Looper | One Fatal Flaw
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лип 2024
- (SPOILERS FOR LOOPER [2012] AND PRIMER [2004])
This series aims to discuss films that I argue suffer tremendously from a single writing/directorial decision. That is not to say that it is the ONLY flaw in the entire film nor do I mean to say said flaw makes the film a complete and utter crap shoot, but rather the particular flaw significantly reduces the quality of the film and/or prevents it from being far more effective and/or thematically brilliant than it already may be.
On today's episode, we will discuss Rian Johnson's 2012 time travel thriller, Looper. Be sure to subscribe, like, comment, and share!
*Looper was released in 2012, not 2013 as I say at 00:31.
Patreon: / macabrestorytelling
Twitter: / macabstory
VIDEOS REFERENCED:
Michael J. Fox on sci-fi: • Michael J. Fox Talks A...
ARTICLES REFERENCED:
Rian Johnson on the rules of time-travel: www.hollywoodreporter.com/hea...
MUSIC:
All music is from Looper (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) by Nathan Johnson - Фільми й анімація
An example of a good passive protagonist: The Dude from The Big Lebowski
Yeah well... that’s just like... your opinion man.
I don’t think “passive” is the right term.
The Dude just abides.
@@warlordofbritannia I don't know about you, but I take comfort in that.
I'd love to see a video here of examples of badly done passive protagonists. Maybe even compare to well-done passive protagonists in movies (if there is such a thing)
Nah he's definitely reactive, the film wouldn't have gone anywhere if he hadn't wanted to replace that rug so badly lol
I remember talking to some friends in high school about time travel movies, and at some point after discussing the plot of Inception (not really a time travel movie per se) someone said:
“Inception was confusing? You’ve never seen Primer, have you?”
I’ll never forget that. Mainly because the attempted explanation of Primer sounded like the dark language from Lord of the Rings.
Looks like there's a new movie on my download list
Inception has nothing to do with time travel at all... how do you include it in a time travel movies discussion?..
@@SPFLDAnglerid assume because usually time travel movies are pretty complicated , and require multiple watches, and so does inception lol
I thought the fatal flaw was that the child actor was incredibly unlikeable (even by child actor standards) while Old Joe was one of Willis' best rolls in years making it borderline impossible to root for Young Joe and the Rainmaker.
Dude... I didn’t mention it... but goddamn did that kid weird me out lol
@@MacabreStorytelling I believe it was on purpose, like he is young Hitler, and how dislikable is also somewhat tragic, that this jeofry Baratheon needs to be saved in order to save the world.
@@MacabreStorytelling also a good remake of looper would be great, I think a dictatorship would make more sense for the time travel disappearing bodies. A joe with TK mutation would also be great, and little Hitler being some kind of genius that is also the one that makes time travel machines, it would make more sense than here is aliens and also werewolfs. To much suspension of disbelief.
The argument for old Joe going back to take out the Rainmaker, even as a child, had moral merit as well. Going back to take out someone before they take out your innocent wife and leave you broken and alone, of course you're going to sympathize with their actions.
You’re spot on with that. Bruce Willis’ character should have been the protagonist. I loved that character.
My question is, why didnt young Joe just blow his right hand off at the end when Willis was pointing the gat at Sarah... Seems he turned the dial up to 11 when really he just had to make old Joe drop the gun.
Because, this is Rian "The Last Jedi" Johnson, that's why.
The character said in his head that he saw an endless loop. Shooting a hand off might not really do it.
@@Fujtajblus that's what I was thinking. Up until then everything has always consolidated at the same outcome
I've been thinking this since I was sitting there in the theater watching it. I was like If I can come up with this in the moment, you should have been able to think about it somewhere along the way.
@@wj3186 Hey you're Rian johnson. You made that 6/10 movie! How about we give you exclusive control over our multi billion dollar franchise!
I honestly forget TK was there in the first place
Psychics suddenly being included created another big problem for me:
It explained why they have to use time travel to kill people; psychics can feel when someone is getting murdered, so they have to send them back to the past before psychics existed. So while it was very jarring, it did make the movie make more sense.
And then they killed Bruce Willis' character's wife! If they can just shoot her, why not him!?
