SOUND OFF

Sound Off: Rian Johnson's Sci-Fi 'Looper' - So What Did You Think?

by
September 28, 2012

Rian Johnson's Looper Sound Off

Now that you've seen it, what did you think? Hunted by your future. Haunted by your past. It's time. In theaters now is Rian Johnson's sci-fi time travel action movie Looper, starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis as the same person of different ages, plus Emily Blunt, Paul Dano and Jeff Daniels, too. It's time to finally experience the latest original creation from the mind of Rian Johnson (of Brick, The Brothers Bloom), and discover the impact that decisions can across our lives. So how is it? One of the best sci-fi films of the year? Or a let down? Once you've seen it, post a comment with your thoughts on Looper.

To fuel the fire, I love this movie. I saw it twice as soon as I could because it's so damn good. Watching Rian Johnson grow as a filmmaker, I truly believe he continues to mature as a storyteller with each film, and it's unquestionably evident here in Looper. The one key adjective that kept coming to mind while watching this: awesome. The story, setup, and payoff are awesome; the time travel stuff, though subtle, is awesome; the performances and link between Willis and Gordon-Levitt is awesome; Emily Blunt is awesome, holy shit she's fantastic in this; the visual effects and low budget filmmaking are awesome; the action is awesome. See what I mean? This is brilliant, original sci-fi at its best. He blends intricate subtleties of human characters and relationships into a meaningful story bent around fascinating sci-fi ideas to fantastic awesome results.

What did you think of Rian Johnson's Looper? Outstanding original sci-fi, or totally boring? We will remove any comments that indicate you have not seen the movie, as this area is meant to discuss the film only once you have seen it and can talk about your thoughts. Please keep the comments civilized!

Looper

Find more posts: Discuss, Sci-Fi, Sound Off

Discover more around the web:

Reader Feedback - 81 Comments

1

Just went and saw Looper, first movie in a long time that left me speechless.

Nick on Sep 28, 2012

2

Film has too many plot holes for my taste.

Chris Batty on Sep 28, 2012

3

Plot holes? When? Where? How? Please explain. I didn't find any plot holes. Sure, you can spend all day coming up with time travel logic issues, or little details like that, but those aren't plot holes.

Alex Billington on Sep 28, 2012

4

it says its near impossible to dispose of bodies in the future therefore what did they do with his wife's body when they killed her and if they could dispose of that why not just kill him right there as well and save all the time travel hassle :/

launa_ere_2k5 on Sep 28, 2012

5

Maybe they didn't kill her... hence why he wanted to go back to her? I think she was pregnant and they shot her in the womb...

Guy who comments on things on Sep 28, 2012

6

he didn't want to go back to her, he wanted to kill the Rainmaker so she was never shot (and killed) in the first place

Jaydn Gosselin on Sep 28, 2012

7

Its impossible for the "mob" to make someone disappear. Which was the whole premise of the movie. They could not kill him there because they needed to end the contract in the past.

Seb on Sep 29, 2012

8

Why send the Looper back to himself and risk recognition, when they could just send him to another Looper?

Pipsqueak on Sep 28, 2012

10

I wondered why they just couldn't send the people back in time so that they appeared over a volcano or something. Or send them back to the middle of the ocean..

Tim Cleary on Sep 28, 2012

11

I wondered why they couldnt kill the younger seth and therefore kill the older one who got away. They claimed it would alter the future to much, but wouldn't chopping off nearly every limb also alter the future as much as his death? I liked the scene as the guy was loosing bady part after body part but it seemed to not make much sense in the movie mythology

Neo on Sep 29, 2012

12

In Looper's explanation of time travel, changes to the past self seem to "catch up" to the future self (i.e. the scene where future seth's limbs start to disappear on the fly, rather than having ceased to exist since the point of removal). So, when Young Joe kills himself, why does Old Joe simply vanish? Shouldn't Old Joe just collapse dead with a whole in his chest? Vanishing entirely seems to imply non-existence.

rockandrollsoul on Sep 30, 2012

13

The first 45 min are indeed speachless. After that there is a 45 min gap of insignificant information that could be cut down to 12 min. The ending felt useless, somewhat disappointing, I felt empty walking out of the theater. I felt like somebody loved me and didn't think I'm stupid the first 45 min.

