absolutely nothing about this flick except it is a sequal to 12 Monkeys. Robin stars with a CG mutated face as yuppie drug addict time assassin who wants to go to France or something.

I really wanted to like this movie, but jesus, it was putting up a fucking fight - precocious 5 year old, cartoonish bumbling bad guy, tough but horny farm chick, weak character motivation. I could pick apart all the things that bug me, but let me just describe a climatic scene near the end of the movie

Spoiler:

Bruce Willis is hunting a kid with psychic powers that eventually becomes the king of all the mobs in the world so that in the future Bruce Willis' wife won't get shot. He is chasing the kid through a field, stops, shoots the kid in the face. Awesome! Nope. the kid gets up, bloody graze on his cheek, looking PISSED OFF. He then lifts everything up in the air for a while until his mom, floating nearby, calmy whispers. "Calm down. Shh. Shh. Mama loves you." And the bad ass toddler sets everything back down. Jesus Christ! I couldn't take it.

What about ya'll? Anyone else see this? What did you think?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Going into any time travel movie, you should be prepared for the fact that there will be many time paradoxes, and you just hope that they are small enough to accept. That is not the case with this movie. Like you, I wanted to like it. I like many of the actors in the movie.

Spoiler for explaining/complaining about a paradox that destroys the movie:

Spoiler:

My main gripe is that they establish early on that when a person travels back in time, they are traveling within the same universe, same timeline, etc. If something happens to your younger self, that change is reflected on your older self, post-traveling-back-in-time. Ok, fair enough, if you get cut, or lose a finger, your older self gets a scar and loses a finger. These things would not fundamentally prevent any of the actions older self had taken since coming back in time. Now, let's say your younger self loses both legs and both arms. Your older self has lost both legs and both arms, twenty minutes after having run away from younger self. Because it is the same universe, same timeline, older self would have arrived in the past without arms or legs, and therefore couldn't have escaped younger self. But younger self only loses the arms and legs because he allowed older self to escape. Paradox.

If the writer decides that everything is one universe, one timeline, no parallel universes or timelines, then everything that occurs must contribute to, or at the very least not make impossible, the outcome. If a person travels backward in time and ends up in a time concurrent with himself, any actions that older self takes that affect younger self must contribute to younger self being put on the necessary path that results in him traveling back in time. In this movie, the writer decides that it is one universe, one timeline, and then ignores the logical rules.

It is like the story was started as a thought exercise, where the writer came up with an idea, put it to paper, and before he was able to re-read it and see all of the places where he went wrong (and attempt to correct those mistakes), it was filmed.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Spoiler:

Bruce Willis' motivation in this movie is completely baffling. He is going to kill the child that will ultimatelt be responsible for his wife's death, but the goal isn't saving her life at any cost, because as young version Bruce Willis points out, okay he just won't hook up with her when the time comes. Life saved. Don't have to murder a child, dude. But this isn't good enough for Future Bruce. "She gets you off drugs, man. She is so awesome. You just HAVE to meet her. You are gonna love her." That is the argument. Even though young version Bruce Willis finds a woman who helps gets him clean 25 years before Future Bruce got clean. And Future Bruce knows this because his memories are chaning. But he HAS TO REMEMBER THE WIFE. It is absurd.

Not to mention that drugs were apparently his downfall and not 30 years of unchecked assassination and murder. Guh.

How ya doing, buddy?

Bringing this back from the dead to point out another big hole in this movie (and hoping Sprout will see it so I don't have to shit all over his movies of 2012 fb post without repeating my points here).

If killing people is so hard in the future that they have to travel through time to do it, why is Future Bruce's wife just... gun downed in the back yard.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Besides the plot inconsistencies of this movie, I enjoyed the world that they built for the story. Technology, such as the guns, was pretty neato. It was still believably in the future while not being overwhelming. Details like the cars, too - with their tailpipes leading to their gas and their solar panels certainly helped immerse you into the setting.

I felt kind of ripped off when they got to the farm because it was just like any other farm. Nothing particularly interesting about that old farm house or barn. :c

Nonetheless, after I saw the movie, the biggest thing I wanted was for them to release an artbook or something, but I doubt they've done such a thing :c It was refreshing to see a sci-fi movie that wasn't too...sci fi in setting. Odd.

How ya doing, buddy?