I think it had something more to do with the mob getting caught up. The wife wasn't killed exactly by the mob but by a foreign criminal organization in japan. I think japan became ran by the yakuza which bruce decided to hide out there but found a wife. The yakuza was ordered to bring him back for the time loop deal so the mob couldn't be incriminated but still it is a trip.
Wasn't it just the future tracking systems? I don't remember any mention of telepaths; just the telekinetics.
That’s true
While the time travel rules might not have bothered me, what does bother me is that Johnson didn't bother making his own story's rules consistent. *We* don't need to know all the details, but at least the director should.
we do know the details right, this isnt a story where you can change the future thats why time travel is kept to a minimum and restricted.
@@lampad4549Except it's proven that changes to the past do affect the future. How else would disfiguring a past looper affect the body of a future looper?
I totally agree with your take, always bothered me how Looper is veiled as a hard sci-fi time travel film then does a 180 and boom, Akira/X-Men style telekinesis shinanigans, essentially becoming two movies in one.
This gonna be hella late for this movie , but I think I just realized why he’s called the Rainmaker in the future. His TK powers just exploding his targets, thus making blood rain down everywhere 😦
Precisely, by killing tons of people in the process...in the future when murder shouldn’t be possible.
The Rainmaker is pretty awesome name. Because he makes this rain down with his powers.
The real flaw for me is old joe closed his loop in his own timeline... so where does the rainmaker come from ? Who’s responsible for killing his mom the first time in that timeline ? Also since young joe killed himself stopping the rainmaker, it would probably change the timing of his loop being closed, old joe could be sent back years later instead, maybe not even sent back at all!
The only thing that could solve these is separate time lines, but then the next flaw would be with how the younger versions effect the older versions, and the multiverse of rainmakers that would have to be stopped, there would be multiple futures with this guy
The time travel problem is a big issue for me, so ... I guess, Two Fatal Flaws ?!
Yeah I’d argue it’s almost narrative breaking since how does Young Joe know killing himself will make Old Joe disappear. But yeah the time travel issues have been talked about a lot so wanted to pick something else.
@@MacabreStorytelling Well, actually that part is fine. It's established that if something happens to the young version something also happens to the older version, killing the young one also kills the older one.
But I guess I don't remember if the Young Joe learned that at any point during the film.
Anyway, the time travel does not make sense, and broke my investment in the film. But as you said in your video, that might just be me personally, and not everybody agree.
@@QazwerDave actually that still makes little sense. In the earlier scene, the future version just suddenly gains those injuries without ever knowing how they got there (how could he possibly drive without legs for example, as they were removed from his younger self). That makes no sense, but if we go with it then logically shooting himself should just cause bruce Willis to turn into an aged corpse, not disappear
@@ahumanbeingfromtheearth1502 Yeah, like I said, the time travel doesn't make any sense in this film !!
A better setup with the same premise is that the guys are sent back in time and a young version of a different person is given the hit, so they won't remember the fact that this would happen in 20 years and break the loop. Then this movie starts with Young Joe getting the wrong contract and finding out the target is his older self. A clerical error at the mob post office rather than lazy time-travel writing.
Why doesn't the future mob send back the retired loopers to be killed by literally anyone other than their own past selves? Wouldn't they think that their loopers might be unwilling to kill themselves? I'm amazed that for as long as they've been running their scheme, only one of the loopers refuses to commit suicide.
because they don't want to get other people involved in it unless they have to. The people in the past wont know when the older versions come to the past as well.
I thought usually the targets get sent back with hoods or bags over their heads, so the past loopers don't really know the identity of their targets. For some reason this didn't happen with old Joe.
@@Eidolon1andOnlybecause he escaped and purposefully showed his face to throw his younger self off
People in this comment section have clearly not seen the movie
@@fireemblemistrash75 I saw the movie once years ago. Don't remember Old Joe removing the bag from his head.
Yeah I always thought the TK aspect of Looper seemed like a bit of an afterthought.