Ivan on Sep 28, 2012

14

same here, it feels like it hyped you so bad that you were left stuck there as the movie went to the second half.....it was like getting a kid excited in the car ride to chucky cheeses and then find its closed when you finally get to the door.....

Jericho on Sep 28, 2012

15

Couldn't agree more.

Guy who comments on things on Sep 28, 2012

16

Couldn't disagree more. Perfect storytelling from start to finish.

conradthegreat on Sep 28, 2012

17

I like how you explained why you disagree in such an interesting way after, for no reason, disliking my opinion.

Guy who comments on things on Sep 29, 2012

18

Thanks! I like how I did it too 😉 P.S. Looper was amazing, you should see it again

conradthegreat on Sep 29, 2012

19

Actually I left my opinion on the film at the top of the comments section, if you had looked. And I did enjoy the film.. infact, I enjoyed it so much that I would likely watch it again, but it wasn't by any means "amazing".. sure some of the shots, dialogue and acting was great, but the structure after the farm house first came into the film was far too drawn out, I did like the ending, but I also don't understand the point in having that character with the pistol.. who just... failed.. over...and over... and over again. They took a long time building his return up for the end of the film, and then just had him killed in about the space of a minute after showing up on his bike? Seemably completely unnessecery things like this and as Ivan said the 45 minute section that could have been chopped, at least in half are what I think stopped Looper from being the perfect film you hail it as, but I respect your opinion, if you'd so care to share it.

Guy who comments on things on Sep 29, 2012

20

thought the same thing about the guy on the bike at the end, kinda pointless. Didn't Jeff Daniels' character say you couldn't kill the younger version of someone to kill their older self... paradox invoking or something? Joe had no problem doing it at the end. My biggest problem was how they said you couldn't murder people in the distant future yet when we see Joe in the future we see him shoot loads of people and there's chaos on the news. Whole premise fell on it's face at that point. Still and entertaining flick, but come on

Richie G on Sep 29, 2012

21

They could murder people they would just get caut realy fast. Bruce didnt have to worry because he was going back in time.

u an idiot on Sep 29, 2012

22

They didn't say you couldn't kill, just that it was hard to dispose of the bodies. When Old Joe is killing, he's not exactly trying to hide what he's doing.

Sean Newsom on Sep 30, 2012

23

We see a thirty year montage of Joe killing people, a bar fight, blown up buildings on the news and a woman shot on her own doorstep. I know it's not a plot hole, but they didn't paint a future where law enforcement has much control. They could have had the police interrupt the rainmaker's men sending old-Joe back and that's how he had no binds or bag on his head. I just felt I needed something to reinforce the premise because it was weak

Richie G on Oct 1, 2012

24

why would I bother to look at your other comment? I'm basing my comment off the comment of yours I commented on.... Relax redbelt, We all liked the same move apparently. I just found less flaws in it than you did.

conradthegreat on Sep 29, 2012

25

I thought you said "Thanks, I like how YOU did it too" for some reason.. hence my whole explanation of what I said at the top of the comments etc...So....that....explains...that...whole.....yeah......*fart*.....

Guy who comments on things on Sep 29, 2012

26

Johnson + Gordon-Levitt+Willis+Blunt = WIN

conradthegreat on Sep 29, 2012

27

I assumed Boy Blue (aka: moron on the bike) was a foil to Joe; they both function as mobster heavies, amoral and bloodthirsty. Boy blue functions as how a non-timeline affected Joe would, doing the same things over and over again seeking a different conclusion. You can see this same mindless killer mentality in the original Joe at the end, covered in blood and not looking all that rational. Boy blue had no reason to even go after Joe at the end, as he would reap no reward or respect since all his peers are now dead. It was just revenge. Just like Willis' Joe's motive.

Jason on Oct 1, 2012

28

I could not disagree with you more! The ending was crazy amazing. That kid stole the movie at the end. The scene that cuts to him calming down and crying ...... ripped my hear out. By the end of the movie I felt no sadness for Joe but pride at the decision he made to break the cycle. The ending was exactly what every movie should do ... tug at your emotions.

