Looper

Maybe you could explain since youre smart enough

Oct 18 - 09:07 AM

John O'Connor

WAY too many spoilers in this review. Don't read it! You've been warned.

Sep 28 - 09:41 AM

Chilembo Chibwe

thanks 4 the tip. I'm going to watch it right now.

Oct 6 - 08:27 AM

Dan Gehen

"Looper felt to me like a maddening near-miss." Didn't George Carlin once say that the term 'near-miss' is odd. When you think about it, if something nearly misses, doesn't that mean it hits?

Sep 28 - 10:13 AM

Hyrum At Rain

No, it means it missed but just barely. Unlike the review which was a wide miss.

Sep 28 - 11:56 AM

Jeremy LaBove

"near" is referring to the location of the object in comparison to another object that is barely "missed" by the first. it does NOT describe the value of the "miss" as "near", but the location. the first object is so very "near" to the latter object, but still "misses" it. thus, a near-miss.

Sep 29 - 02:19 PM

Loki LASTNAME

George Carlin is a comedian that is taking advantage of the ambiguity of the phrase in question in order to make a humorous observation. Dan is using this reference in a sarcastic way to poke fun at the review. The above two posters are missing the point completely. It's like this time in high school where my class was required to read Cry the Beloved Country, and one of my classmates was talking about what the Africans were doing, and I said, "You mean 'African Americans'." My classmate responded, "No, they're actually Africans." missing the point completely, and I laughed at his stupidity.

Sep 29 - 04:01 PM

Steven Bailey

exactly!

Sep 30 - 10:45 AM

David Patterson

I enjoyed your response, but having not read "Cry The Beloved Country" I have to have a guess at what the sarcasm could be. Was the book very PC?

Oct 1 - 02:02 PM

Andrew Schindler

The book was about apartheid. And that is a fabulous response!!!

Oct 1 - 08:08 PM

She didnt point on anything specific. The drama in the characters relationship is throughout the entire story..plus

*SPOILER NEXT DONT READ IF YOU HAVENT SEEN*

Did anyone else besides me realize that the kid was going to be the rainmaker regardless. He had the jaw wound, and his real mother HAD been killed. Plus, how would he have been in Joes future if he hadnt gone on to shoot the mom after young Joe killed him. This was no accident.

Sep 28 - 02:03 PM

Spoiler Alert

But it still doesnt make any sense if you think about it. The kid would have never had the jaw wound if Joe hadnt shot him, and future Joe tells young Joe that his mother was killed and he had a synthetic jaw..doesnt add up

Sep 28 - 02:06 PM

Adam Minahan

Emily Blunt's character was Cid's real mother.

Sep 28 - 04:02 PM

She only tells Joe that though. Sid never knows for sure

Sep 29 - 04:47 AM

The movie actually is very inconsistent after you think about it a while. Even if you can get past some of the smaller plot holes the big ones make it really hard to buy in to. If a film is meant to take itself seriously, it should be loyal to its content and stay consistent, there were alternatives in making this film that would have made it more plausible.

Sep 29 - 04:53 AM

I think Bryan's confusing himself.

A, it was an alternate reality at that point and nobody would need a synthetic jaw from such a superficial wound. The jaw thing is irrelevent (if even true) as it was rumored about in the original reality.

B, Sid absolutely realized she was his mother in the field. The director stressed how he addresses his mother both ways to signify the weight of those words. Saying one can "interpret" it either way is about as logical as saying young Joe may not actually be dead since we don't see his lifeless eyes at the end. Things like the ending to Drive are opaque enough to intend interpretation. The intent of this scene is crystal clear.

Oct 3 - 10:20 PM

Logan Miller

No he does know for sure. That's why he mutters 'mom' at the end, because they were sharing telekinesis, which explains why he has it.

Sep 29 - 07:17 AM

Thats a little subjective Logan. She was saying "Honey I love you".. with her mouth lol. Then he says "Mommy". You can interpret it however you want. T

Sep 29 - 02:57 PM

The fact that there WAS a rainmaker in Joes future after he killed older Joe proves my point; that there was going to be a Rainmaker anyway. Thats why the last scene of the film shows the side of Sids face where he is shot, lying in bed, and thats why there was the story of his other mother in the first place. It shows the filmakers intentions.

Sep 29 - 03:00 PM

Remington Gong

OK Ryan, you raise some good questions. Questions I raised myself as well, but I think I can answer them. First of all, what Adam mentions is pretty significant. You can argue that he does believe that she's her real mother because throughout the movie he refers to her as "Sarah" except at the end of the movie. I'm going to address your last comment as it sort of goes along with the first one. The fact that there was a Rainmaker at all was something that concerned me as well. But if you remember earlier in the movie, old Joe explains about possibilities. The fact that the kid is alive only guarantees the POSSIBILITY that he would become the Rainmaker. Whether or not he actually becomes the Rainmaker is up to how he is raised, not the fact that he has a synthetic jaw, yadda yadda... So from the movie's conclusion we can argue that the events that happened in Joe #2's timeline could tip in favor of the boy not becoming the Rainmaker.