Yep, an afterthought the whole second half of the movie centered on lol
@@Thoron_of_Neto TK could have been removed entirely and it would have changed very little. The kid could have killed the gat man another way (maybe a knife or something) and shown little to no real feeling thus setting up his propensity towards being a cold killer. Couple that with seeing his mom murdered and boom, crazy mob boss origin story. TK not necessary.
Hi Moss!!
the time travel is not flawed: actually looper is the only story I've seen that resolved the problem of "it's already happened" or "creating a new dimension". The logic in looper is this: you can get back to the past, but changing the past you will slowly rewrite the future, in real time. Let's say I get married and then a kid; if I go in the past and my wife is killed before I marry her, I'll forget about her and won't be married anymore … but the kid still is. You have to think about it like videogame checkpoints and saves. You can cancel all the previous saves but what's important is the last one.
Of course, the interesting thing is that your kid is destined to disappear, because without your wife your past self will never be able to procreate him. So when your future self and past self will arrive to the day of your son's conception, since there's nobody to conceive him with, the kid will disappear from the world and your future memory
I thought the Rain maker powers was a result of both his parents was TK. His mom was more powerful than his dad. She actually told the story on how they meant. She used her TK to prevent her future baby daddy from using his to float something to impress her.
The thing that upsets me is that loopers are told ahead of time about the whole "closing the loop" thing. Why would the mobsters tells the loopers about it? What benefit is there?
There's literally no reason to disclose that, and it'd be relatively easy to fix -- just have a looper find out, and tell the protagonist about it.
Or not even tell them at the moment. Just send their future self back to be killed by someone else, then give their past self a big pay day and then hunt them down 30 yrs later.
@@MacabreStorytelling But then the plot wouldn't happen haha. Also why give them a big payday? What's the justification? Just have them keep working until the day they are surprised with their unexpected kidnapping and death.
@@MacabreStorytelling really why even give them a 30 year headstart anyway? If you're worried about them spilling the beans, you'd wanna kill them immediately and quietly the moment they are no longer needed.
None of the rules of the world building make any sense.
Btw I made a video about this subject on my English Channel (look up IZZY NOBRE LOOPER), it's great that more people are criticizing the movie now. When it first came out it was driving me INSANE that everyone praised the movie so highly when it's core premise is so contrived for the sake of the plot happening haha
Did you hear that Rian Johnson apparently sent the script of Looper to Shane Carruth (the director of Primer) and his feedback to Rian was "your time travel doesn't work"😂😂
Also you should check out Upstream Color if you haven't,its another Shane Carruth film.
Interesting and valid criticisms that I didn't consider before.
My biggest issue with Looper had still always been about the time travel mechanic, but I think it's simple enough:
There's the time travel story where people actually can change the present by altering the past, and then there's the time travel story where people's attempt to change the present by altering the past has always been the very thing determining the present in the first place. Looper starts off as one of the first kind and suddenly acts like one of the latter when it comes to Sid, and uses this as a plot device. A blatant inconsistency is sold as a twist. That is the fatal flaw for me.
Is that the plot hole you mentioned?
Rhian Johnson films perfectly explained using inconsistencies and passing them off as plot twists
The fatal flaw that took me out of Looper was the fact that Old Joe towards the end of the movie, "Bruce Willis`ed" his way through a horde of armed gang members and came out unscathed. I was like, "Damn, the rainmaker has some competition...and Old Joe dont even have TK." lol
Loved everything else about the movie though.
I mean... that's Rian. I can't expect quality scripts from him
I dunno man. He seems quite competent at writing character conflicts and dynamics. It’s plots where he tends to drop the ball (especially in Looper and The Last Jedi, which are admittedly the only movies of his I know I have seen).
@@warlordofbritannia Yeah, he actually wrote a kickass murder mystery in Knives Out, mostly by leveraging character dynamics to craft and drive the plot.
Brick is pretty good though
@@knasigboll Haven't watch it yet, but I saw 3 of his movies (Looper, TLJ and Knives out) and I'm not very optimistic about watching next one. But... I might be pleasantly surprised
@@warlordofbritannia I can agree with pretty well written character conflict in Looper, but definitely not in TLJ and Knives out. I think that Rian is a competent director, but horrible writer (haven't watched all of his movies, but I'm making my argument based on three of his movies)
Was pretty awesome seeing Willis on screen again
He did an awesome job in this film too
I saw that you had posted the movie, but I hadn't seen it/couldn't remember it, so I watched it. I'm a rather critical viewer and it's hard for me to like most movies. Usually I pick up on flaws very quickly, even if I like it.