Seb on Sep 29, 2012

29

I agree, I enjoyed it, but it felt like a poor mans 12 monkeys. The CGI features replacement annoyed me for most of it, and thought it wasn't really necessary

inappropriate_response on Oct 16, 2012

30

The movie started off great then through the middle third became a bit tiresome...dead...lost. All the action seemed like it took place either at the end or the beginning, and as much as I love a bit of depth in a film, when I go to see an action film I don't want to be watching 25 to 30 minutes of character development and relationships with nothing in between... however as a whole I'd rate the movie about 7.7/10.. doesn't quite match up to the rave reviews that enticed me to go see it in the cinema, but certainly worth a watch.

Guy who comments on things on Sep 28, 2012

31

It wasnt realy an action movie as much as a sci-fi thriller

cmon now on Sep 29, 2012

32

Well, looking at the trailers, it sure as hell sold it self as an action movie.

Guy who comments on things on Sep 30, 2012

33

So you got taken in by the trailer ; that's their JOB . . Bottom line is you like it , just like most commenters here . Go with that ...

Dominic A on Oct 16, 2012

34

If everybody was to do what you want them to do, you do realize this page would consist of 78 people saying either " I liked the film" or "I did not like the film". What an interesting world yours would be.

Guy who comments on things on Oct 16, 2012

35

It ain't no brick thats for sure, but it beats the brothers bloom

Hazedmind on Sep 28, 2012

36

Yes, there are plot holes, but the story is interesting enough that I will let them slide. If you only go to movies for the action, this one will make your brain hurt, but that could be a plus. And it is worth noting that those low action moments are filled with good acting.

willfree on Sep 28, 2012

37

I liked it, didn't love it. The trailer definitely made it look like more of an action movie when it's really a more thoughtful sci-fi film. Some sections seemed quite slow. The ending did leave me speechless too, as others have said. Afterwards I pieced together what happened and was satisfied. JGL was terrific. Emily Blunt was good (though her accent slipped a bit). And that child actor was amazing. Something that almost ruined the film for me was the sound in my screening. It was LOUD. Far too loud. I had to put tissue in my ears so I didn't have my hearing damaged. I am no old fart (38). Overall, it was good to see a science fiction movie with some intelligence.

rennmaxbeta on Sep 28, 2012

38

I thought the story was a bit derived, but the montage of future Joe's life, holy shit, that was the most cinematic moment of the movie. I will buy this film when it comes out just to have that series of shots in my collection. Joseph Gordon-Levitt killed it, with the facial expressions, his resemblance to Bruce Willis is uncanny. The movie is entertaining and a great film for Rian Johnson, but it does fall short for me. Way too much on-the-nose dialogue, some objective camera angles, and a strange third act with material derived from Terminator, Akira, and 12 Monkeys.

Grant on Sep 28, 2012

39

Excellent, Excellent, Excellent but if your expecting a full on action film, throw that away because it's mostly a sci fi drama with action elements thrown in

Alex Morrison on Sep 29, 2012

40

Outstanding syfy. This was my second time watching it (saw it at TIFF) and I was still blown away. Took a friend with me who is not a big syfy fan.. he was speechless at the end. The movie was great.

Seb on Sep 29, 2012

41

Well let's be honest here: the "time travel logic issues" are pretty easy to see and wouldn't require making "diagrams with straws all day" (like Bruce Willis complains in the movie). If people in 2044 can actively change the physical nature and histories of people from 2074, then how was an armless, legless Paul Dano able to crawl away from his younger self and escape? What memory would they both have of this encounter now? Or, perhaps the better question is, wouldn't the now armless and legless (young) Paul Dano be sent back to 2044 thirty years from now, and change that encounter dramatically, thus negating the entire movie we just saw? And for that matter, why the heck would gangsters risk changing the timeline/erasing themselves and their loved ones from existence on a regular basis simply to dispose of bodies? It was a pretty contrived concept in my opinion, BUT that doesn't make it a bad movie. The idea that Bruce Willis' memory could actively change as a result of events in 2044 allowed for the drama of him trying to preserve the memory of his wife. And this movie also did a really good take on the old "would you go back and kill Hitler" question - especially by adding the caveat, "What if you knew Hitler was one of three children, but you didn't know which one?". You start off by sympathizing with Bruce Willis over JGL, before realizing that JGL has actually made the arc of redemption more than Bruce Willis has. Very nice. So in the end I can forgive the time travel problems since they are necessary for some excellent drama. And besides, the scene with Paul Dano's older self falling apart was visually stunning.

