Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommunistHamster
Oh god yes, instantly made it "Top10 movies evar." Near perfect blend of drama, comedy, action and thinking-mans-film with good premise, engaging story that grabs you with many different themes and motifs, genuine plot-twists that throw real curve-balls, very plausible but cool depiction of the future, and beautiful cinematography to top it all off.
I hated the Owen Wilson knock-off from The Cabin in the Woods. Why not get Owen himself? Who cares about his age?
Be glad they at least gotten Thor in this movie. ;pQuote:
Originally Posted by SirKicksalot
Be glad they at least gotten Thor in this movie. ;pQuote:
Originally Posted by SirKicksalot
And some of the Buffy cast as well.
+ Jeff Daniels.Quote:
Originally Posted by CommunistHamster
They did explain it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravelle
*spoiler*
They weren't dumb teens. They're all doing rather well in college and studying things like sociology etc. None of them start out as "jocks", "sluts" or "dumbasses", even the stoner character was pretty intelligent, albeit stoned a lot. The agency behind it all used chems to turn them into the dumb sterotypes we see in horror movies. The "slut" had chems in her hair dye, the "jock" was being drugged through beer and pheromones in the air.
The reason they were all teens was because historically, it's young people who were sacrificed to the god, not the elderly (probably no small part on it being the elders doing the sacrificing.)
*end-eth the spoiler*
Also, who was "the owen wilson" knock off? The stoner guy? He was one of my favourite characters. I didn't associate him with Wilson at all. It's probably worth noting however, that during the filming of Cabin in the Woods, Wilson was staying low key after a suicide attempt following personal issues.
I saw Crimson Tide yesterday and it was surprisingly good. Not to mention a bit ridiculous at times (the counter-counter-counterrevolution for one) but there were loads of powerful scenes, plus the potential beginning for the Pirates of the Caribbean theme for Hans Zimmer. Or it sounded quite a bit like that at least so...
I was surprisingly friendly towards the idea of the film though, and it does strike me that not everyone would have a similar attitude there. WWIII is a tricky topic after all, and starting one even more, especially given the politics were not that well explained to make everything obvious to the viewer but I was left happy enough. :)
Just saw Prometheus. Loved it. The symbolism and allegory takes the film from summer blockbuster to another level. If only they had fixed the plot holes and glitches, and had better characterization and dialogue; this movie could have been one of the best films of the year.
The Expendables 2. My wife and I enjoyed it.
I'm going to watch Prometheus tonight!
Saw Looper yesterday; it was quite an entertaining movie. Anyone else find children creepy after watching it?
Was just about to post this explanation myself. The one part of the film I was disappointed with was the fact they didn't hang around with the real characters long enough. It is something they discuss a little bit in the commentary actually, which is well worth a listen for those that liked the film (Joss Whedon commentaries are always excellent. Definitely can recommend many of the Buffy ones.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesus_Phish
As for the "Owen Wilson" guy (seriously? He is ten times better than that), he is Fran Kranz. He was previously in Whedon's Dollhouse playing Topher, the tech guy. He had some of the best scenes in that show too. Don't know anything else he has done though.
As for Looper, I saw that last week and quite enjoyed it. The plot is completely nonsensical, but you don't question the time mechanics too much whilst watching and it is fun while it lasts. I could have done with the farmhouse section being cut down a bit though.
Just watched Tim & Eric's Million Dollar Movie a couple of nights ago. It was funny but really depressing. Walked away with a bit of a bitter taste. I still love them, though.
Last night, finally got around to watching Network (1976) and oh my God. One of my top 20 films, I think. Just a brilliant, brilliant script and every actor nailed it. So much epic monologue.
Edit: Oh, wait, and like half a week ago I saw Taken 2 as a joke with a bunch of friends. Thankfully, it was more than shite enough to be geniunely hilarious most of the time. Was also nice to see the rest of the cinema laughing at it, too, thus not making us spoilsport dicks.
So this evening was Looper evening. It's like Inception in that it's a very well stitched together film that's highly enjoyable, but I highly, highly doubt it'd stand up under repeat viewing. My problem with Looper is that its internal logic makes not a blind bit of sense. It uses so many different ideas of time travel that all start to contradict each other that as soon as the end happens, you realise there's a massive hole in logic. Still, it has some moments:
-It plays with cause & effect pretty well at times. The best parts are generally little things, whilst the worst, as stated above, break all kinds of logic.
-The make-up on Joseph Gordon-Levitt is very convincing and a good few shots as him as a younger Bruce Willis work eerily well.
-Bruce Willis kicks ass.
I've seen a good few films at the cinema this year, more than I have for a bit. I have good hopes for Skyfall and the trailer for the film Argo that was attached to Looper looked interesting, but I have to say my film of the year so far remains The Muppets (others include The Hunger Games, The Dark Knight Rises, The Bourne Legacy).
"This... Time travel stuff, just fries your brain like an egg."