That said it ended and I was very confused. Then I watched your video and I, to be honest, don't find you so clear as to what precisely the flaw is in your opinion?! Some classic storytelling techniques were ignored, but that doesn't make it a flaw. Especially since Rian made it very clear that he knows them by his expert use of a wide range of storytelling devices.
Flaws in your movie critique:
- Young Joe's "friend" doesn't die, obviously. They hooked him up to life support for a reason. When Joe later is being chased the explicit order is given NOT to kill him. And yes it's obviously a multiverse thing.
- Time travel, like zombie stories, are inevitably going to cause logical paradoxa if they're dwelled on too long. There was no reason for the movie to expand on the plot and the information given is all that is relevant to the plot.
- TK isn't introduced at the end. It's introduced right at the start. It's rare to see two McGuffin's in one movie, and even rarer to see them not conflict each other. Looper actually achieves this by keeping them quite separate, and there's no reason why they should be joined. I absolutely do not understand why they should be joined.
- It's very, very clear that Cid is the rainman from the very second he's introduced. It's done in such a subtle yet at the same time cliché, overemphasised way that I cannot understand how you missed it. Cid gets the delayed introduction, which other than him only old Joe got, and only slightly (with the announced, expected and delayed arrival, and the face reveal).
- But most importantly: I feel like you zoned out right at the second act and stopped paying attention.
Young Joe didn't become passive, he became introspective. The first act makes it seem likely, and even desirable, that old and young Joe become allies. Not only does this movie subvert it in a good way, it has the viewers and the protagonist on that same introspective path where the objective shifts. Old Joe needs Young Joe to continue down his selfdestructive path for him to have met his wife the way he did.
Young Joe ends up rejecting that, by making the ultimate sacrifice.
Verdict: The film is very, very clear and transparent in what it did and what it wanted to do. Wanting the movie to follow the more generic storyline does not mean it has an objective flaw. An introspective journey is very hard to make work in a movie, and even more so in action style movies. It is ok for a movie not to explain everything, as long as enough plausibility is left for it to work. The movie does not grind to a halt, just because young Joe recuperates. He is not a passive protagonist.
I'll take that nice nuance you've shared: I'm not passive, I'm introspective!
We need to spend time with Cid.
1. It shows the consequence and uncontrollability of his rage.
2. It demonstrates the strength of his carer’s love for him.
3. It shows why Joe would defend the potential Rainmaker.
Cid has more powerful TK because both of his parents had it.
ok. I think I can explain the part about the guy losing limbs. There are 2 theories. First one is simple, They didn't kill him, they kept him alive. Which in my opinion is false in my pov. My take is that the future is changed on the fly, with free will attached. Kind of like the butterfly effect movie. The young guys finger is cut, so then the future is changed. Because the future guy is in the past he is displaced in like a time limbo. Neither fully future or past, and what ever new that wasn't in the first timeline, it's effect are instantaneous. That's my take on it. IT's if time is a flowing river but boulders and rocks spilt it. It's still the same river/dimension, but time has a splinter effect in that dimension. Hopes this helps.
I could never get over the bad time travel in looper the rest of the film could be perfect and I'd still hate it
the time travel isnt bad, its unrealistic but isnt bad and it follows its own rules.
@@lampad4549 It doesn't but you can think that if you want. Cutting off the arm of someone's past self and torturing them somehow still results in you old self traveling back in time. No not possible. More over travel is possibly the dumbest way to have people killed many many think can go wrong resulting in people from the future killing past versions of people who don't know they could be a target. Bad time travel. Bad movie.
@@lampad4549 Are you kidding me right now? This movie breaks all of its own rules. It only makes rules so it can break them.
The fatal flaw was the prosthetic lips. I thought those only existed in Weird Al's universe. They don't even make him look like Brucie
In Save The Cat, this is what Blake Snyder refers to as "double mumbo jumbo."