Boiler Bro Joe on Sep 29, 2012

42

Liked the movie, but I have never been a fan of this versioning of paradox. Won't give spoilers here, but if you do something to someone in the past, then it wouldn't "catch up" to their future self instantly. It would have been with them the entire time, impacting/influencing everything they already did up to that point.

Michael McRorey on Sep 29, 2012

43

That's what the "cloud" memories is all about- Old Joe still has a general timeline after he goes to the past, but it's now susceptible to change. This is also true with the physical self. I know, in most understandings of time travel, going back in time would create an alternate reality from that point on. However, if that's truly the case, then why make ANY backwards time travel movies?

Sean Newsom on Sep 30, 2012

44

I will give you the "cloud" memories, but if you go back and cut someone's legs off, then how would they have "run" away. Don't get me wrong, I am just nit-picking, because I did like the movie and would see it again.

Michael McRorey on Oct 1, 2012

45

I could tell that no one in the theater appreciated the ending except me and my friends. The ending was so great and beautiful and we were glad that they didnt do a lame hollywood ending where it would show the kid growing up as the good Reignmaker. It was beautifully sad.

Daniel Felts on Sep 29, 2012

46

That's a bit pretentious to say.

Daniel Vu Tran on Sep 29, 2012

47

I really enjoyed this movie but unfortunately your pretentious comment has revealed that you are not as intellectual as you want to believe. He wasn't the Reignmaker. They meant Rainmaker because he could make it rain blood when he literally obliterated a human. Sometimes it is what is right in front of you.

Maxx on Sep 30, 2012

48

I don't see this as pretentious. Probably because I too hate happy Hollywood endings in every damn film.

jacobcrim on Oct 1, 2012

49

i was very impressed. it kept me on my toes bigtime. all though i thought for awhile abe was kid blues older self which is why he was always disappointed in him.

UGLI on Sep 29, 2012

50

I thought this also. It was only when he hit Kid Blue's hand with that hammer and Abe didn't react to the pain, I realised it wasn't the case. So, I don't understand why Abe kept him around if he was always messing up. I would have gotten rid of him a lot earlier.

SV7 on Sep 29, 2012

51

SPOILER ALERT: but why didn't he just shoot his hand off at the end of the movie? thus Bruce Willis would drop the gun and Emily blunt wouldn't have died. It would've still stopped the creation of the rainmaker then Levitt could just explain the situation to his older self. I loved the movie until the conclusion, I wanted a time travel related twist or something, killing himself rendered the movie almost pointless, and seemed out of character for a junkie/killer/guy who in 30 years would kill a child to save his wife

guymovie on Sep 29, 2012

52

He saw how is existence created a loop that lead to the rainmaker, Besides, who would want to live with hand shot off by a BLUNDERBUSS?!?

Marc Callado on Sep 29, 2012

53

But who created the rainmaker originally then? In the Timeline where joe's wife was killed, the rainmaker existed, but bruce willis obviously didnt kill his mother and so the rainmaker wouldnt exist

guymovie on Sep 29, 2012

54

Actually the kid saw his "mom" (aunt) still get killed. So he still grew up with that tragedy even tho his real mom didn't die

Ryan on Sep 30, 2012

55

"We could go around and around creating diagrams and shit but that would take too much time." "Time travel rots your brain." - Just go with it and enjoy the ride!

Angus on Oct 1, 2012

56

Because that would have hurt like a m&%^*(*cker. For the young version at least. Plus, it would have tested poorly with audiences.

fazha on Sep 29, 2012

57

Thought the movie would focus on time travel more but got diluted by the TK stuff. When the kid first showed us his temper tantrum I thought I was watching a horror movie, completely forgot about the TK aspect of the film. Still enjoyed most of it. Just a bit long, felt like some parts dragged. On the other hand, maybe all the scenes were necessary to convey the storythe director wanted. It'll be a fun movie to watch again.