Sep 30 - 12:27 AM

Dylan Ganz

exactly. when young joe "saw" sid's life ahead of him, he realized that old joe trying to kill him (and succeeding to kill his mom) actually turns him into the rainmaker. so he stops that from happening.

Sep 30 - 08:35 AM

Older Joe shot the kid BEFORE killing the mother, thus, the "suicide" of young Joe at that point completely rectifies the fact that the kid would not grow up resenting losing his mother.

Oct 2 - 10:54 PM

John Silvestri

SPOILER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stop reading if you haven't seen the film.

You've missed the entire point of the ending. The kid is NOT going to be "the Rainmaker" regardless.

By taking himself out and therefore his older self and saving Sarah, Joe ensured that the kid will grow up with a loving mother instead of alone and will not be the same person as an adult.

Oct 1 - 07:50 AM

John is almost completely right. EXCEPT, Sid would have grown up with a loving mother and still become the rainmaker had Joe killed his older self as originally planned immediately when he was transported back. It was the necessary moment caused by Joe's interference in their lives where Sid realizes she really IS his mother that cements his path going forward. However, if the older Joe had killed his mom after Sid realized this, the bitterness/pain of losing her coupled with not having her to lovingly raise him still would have turned him into the Rainmaker. Kapeesh?

Oct 3 - 07:24 PM

So, in essence, the older Joe DID stop the Rainmaker albeit (and sadly) not achieving his main objective (to meet and not lose his wife) due to the way he went about it. An all-around suspenseful, thought-provoking, and moving film.

Oct 3 - 07:39 PM

All of what youre saying is good but..that still doesnt explain the relevance of the synthetic jaw..it had to have something to do with the ending scene where he shoots sid in the side of the face, and then theres this:

Joe kills older self; grows old, gets married; Wife is killed and he is taken hostage by rainmakers henchmen; In this timeline the rainmaker was a man with a synthetic jaw whose mother had been killed; Joe goes back in time to re confront his younger self, which creates an impossible paradox; what point would there be to closing a loop if the looper can just go back and change time anyway, almost defeats the purpose of the film

Oct 10 - 09:24 AM

As I had posted earlier, the synthetic jaw was "rumored" in the original timeline. It had nothing to do with the alternate reality where young Joe does not shoot older Joe. IF the Rainmaker actually had a synthetic jaw, it was due to an injury sustained in the original timeline/reality, not from being shot by older Joe. It's too blatant a paradox for the director/producer to catch if things occurred the way you believe they did.

The only thing that ensures the improbability of time travel is the fact that, up until the reality of Joe meeting his wife, the younger version had to have closed the loop an infinite # of times. Not a knock on the movie, just a thought.

Oct 14 - 06:31 PM

Guillermo Toro-Lira Stahl

As I had posted earlier, the synthetic jaw was "rumored" in the original timeline. It had nothing to do with the alternate reality where young Joe does not shoot older Joe. IF the Rainmaker actually had a synthetic jaw, it was due to an injury sustained in the original timeline/reality, not from being shot by older Joe. It's too blatant a paradox for the director/producer to not catch if things occurred the way you believe they did.

The only thing that ensures the improbability of time travel is the fact that, up until the reality of Joe meeting his wife, the younger version had to have closed the loop an infinite # of times. Not a knock on the movie, just a thought.

Oct 14 - 06:34 PM

Miguel Clarke

the thing about the synthetic jaw could be an infection that a little child could get from travelling alone in freight trains with a bullet wound in his jaw. The fact that his mother lives and treats the wound stops him from having to get the synthetic jaw.

Nov 6 - 05:29 AM

Scott Mallon

I somewhat disagree. I feel if anything, Joe has only prevented the complete certainty that he will grow up as the rainmaker. There will always be that chance. But saving sarah was the number one deterrent.

Nov 8 - 05:56 AM

In my opinion, the moment that Joe killed himself and Old Joe vanishes, all the actions that he had caused in the past should also must have been vanished, because in "reality" he never existed. The bullet wound in the kid must have vanished at the same instant too. To show the wound on the kids face at the end of the movie was a huge mistake, in my opinion. Old Joe NEVER existed, was just one posibility of the future that never happened.

Oct 1 - 03:52 PM

Daniel Soder

In this reality it exists. Just like Seth could walk to the fence in the beginning (or escape altoghether) even though his foot will eventually come off. Same with the message. How could he read it, when his young version looses his complete arm, minutes later? Because it is a alternate reality, spawning just at that exact point where he looses a limb!

Oct 3 - 12:00 AM

Exactly. Ever reboot your PC and have technical issues that time even though you didn't previously? Same sort of thing.