Because Ryan Johnson was not interested in amazing word building of the time travel. He chose the easy lazy path of the super-hero kid.
It’s like if in the Matrix midway through - the main antagonist is not Smith anymore but the bald monk kid, who knows telekinesis. No more bullet time, no more real/virtual world duality - just a kid throwing objects at Neo.
It’s the « auteur trap » as I call it- swap an amazing concept which is hard to develop and requires real creativity with a pseudo-sentimental story. Make lengthy shots with sunsets and much much dialogue, bring some piano/guitar/violin sad music, throw time travel out of the window and embrace a poor child’s character that suffers (don’t forget - children, dogs and cats must always survive).
Also, make all one location, ditch the high stakes and twists of the story etc.
That’s how you have Looper at the end.
The time time travel / tk problem is addressed in the classic writing book “Save the cat”. Blake Snyder called it “double mumbo jumbo”
I am brand new to this channel, but I would LOVE to see a whole slew of installments in this series! Great work!
The explanation is that his mother in the film is shown to have a slightly stronger TK ability than the population implying that her son then inherited that ability ten fold and because he is a kid who didn’t get the TK medically but inherently he doesn’t know how to control it as a kid. And it is also implied that one of Joes future selves that goes back in time shoots his mother in the field in the last scene thus creating the boy to become the rainmaker. That’s why past joe realizes this so he takes his life this “closing his loop” the dialogue in the movie says that the boy became the rainmaker after witnessing his mother getting shot and killed.
Returning macabro REPORTING FOR DUTY
Ura
Even when focused on time travel, the reason why the Rainmaker is called that is (presumably) because of how much bloodshed he caused, and the fact that old Joe’s wife was murdered, both in the future mind you, directly contradict the premise of the film. At least I expect that level of consistency right in my time travel film.
That explains why the only thing I remember about this movie is that it was a drag to sit through and I wouldn't even attempt to watch it again.
Hey, Macabre Storytelling ...
If a protagonist can switch between active and passive throughout the story, can a story also switch protagonist, and as such switch one character from active to passive, but also switch his role as the protagonist over to another active character ?!
This would keep the protagonist active, even though the character that starts out as the protagonist, switches to a passive one.
Interesting! There is a film called “Waves” I saw last year that KIND of does something like this. No spoilers of course but I’d give it a watch as it is quite interesting. But yeah anything can work it is simply about the execution. Those who break and bend the rules sure as hell understand the rules they are breaking and bending.
Are you indirectly asking if it's ok to be both a bottom and a top or am i reading to much into it?
@@Mrkti I don't think that's something that's being asked but it sure as hell is funny to look at it through that lense
Stories can switch Protagonists, watch Psycho (1960) Alfred Hitchcock
So I have one big question with the movie, and it makes me wonder if it is that big of a plothole or if I just didn't pay enough attention.
At the climax of the movie it's explained that if old joe goes through with killing Sid's mother, that's what makes him hate loopers and want to close their loop, eventually becoming the rainmaker. But old joe doesn't go through these events when he's younger, he closes his loop and doesn't go on the farm. So why is there a rainmaker in his timeline ? Did young joe sacrifice himself for nothing and Sid becoming the rainmaker is actually inevitable ?
Sid having TK powers was cool but honestly it could have been just as cool to maybe imply that seeing Young Joe in action inspired him to become some ultra badass and take over the future looper gangs action Anti hero style, maybe we see adult sid with a scar on his cheek to that the audience sees it clearly too when his cheek gets injured!
I honestly still love this film because it’s so cool and unique.
its a very good movie, i dont think what was mentioned in this video was a flaw.
It’s possible that Paul’s character never died at that point. Which is much more horrifying and tragic
The unnecessary nature of the TK conceit is actually reinforced by a key scene that establishes Cid as incredibly intelligent in addition to being an extremely powerful telekinetic. So then why exactly couldn't Cid's character have taken the old school deception and subterfuge approach to taking over a criminal empire? Why exactly couldn't the whole TK thing be removed entirely to make way for greater development/exploration of the characters and their relationships? Particularly the dichotomy between young Joe and old Joe. I'm so happy you addressed that missed opportunity. Another fantastic video though admittedly I'm not looking forward to the next installment of this series as I kind of love "Get Out" and the only issue I really have with it is tonal inconsistency ergo lowest common denominator comedic pandering emanating from a specific supporting character.
bcuz kool visuals and tings go boom
@@MacabreStorytelling Exactly. 😂
Loving your channel and series, Mac. Giving me a lot to think about even though I'm more focused on print based writing for now.
