Can anyone answer these questions for me?

1. Abe, the mob boss from the future who was sent back from the future to run the present-day mob, goes out of his way to explain to Young Joe (read: the audience) that it is dangerous to have someone from the future running around in the past/present. If that's true, why is Abe there? Does his younger self in the year 2044 know about him being there?

2. Why would the mob mandate that loopers in the present day kill their own future selves? It's extremely risky to assume that anyone would be okay with doing such a thing. It's already risky enough that they hire junkies, some of them with telekinetic powers, to do their dirty work. Are they trying to test the loopers' loyalty? Are they just being sadistic? It would seem more logical to send the future retired loopers to other looper assassins, and therefore keep them in the dark about their ultimate fate. This would make them much more obedient too.

3. So we learn early on in the film that whatever happens to people in the present will carry the effects to people in the future, including body mutilation and death. And this happens no matter what timeline the future people are living in. So why did the mob in the present find it necessary to cut off Young Seth's body parts in order to lure Old Seth just so they can fatally shoot Old Seth before eventually killing Young Seth? Why didn't they just shoot Young Seth in the head? They would have literally killed two birds (or, men) with one stone (or, bullet) without so much blood and carnage. And as we clearly see at the end of the film, if you kill someone in the present, including yourself, their future selves will cleanly disappear, even if their future selves are residing in the present. My only guess is that the mob wanted to be extremely sadistic and dole out the worst punishment possible to anyone who lets someone from the future run loose, especially if it's themselves. And speaking of killing your future self...

4. How does Sara know about loopers? Young Joe seems surprised that she knows, and he asks her about it. But she never answers.

5. What exactly does Young Joe accomplish by killing himself at the end? Old Joe tells Young Joe in the diner that the Rainmaker "saw his mom get shot." Now of course, that was somewhere during the original timeline where Old Joe does not survive his execution. But what that means is that the rainmaker apparently rose to power even without any interaction from Old or Young Joe. Why didn't he at least try to kill Old Joe? Old Joe wouldn't be able to retaliate without seriously hurting himself. And even if Old Joe succeeded in killing Sara so that he could get to Cid, it would have given Young Joe all the time he needed to kill Old Joe and try to find Cid. He could then use his excessive amount of silver and gold to raise Cid in a positive environment. After all, Cid likes Young Joe, and he's a smart kid, so Cid would be a low-maintenance child to care for. And if he succeeded in protecting Sara, then his job would be even easier with the two-parent household, AND his enormous sum of money. Not to mention the fact that Old Joe killed the rest of the mob in the present day, so they're safe from their enemies.

If Young Joe was serious about killing Old Joe, he should have done it when Old Joe pulled up in front of him and told him to go "live your life," instead of shooting randomly at the truck that Old Joe was driving when he clearly could have hit him.

I wouldn't go so far as to accuse me of confirmation bias. Seems as unfair as me deploying "delusional".

I'm not sure you could say that the film continuously explores the idea of time travel. It introduces the dynamic timeline in a aesthetically pleasing but empty sequence, and then fulfills that narrative expectation at the end of the film. It does not texture this element of time travel in any different way than originally introduced. No other element of time travel is interrogated in the film. The emotional scars of murder is literalized through physical wounds. Not the most impressive of metaphors, I should think.

As for the film's liminal genre state, I wouldn't accept this as proof of its non-mainstream approach. Multifaceted approach is not mutually exclusive with mainstream. Seems particularly unfair considering the globalized approach to most mainstream films, which is to say that there is an attempt to be all things to all audiences in order to maximize profit. Looper is a sci-fi film, a family drama, and a quest film. But it is not entirely successful in any of these categories. We're conflating this issue with its status as mainstream or not.

It's a lazy comparison, but it's particularly evocative: a better time travel movie is 12 Monkeys. Hands down. Also, a mainstream wide release film that stars Bruce Willis, 12 Monkeys is entirely successful in challenging the audience and its characters. The emotional arc that Willis goes through is leaps and bounds more successful than the gesture at the end of Looper.

I'm not saying there isn't subtext to this film; I'm saying there isn't "oodles" of subtext. It's mainstream because it was released in wide release, stars Bruce Willis and doesn't do anything challenging with the premise of the film. It's intentionally focused on the emotional journey of the protagonist, but does so in the blandest and most superficial of ways. Part of the film's failure (for me) is that the film isn't sure what it wants to be. Is it an action film or is it a family drama? Is it an exploration of the heavy emotional cost of murder or is it an exploration of the problems of time travel?

If this is a time travel movie, but the characters and the filmmakers don't appear interested in discussing time travel, why was this made a time travel movie and not another near-future sci-fi film? Why time travel?

I apologize for deploying the word "delusional". A better and more apt word would have been to call your insinuation about the audience to be disingenuous. You think this film is deep; I do not. I don't blame the film's failure on the audience; I blame it on the film.

This is one of those things where I can totally see both sides of the debate. It's not meant to be a film interested in the mechanics of time travel, and I understand that. However, the alternative presented to me, the emotional journey of a hitman, wasn't very convincing on an emotional level. I don't believe that Looper earned the ending. On the other hand, I enjoyed most of the film on an aesthetic level. It's a film without an emotional core that manages to succeed on superficial levels, so I'm completely amenable to both sides of this.

Although, an argument I won't accept is the "mainstream audience expected mainstream film". Looper is, by definition, a mainstream film. And in terms of form and content, it didn't do anything either new or interesting with time travel. Looper was as middle-brow as I could have expected. This isn't a criticism on my part. I'm merely stating that the argument about how "people just didn't get it" is delusional.

In a year of amazing movies, this one still manages to be the most amazing-iest.

One of the best sci fi movies I've seen in years. One of the year's best. By far.

Guys, guys, its Jeff Daniels.

hogaburger wrote: LeBougre wrote: Hello,

Was the back cover provided for the news ? Is it noted ABC on the back ?

Thanks
Here is the back cover. Unfortunately it appears to be region A locked.


Arf too bad :s Thanks for the back cover.

Hello,

Was the back cover provided for the news ? Is it noted ABC on the back ?

Thanks

lee09 wrote: Is it me or does that NOT look like Joseph Gordon Levitt on the cover?
JGL has make up/prosthetics on to make him look like a young Bruce Willis.

This movie is fantastic.  Despite borrowing so many elements and having so many nods to previous iconic films, there was so much originality to this one that left me stunned.  Gordon-Levitt is now one of my all-time favorite actors, and to have him star opposite Bruce Willis as his younger self with the slight facial modifications was a treat in and of itself.  I can't wait to add this to my collection.  Hoping for a store-exclusive cover art special edition.  Maybe with a snazzy lenticular slipcover?  Please?  

'big country house, single mother who develops a relationship with the hero, "special" boy'

I guess Forrest Gump *is* kind of a rip off of Close Encounters come to think of it.

Evoking an image and ripping off are not really the same thing. But to each his own weird justification for not enjoying a movie.

You just described like, 15 movies. And Close Encounters is barely one of them.

Uniblab wrote: Went to see it based on all the fuss, for nothing...it only becomes mildly interesting in the middle when it's suddenly a "Close Encounters..." rip-off with Emily Blunt in Melinda Dillon's role.

I know I'm going to regret biting this bait, but, what the hell are you talking about?

Went to see it based on all the fuss, for nothing...it only becomes mildly interesting in the middle when it's suddenly a "Close Encounters..." rip-off with Emily Blunt in Melinda Dillon's role.

Don't know why but this didnt do it for me