• Big Screen alerts

None

Okay, so don't probably read this unless you've seen the film and feel like jawing about it...

But this piece about how wonderfully smart Looper is stuck in my craw, because...

...why do loopers exist? Because it's so hard to dispose of bodies in the future. That's why the crime syndicates send their marks to be whacked in the past.

And why does Bruce Willis travel back in time to fix the future? Not to save himself. To save his wife. Because the bad guys casually execute her when she sees them abducting Willis.

Get that? They just turn and shoot her, because she's a witness. They commit a murder. In the future. That produces a body. Which is hard to get rid of, we've been told. So hard, in fact, that they send their marks to be whacked in the past...

Basically, the story of the film is premised upon the bad guys doing exactly what they would never do.

And while we're at it, wouldn't it be easier (not to mention a whole lot less risky) to just whack the mark, then send his corpse back to the past for incineration?

Yeah, yeah, time travel movies are tricky, etc. Just don't tell me how smart they are.

Unless I'm wrong. Go ahead and tell me if I'm wrong.

  • Big Screen alerts

More like this:

Comments

Arlenejtan Oct. 4, 2012 @ 12:15 p.m.

Bruce Willis never revealed what he intended on happening because he didn't know, it looked more like a "he had nothing left to live for" kind of scenario. Even his "younger self" Joseph Gordon-Levitt character was asked by Emily Blunts character; what he thought his older self was expecting to happen by killing the boy, he responded "I don't know, maybe he thought it would make him disappear, that none of this would have ever happened." Time travel movies ARE tricky; however, what I loved was that this movie was very coy about it and admitted that it did not know everything about time travel.

As far as them shooting his wife and such, at that point is when the Rain Maker was involved and that changed all the rules anyway, period. At that point the Rain Maker was a tyrant wanting to kill off the loopers. This movie didn't try to invent or make up rules. You can tell right away the attitude towards possible questions about time travel from the first scene between Bruce Willis and Joseph G.L. in the diner. Bruce pretty much said STFU because we'll be making straw diagrams and talking about it all day, so lets avoid all the questions and just sit back and enjoy a good movie for once.

0

Matthew Lickona Oct. 4, 2012 @ 1:28 p.m.

If the Rainmaker's involvement changed all the rules, then why not just shoot Willis? Why bother to send him back? That they were bothering to send him back seems to indicate that disposing of bodies is still tricky, Rainmaker or no Rainmaker. But they didn't bother to send the wife back, which is problematic. And I think it's pretty clear that Willis goes to the trouble of going back in time because he wants to prevent his wife's death. As Gordon-Levitt observes at the end, "I saw a man who would kill to protect his wife." I also liked that it didn't try to overexplain time travel, but that's not the issue here, I don't think.

0

Arlenejtan Oct. 4, 2012 @ 2:11 p.m.

They bother to send him back because mob mentality has always been to take people out in style, especially people that got on their shit list. They are always finding crazy and even innovative ways to off people. Such as Griselda Blanco, a real life drug lord pioneered motorcycle hit-men. Actually Blanco even had a man bayoneted once because she believed he was a pig and should be speared off like a pig. To mobsters it is about a slow painful death and even humiliation. If you think about it, it is a real nasty spit in the face to be forced to have you shoot your future self and not know it. Not bothering to send the wife back doesn't matter at that point because the Rainmaker had taken control and had started to do his cleanse of evil/closing loops, etc. Rainmaker obviously wasn't scared of the rules, he changed them... and with the kind of power he displayed as a kid, I'm pretty sure he was pretty much in control of that city at that point with no real need to hide things. He had raw power and was cleansing the city, it was what wrought the conflict in the story in the first place.

0

Matthew Lickona Oct. 4, 2012 @ 2:27 p.m.

Elaborate executions may be a mark of mob mentality, but every looper signs on knowing that the day will come, so it's not exactly a spit in the face, and it certainly isn't slow or painful. And elaborate executions are not given as the reason for the existence of loopers...Not sure how Rainmaker changed the rules; he was still using the loopers to close the loops, rather than killing them himself.

0

Scott Marks Oct. 4, 2012 @ 1:37 p.m.

"...so lets avoid all the questions and just sit back and enjoy a good movie for once."

All Hollywood blockbusters do is ask audiences to look the other way when confronted with glaring plot-holes. I'm tired of constantly having to check my brain at the door.

Ben Sachs in the Chicago "Reader" brilliantly distills my feelings, or lack thereof, for the director: "The dystopian setting, in which all U.S. infrastructure has eroded and everyone has a price on his head, makes for some bold cultural commentary, but as usual with Johnson, the engaging ideas feel like affectations rather than products of a fully developed sensibility."

0

Arlenejtan Oct. 4, 2012 @ 2:23 p.m.

Well the fact that you are talking about the movie on a public forum with such disdain and fervor means the movie has already won. The movie obviously made you think, because it made you ask questions and it obviously made you angry at whatever contradictions you think you might have found.

If you checked your brain at the door then it’s your fault! I for one held onto my brain and was constantly analyzing the different scenarios brought up in the movie, whether they were plausible or not. I asked questions, discussed it with the friends and family accompanying me, and I made predictions. Sure I was wrong about some predictions and right about others. It made me come up with even more ideas and I even starting weaving up several "what if" scenarios.

Time travel is tricky. <--- Period. Besides any time travel contradictions that drive you people crazy, the movie was good, had great cheeky dialogue, it was very aesthetically pleasing, great comedic relief, a good amount of action, great actors and a effing plot for goodness sakes. I haven't had a good reason to go to the movie theaters since The Dark Knight Rises, and I was glad to have one.

0

Scott Marks Oct. 4, 2012 @ 3:45 p.m.

I haven't had a good reason to praise a comic book film since "Superman 2." You have had ample reason to go to the movies this year -- "The Deep Blue Sea," "This is Not a Film," "Tomboy," "Take This Waltz," "The Sessions," "In Darkness," "3,2,1, Frankie Go Boom," etc. Unfortunately none of these films would ever found a home in an average multiplex.

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close