A great video. While I disagree, you make a very well-argued case.
I think telekinesis was an admittedly bizarre but well-integrated plot element, and I do think the second and third acts have strong tension: Joe bonds with Sarah and Cid, both Joes learn that Cid is the Rainmaker, and Old Joe's vendetta leads to him tragically causing (or nearly causing) the very events he tried to prevent.
I also appreciate how you pointed out the inconsistent time travel rules, but acknowledged that not every viewer will be bothered by this (I'm one of these viewers; Looper's time travel rules don't entirely make sense, but I don't mind).
To play mild devil's advocate: I think the reason why TK is introduced as a concept is to make the idea of this kid becoming the future threat much easier for the audience to swallow. If the story has the TK element removed, I could forsee viewers having a hard time believing that a single kid could somehow grow up to be this big threat to the future mob _on his own_ (i.e. without TK as a way of leveling the playing field between him and whatever is on the path of his vendetta). Having TK makes that scenario a little more palatable: "Oh, this kid who has the power to kill people with his mind had his mom killed by the future mob? Yeah I could see him single-handely killing all of them." Without TK, we have to buy that his kid somehow builds the resources necessary on his own in the future to take down the mob, but that would require setting up this kid as a John Connor-type which I could see Rian Johnson trying to avoid doing because nailing that type of character requires so much more characterization than I think he (or maybe the studio) was willing to allow for (and thus exacerbating the passive protagonist problem you outlined here). Although to be clear, I do think you're right: there's a better version of this story that doesn't involve TK and I wish we could've gotten that version.
John Carter could have been much better if the opening narration began: "You do not know this Mars." Then we could establish that Barsoom is eight parallel universes away from our Earth. The Therns are both good and bad, as shown by 'The Voice of Barsoom', and Matai Shang's long explanation of his motives to his opponent.
Nick Carraway from the Great Gatsby is another good example of a passive protagonist
👍👍☝
I paused this video earlier on. Went to watch this movie and I hit the subscribe button on my way in. Thank you, you’ve earned a subscriber❤️
Glad I came across your series, top tier quality.
The fatal flaw is sending the future self to be killed by their past self. Just send them to be killed by another looper, and then send the past version of the looper they retired one last random victim with the extra gold.
Hope you do more film. Excellent analysis. Underrated and rare gems.
Id love to know your opinions on steins gate for their time travel system and interpretation
Why does Old Joe creating the Rainmaker create a plot hole ?
Isn't this possible if the movie uses deterministic time travel ?
Old-Joe goes back to kill the rainmaker, thus killing his mother and instead creating the rain maker. In going back he causes young-Joe to suicide in order to save rainmaker and mother. In old-Joe's original timeline who created the rainmaker? Him going back causes himself to suicide so the rainmaker would never have appeared, his wife never been killed and he would never have gone back. Another plot-hole here is how did they kill old Joe's wife without sending her back in time to be executed by a looper. The whole point of loopers is because of how difficult murder is in the future and yet the killing of 'Mrs.Old-Joe' looked pretty damn easy.
@@Nomatophobic Making the younger self kill him self is indeed a plot hole. I was thinking of the actual RainMaker part, but I'll watch the video again and find out what MS was actually saying.
"In old-Joe's original timeline who created the rainmaker?" In deterministic time travel there is no "original time line". In stead, everything is one time line, and Old Joe always went back in time. The Rainmaker was always made that way. Watch the show Dark for more deterministic time travel.
So the plot hole is that Old Joe killing Sarah results in Cid becoming the Rainmaker. BUT in the Old Joe timeline he killed his older self and thus he never killed Sarah and thus there should be no Rainmaker in Old Joe’s original timeline... but that is who he travels back in time to kill as a boy. I guess Cid could still grow up to be the Rainmaker even without Sarah dying but the ending seems to imply her death is what creates the Rainmaker.