Marc Callado on Sep 29, 2012

58

This is easily the best sci-fi movie of the year, if not one of the top three drama's so far as well. Its original, and loaded with philosophy, psychology, and sociology plot points to ponder that exist outside the realm of the typical questions surrounding time travel. (I think Bruce Willis's line "will you stop with the time travel, this is not about time travel" in the diner sums up this thought perfectly). Time travel is just a plot device, but the film itself is much deeper than that. It might be one of the best time travel movies of all time simply because its so much deeper than most others in that aspect. Loved this film. Stellar performances and a very cool thought provoking story.

Aero027 on Sep 29, 2012

59

Warning: Spoilers! There's so much that's brilliant about it. Creative narrative, great acting, cool violence that was organic to the story. Loved the low tech, economical film making. Extremely well shot and edited. Joseph Gordon Levett is certainly one of the most exciting young actors of today. Loved his prosthetics. Combined with his study of Bruce Willis facial expressions, it made for a fun and kooky watch. What let is down a bit for me was a slightly lacklustre second act. The script gives Bruce Willis busy work and the events on the farm are uneven too. The thing that pulled me out the most was Willis killing that kid. We'd just set up his character as the redeemed version of Joe, but then he's gonna kill innocent kids in his hunt for the Rainmaker, mainly just so he can get his wife back? I didn't buy it. Feels like this was the "Would you go back and kill Hitler?" question, but not really handled successfully. I don't care about any time travel plot holes. I applaud the originality and execution. But IMO, a bit more work on the script would have elevated it to a classic.

SV7 on Sep 29, 2012

60

I really enjoyed this movie. Awesome is the word you used a lot but I felt there was too much mediocre in between the awesome.

Jon Odishaw on Sep 29, 2012

61

THIS MOVIE WAS AWEWFULLLLL!!!!

pHIL on Sep 29, 2012

62

Did anyone else notice that when Sara shot Joe she hit him on the right and Older Joe's scar was on the right but when she was treating younger Joe the injury was on his left? a surprising misstep. Also I loved the movie a lot but am still confused by the purpose of the annoying Gat man that kept screwing up, was he really only there to screw up, why did Jeff Daniels character keep him around? Last question why was there no mention of Jeff Daniels younger self?

2oclock on Sep 30, 2012

63

I like to think that the "gat man" was Jeff Daniels younger self, that's why he tolerated it, and also when he said to him "let the adults work" or something along those lines.. Some will speculate this is nonsense since Jeff Daniels character hit him with the gavel, but i think this is more like spanking your kid kinda thing..

chad on Sep 30, 2012

64

I thought that too for a bit, but Both of Jeff Daniels feet were fine. No limp. This could be a prosthetic foot though

Sean on Oct 1, 2012

65

Good movie indeed - lovely story but ONE big flaw which my brother pointed out. SPOILER ALERT - So they send people back to be shot and disposed of as they can't kill people in the future - but they kill his wife??? Totally destroys the whole purpose of the story and the need for loopers. Quite odd.

dom on Sep 30, 2012

67

Rian Johnson explains why this happens in an interview on Slashfilm. It's #4 on the list. http://www.slashfilm.com/ten-mysteries-in-looper-explained-by-director-rian-johnson/

bryansays on Sep 30, 2012

68

i really liked it but honestly went in suspecting JGL to kill him self in order to stop Bruce Willis , i didn't know why of course i just expected that to happen, i also found the story a bit predictable at times. but i dont hold that against the movie because over all it was good

DoomCanoe on Sep 30, 2012

69

They say its nearly impossible to dispose of bodies, not straight up you cant do it impossible. They set the house on fire as they were leaving so maybe cremating bodies of unimportant retirees wifes in rural china by way of arson is one of the few ways to get away with disposing a body in the future.

Scott of the Antarctic on Sep 30, 2012

70

anybody else think they could make this into a trilogy a la Terminator or Back To The Future?