Oct 3 - 07:27 PM

Miguel Clarke

spot on, great explanation, Daniel

Nov 6 - 05:30 AM

Jack Lewis

If something's a "near-miss," doesn't that make it a hit?

Sep 28 - 04:19 PM

Steve Allen

No, it mines it missed but was really close. If I miss the target bu an inch that's a near miss. If I miss it by a yard it's mot. What's so hard to understand about that?

Sep 29 - 11:19 AM

Jeremy LaBove

Sep 29 - 02:18 PM

Ruben Peralta

top critic ? yea ok..

Sep 28 - 05:00 PM

Kent Palan

Missed it by thaaaaaaaaaat much!
Her review that is...

Sep 28 - 06:26 PM

Jimmie Price

Oh come on, people, just ignore her. She gave Dark Knight Rises a negative review but the universally-panned Total Recall remake a good one. Credibility lost.

Sep 28 - 06:34 PM

Mitchell Nash

30% of critics liked Total Recall. I'd say it's a bit of a stretch to call that 'universally-panned'.

Sep 29 - 02:08 AM

Remington Gong

TBH the Totall Recall remake was not that bad.

Sep 30 - 12:10 AM

Todd Garry

No it was horrible.

Sep 30 - 09:15 PM

Ben Holewinski

It was horrible if you are a huge fan of the Arnold version. If you're a huge fan of Philip K. Dick then the new Total Recall wasn't that bad.

The biggest thing I saw reviewers QQing about is how it was so different from the Arnold Version which was only inspired by the PKD version.

Too many people went into the movie expecting a remake of the Arnold version and that's not what they got.

Oct 6 - 12:30 PM

Alexey Gapchenko

Yeah, Dark Knight Rises is a piece of a crap btw

Oct 2 - 05:03 AM

Todd Garry

Piece of crap??? Really??? I could understand someone not liking it but you just make yourself look stupid when you say its a piece of crap.

Oct 2 - 08:38 AM

Mervin LovesZbrush

The Dark Knight is far from being a piece of crap. It's definitely one of the strongest solid films of 2012. But it's far from being Nolan's best film to date.

Oct 2 - 11:05 AM

It was a piece of crap, it was garbage, it was the opposite of entertaining. Everyone else I know who watched that said it sucked

Oct 10 - 05:19 PM

Totally agree with you on that!! Dark Knight Rises WAS a piece of crap!!! It had the potential to be so much more than a "tying up loose plots" movie in a soap opera crime drama that failed to put "comic book adaptation" a real thing... I was very much disappointed with TDKR and very much pleased with Looper, which was along the same line as story telling that mixed a lot of everything.
If you had to compare the 2 Joseph Gordon-Levitt movies, Looper surpasses TDKR in every single aspect!

Oct 2 - 11:06 PM

I think that stemmed from your inflated expectations after TDK. If TDK had never existed, you would be raving about TDKR right now :)

Oct 3 - 07:32 PM

No, not really. The only reason I enjoyed TDK is because of Heath Ledger, the rest of the story and acting was so-so, but I see what you were getting at. Some people didn't like TDKR because of the expectations after TDK... But I assure you, it is not the case with me! :)

Oct 3 - 09:49 PM

Eric Shankle

It was alright, not a piece of crap. The Last Airbender is a piece of crap.

Oct 4 - 12:43 PM

They were both horrible!!!

Oct 13 - 11:00 PM

Dark Knight Rise was terrible and Total Recall was great!! But I still don't like her reviewing skills!!! :P

Oct 2 - 10:59 PM

Nanie Bruce

Come to (ray365.com), a large amount of the latest free HD movies without having to download directly online viewing.No pop-up ads.

Oct 11 - 01:27 AM

David Sandford

Good review, just saw the film.

Sep 28 - 09:17 PM

Will Lopez Jr.

lesbian

Sep 28 - 10:19 PM

k raime

is that an insult?

Sep 28 - 10:36 PM

Darrell Kay

Funny, you don't look like a lesbian...

Oct 7 - 11:16 PM

Chris Skrabec

Clearly this reviewer has no idea what she is talking about. Looper was exciting, thoughtful and unpredictable throughout. Top critic i think not, more like bottom

Sep 28 - 11:51 PM

This comment has been removed.

David Williams

It's amazing that a) you assume all the people taking offense with this review are virgins and b) you assume that being a virgin is a bad thing.

Oct 4 - 12:22 PM

Trake Starr

The Contrarian. There's always gotta be a Contrarian.... =/

Sep 29 - 12:32 AM

Evan Hopkinson

This was an excellent movie.
I checked what other movies she rated; she gave both the "new" Spiderman and The Dark Knight Rises bad reviews as well.

Dumbass.

Sep 29 - 04:52 AM

A E

The Amazing Spider-man wasn't any good though...

Sep 29 - 10:30 AM