Quote:
Originally Posted by The JG Man
I understood it like this (whited out):
If time isn't linear, it should work like this: Young Bruce and Old Bruce I exist at the same time, Old Bruce I gets sent back into time to get shot by Young Bruce, who then becomes Old Bruce II, and he travels back in time, too, but is luckier. By travelling in this loop, he does indeed meet himself. Do you think it could work like that, or can you give me an example for a break in logic?
Or to say it with the words of someone far wiser than me: It's all "wibbly-wobbley, timey-wimey...stuff."
Looper is one of those rare movies that I would recommend to basically everyone. It's that good.
SPOILERS?Quote:
Originally Posted by The JG Man
You know that scene in the diner where old'un tells young'un to basically fuck off with trying to figure out how time travel works? That's the creators of the film talking to the audience, asking them to just enjoy the movie. The film is a great one that uses time travel as a way to tell a great story. The story is important, not the science of time travel.
END SPOILERS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Bakke
I understand and appreciate this, for sure, but the plot and elements within it hinge on time travel to the extent that some understanding and sense should be there. I don't mind it when bat-shit crazy happens in front of me, but the film plays so fast and loose with any logic that it falls apart by the end, and I imagine earlier if you were paying particular attention to details. I'm more than happy to suspend my disbelief (hell, most of my favourite shows are sci-fis), but there is a breaking point. Looper crosses it, quite easily, by the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Splynter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labbes
I don't believe it can. What you're working with in Looper are several time-travel hypothesis, which is why the logic gets so flawed. Looper establishes, first, stable time loops. That is, a Looper will do their stuff, then live, then be sent back and killed by their younger self. This is a guarantee. If you want another, extremely prominent example, think Terminator. It's self-fulfilling, ie. a paradox. Now, a paradox can only be broken by something outside of the cycle; there is nothing to indicate this can happen.
We are presented with divergent time-lines, or perhaps parallel universes (another popular theory with Looper). The problem with that is that cause-and-effect is clearly demonstrated throughout the film; take for example the Looper at the beginning of the film. The problem with him is, due to what happens to him, there's no way he could've come back through time when he was older, at least he was in the state he was when he did come through because, well...you saw what happened to him.
So as you can see, we already have three ideas; paradoxes/stable time loops, parallel universes/alternate time-lines and cause-and-effect. Now, you could perhaps have two of these at once, perhaps in a way of showing how things could change, or how one of them ends up being broken; this is one of the main problems with any time travel story, that you have to assume that, depending on where you are in any cycle, that it has happened before, will happen again and so on, to the Nth amount of times (presumably infinitely, but let's not go any further down the rabbit hole).
Now you have the ending of the film. Yes, you could argue it's an alternative time-line, but then it calls into questions other events that happen in the film. It can't be a stable-time-loop, because, well...that's quite literally eliminated. It can't be cause-and-effect, however at the same time it is cause and effect because the events unfold differently to how they have happened before. The problem in this comes from how that was triggered, which I thought was a bit of an ass-pull too.
The problem time-travel stories have is that they're already working with a purely theological idea that has many issues and consequences etc. The solution, therefore, is to keep it as simplistic as possible and to eliminate as many conflicts as possible. Looper, however, seems to revel in this and throws everything at the wall to see what sticks. Its own internal logic, the rules of its universe, is completely flawed. The ending needs to happen and not happen at the same time for it to, well, happen.
Funny, because I quoted that video in the TV thread! It's true, however the Doctor Who universe clearly establishes and has continuity in linear progression of time, so it still (just) holds up in execution. Perfect? Hell no, but it is consistent and that's the key thing there.Quote:
Or to say it with the words of someone far wiser than me: It's all "wibbly-wobbley, timey-wimey...stuff."
For sure. I don't think you could watch it more than once, but I'd also say once is all you need.Quote:
Looper is one of those rare movies that I would recommend to basically everyone. It's that good.
Your argument actually makes perfect sense. It's interesting that, while I can acknowledge that, it doesn't lessen my enjoyment of the movie, although I'm not quite sure why. Maybe because I feel the story behind Looper isn't, in a way "about" time travel, and I don't need the vehicle to work, just what it delivers.Quote:
Originally Posted by The JG Man
Thanks for the answer, I read a lot of comments that said the time travel in Looper didn't make any sense, but nobody cared to explain their position.
Well I'm all for backing up my a discussion point, so no worries there. And, ultimately, you're right. It shouldn't detract from the enjoyment of the film, which I've hopefully made apparent, I didn't find lacking. The direction and presentation was slick, the action was shot well, Bruce Willis was Bruce Willis...you couldn't really have asked for too much more for what it was. Some films don't need to make sense to work, although I do find it helps!
If it detracts from anyone's enjoyment, that's fine with me. It is, after all, a valid point of criticism. There are people who don't like the Lord of the Rings because they say the landscape makes the film, and while I don't think that's important, it's certainly a valid point.
On another note though, have you seen Donnie Darko, and what did you think of that?