@@QazwerDave If it was deterministic then young Joe would be fated to fail in protecting the mother to allow the cycle to repeat. Not only that, he would have to ignore old-joe entirely so that he has the same history as him to even have the motivation to continue the cycle himself. The movie shows a supposedly deterministic model being broken and thus not deterministic or else it wouldn't be broken. '12 Monkeys' is a solid example of actual deterministic time-travel, and another great Bruce Willis performance.
@@Nomatophobic ... "he would have to ignore old-joe entirely so that he has the same history as him to even have the motivation to continue the cycle himself" - I don't understand what you mean here.
Regarding "If it was deterministic then young Joe would be fated to fail in protecting the mother to allow the cycle to repeat". well, he does, right? He does fail, the mother dies, the kid escapes, is angry and wounded, and will uses his power and anger to become a ruthless gang boss. Do I remember the film correctly ?
I think that time crimes might be up your alley.
I liked Looper a lot, but your criticisms are valid.
Movie is pimp
@@MacabreStorytelling also 12 monkeys. . . The film that makes one go "Bruce, time travel ain't for you"
Incidentally, in relation to Primer's complex plot, there's a fun and informative video called "Primer Explained: Kind Of" by ZackJ100 (obviously full spoilers for Primer in that video), which is definitely worth watching.
I’ve seen the film probably 20 times and idk if I could tell you how everything fits together without a reference diagram lol
I haven't seen this movie in a while so it may have been mentioned in the film, but are there no time cops?
Have you considered making a letterboxd account?
In my case, at least it helps me organize and categorize any specific thoughts I have on a particular film since I try to watch as many as I can.
It would also be interesting to see your rating of any films you haven't talked about or have yet to talk about.
Great video, Macabre! Can't wait for your take on Get Out, as I really did not like that movie. Or really anything that Peele has put out.
Peele is so overrated. He never heard of word "subtle" in movies
@@christopherd897 Nor with Rian. Not sure why everyone has to make their themes the center of their film, sacrificing character and narrative, instead of just some spice on top of a really good story.
@@AJPzaworld Right ? It's so good to hear that. I'm so sick of creators who put "themes" over well written scripts and character writing
@@christopherd897 If you think a movie can be good without themes, then i don't know what kinds of movies you're watching. everything in a movie contributes to a theme so you can't have a movie without a theme or esle it's just bad. and like, you may not like or understand jordan peele's movies because they speak to the african americans (which i can't speak for since i'm nigerian)
I don’t think it’s about having a film without a theme but rather having the themes be derived from the story as opposed to crafting the story to demonstrate theme. The latter case can result in a lot of contrivances and odd character turns *cough* Last Jedi
I always felt that the universe does not like a paradox so whenever someone's past is altered their past's future is altered so that somehow they wound up back in the same time and space. Kind of like an impossibility correction. Keeping them alive allows them to still have had as much of a role in history as before as possible. (the Killing him would be dangerous dialog). So up until death each alteration leads to the same outcome for you as much as possible until you die.
Another good example of a passive protagonist is me
Bilbo Baggins in the Hobbit movies = the most passive protagonist ever.
Good example!!!
That and every protag in my stories. It's why I suck at writing. So why the hell can't I get a job with DC?
Can you give any other examples of passive protagonists in movies? Now I’m curious ! Awesome video ✊🏻
The Dude in The Big Lebowski.
I’m just bingeing all your stuff today lol
Great Analysis.Can you tell me how to learn about writing?
So much is wrong with Looper, but it was the first time Bruce Willis actually acted in a film 10 years before and after, so it works for me lol
Sorry i cant agree, the whole point of the movie is the cycle of violence and heartache and the things that caused it.
1) Joe becomes who he is because he has the view that everyone is out for themselves. His mother sold him for drugs, his love interest chooses an unsafe life as a prostitute then a stable but boring one, he sells his friend down the river because he doesnt wanna lose his savings while he gave up on his vengeance for his mom because someone discracted him with the opportunity to give HIMSELF a better life. His flaw is not realizing he is selfish, his flaw is thinking that his selfishness is the only path therefore justifying it. Because he knows he is selfish. He just doesnt care, because he thinks thats the natural state of things. Reason why he says "having something that is your own, that the only kind of man out there."