Marty on Oct 1, 2012

71

but there's only 2 terminator films *fingers in ears* la la la la la shut up

Richie G on Oct 1, 2012

72

So Many issues with this movie, First off the whole rainmaker character is a rip off the twilight zone episode, "It's a Good Life." Secondly, why send people back in time to kill them, why not just send the loopers to kill them in the present, so they never existed period. The action in the 2nd half of the movie just seemed random(Spoiler alert). I really am lost to what this movie is trying to say. I left feeling disappointed. Are they trying to justify that Nurture always triumphs over Nature, even when magical telekinetic powers are involved. JGL great performance overshadowed by random action scene's spliced with jigsaw like plot lines spoon fed to the audience. And the sex scene was just amateur hour.: Fade to black, cut to lit cigarette.The 2nd half of the movie felt like reading a really bad screenplay or some sort of Film by formula or numbers(paint by numbers) So here's my question to the people who saw this movie, its more rhetorical. If you had a chance to go back in time and kill young Hitler, would you?

Sean Mclean on Oct 1, 2012

73

I get the feeling your the type of guy who hates everything.

Cody W on Oct 5, 2012

74

Saw it last night. Not at all what I expected, I thought it was going to be Bruce vs JGL the whole film. Loved that Paul Dano was in it, if only for a few scenes. I did enjoy it, maybe not as much as expected but ill for sure see it again for a solidified opinion.

jacobcrim on Oct 1, 2012

75

Why would you bother having someone in the past shoot someone instead of just sending them into the middle of the Pacific ocean?

Armitage on Oct 3, 2012

76

Because what if the person gets picked up by a boat or swims? Its an absolute solution the problem.

Cody W on Oct 5, 2012

77

Or better yet, have them sent back to the dinosaurs era. Even if they didn't get eaten by dinosaurs and survived, they still won't live long enough millions of years later to see humans and couldn't survive the meteor blast. Check and mate.

JBrotsis on Oct 11, 2012

78

After reading so many positive reviews about the film i don't really understand the hype. I'm not saying it's a bad movie, but besides the solid performance of JGL and a few nicely orchestrated scenes, i think especially the two worlds the film is set in seem very flat and underdeveloped. It's like peeping through a keyhole, but if you focus on the edge of your vision, you realize that this is where they just – end. Rian Johnson has an interesting approach of telling stories, but i think he's no visionary in style. And i see too many references of movies, such as children of men, signs and even terminator which you might or might not like, but they stay true to one visual concept. I can't help but think the film is the work of a smart, but also nerdy guy, who aims high, but just doesn't know how to find his style – like a regular kid who observes those guys at school who get the pretty girls, but just buying the same kind of sneakers doesn't make you a stud ... ;). And as much as Bruce Willis is a hero of my childhood, i couldn't help but feel pity for him for the whole time, hoping that his younger self would just put him out of his misery. But maybe that's exactly what was intended.

Flex on Oct 10, 2012

79

Rainmaker alt-universe sequel remake now! Am I the only person that liked Brothers Bloom?

Carpola on Oct 12, 2012

80

As I was watching this movie, all I could think of was "Ripped off Terminator with that scene," and "ripped off Akira with that one," etc. throughout the whole movie. Terminator and Akira blow it away and I would have rather watched either of those again for the 20th time then watched something this unoriginal.

Karl on Nov 24, 2012

81

That kid is not the reignmaker...the kid that JGL and the aunt conceive is the real reignmaker... think on that....

andersoncell on Feb 11, 2013

Sorry, no commenting is allowed at this time.

FEATURED POSTS

POPULAR COMMENTS

LAST YEAR'S TOP 10

Alex's Top 10 - 2017
1. Call Me By Your...
2. War for Apes
3. Shape of Water
4. Florida Project
5. Dunkirk
6. Jane
7. Foxtrot
8. Faces, Places
9. Never Really Here
10. Thelma
Click Here for Thoughts

Jeremy's Top 10- 2017
1. mother!
2. Lady Bird
3. A Ghost Story
4. The Big Sick
5. Dunkirk
6. Get Out
7. Killing Sacred Deer
8. John Wick 2
9. War for Apes
10. The Beguiled
Click Here for Thoughts

FOLLOW US HERE

Subscribe to our feed or daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main profile on twitter:
For the news posts only, follow this acct:
Add our feed to your Feedly: follow us in feedly

FS.NET ON FACEBOOK