2) so when he sees that old joe's wife was so committed she stayed with him through thick and thin, that his love for her was so strong he was willing to kill for her, when sarah gave up her freedom and eventually her life just to protect her son and a boy who loved his mother enough not to lose focus and stray away from vengeance. Thats when he realized that it wasnt the only path. That it was an excuse to stay selfish.
The problem i have with your change is to realize he is selfish, he would also have to realize it was wrong to begin with. Which he doesnt, he literally goes back to the grind a day after he sells out his friend.
I believe the one the movie choose kept the movie grounded. Because most people who do bad in real life doesnt just come to that conclusion, because most people who do think thats the only path until someone(whether it is god or friend & family) and shows them that theirs a different path. If they genuinely believed there was a better path they would have taken it. Because most think the other path is a lie until reality shows them proof of it.
They did explain why the rainmakers TK is so powerful. It was because of his parents
Hi. Well i don't now about cinema, but in literature there is some histories that deals with multiple conceps of sci-fi. The Neuromancer come to my mind. Great video and sorry for the broken english.
Love the video tho it makes me wonder, what do you think of Knives Out?
Love it! I am a HUGE fan of Brick. RJ really knows the detective/hard boiled/noir stuff. Looper actually succeeds a lot in that department; I just think it fumbles the sci-fi elements.
@@MacabreStorytelling Haven’t seen Looper yet to have my own opinion on it but I definitely agree that he’s a master of mystery with films like Brick and Knives Out.
I thought that one of the three children just happened to be the child of Young Joe"s girlfriend and that the rainmaker is a world wide terror, but he just happened to be born were Young Joe's gf's son was born was a dumb tid bit to add. I get that it was used to show that he would stop at nothing to save his future wife, even killing the child of someone he used to be close to, but come on.....
The real fatal flaw in this movie is the mindset of criminals being faced with no politicians promoting crime with ' anti-gun laws '. If this were the case irl, crime would be at a virtual standstill. Criminals don't just walk into a situation knowing there's a high probability they'll be challenged with a firearm. Citizens with guns would make a stark drop in crime in cities, not the other way around.
Yeah it’s weird why they would portray it like that. Almost like they have an agenda
If I’ve suspended my belief enough to allow for time travel (especially into the past), then I’m okay suspending my belief for TK stuff. I think they’re both equally unlikely and physically impossible.
Eh, but in the same film? Especially with it only being introduced late in the film outside of a ten second intro.
7:52 I always loved that actor.
Even in real life he move SO COOL!!! 🥰
curious what you thought of tenet
I’ll let you know when I rewatch it with the dialogue isolated.
Lots of interesting points here. I would like to say re: your conclusion about the film and the time travel element tho could be looked at differently. It is my belief that Sid is not the rainmaker.
can you do a commentary on Predestination?
Fatal flaw imo was the fact that the premise is a plot contrivance. They show that killing a past person erases the future person, making the entire time travel killing business useless.
I always thought the time traveling was a direct result from TK, thus making it an integral part of the story and NOT an additive sci-fi them as suggested.
A friend of mine told me once that Young Joe looks like Joe Rogan and my mind has never recovered
I used to love this movie, today rewatched it and it's still great but what I couldn't use my suspension of disbelief on is Joe's wife being killed in the future, that's the fatal flaw for me. I mean, since disposing someone in the future is so troublesome, the future hitmen should be more careful. As you said, the first half of the movie is flawless, after the midpoint not so much.
Yea thats the deal breaker for me. I could never take this movie seriously after that
to me the biggest issue I have is if you cut some dude's fingers he has no fingers in the future, but you deciding NOT to do something has no effect?
couldn't Young Joe just be like, bro I'm not EVER killing this kid, make old Joe not want to do it as well?
Maybe I'm just dumb
Yeah, the second half of the film bugged me for the same reasons you describe. Great vid.
I dont think that was a fatal flaw due to the very thing that drives and enables the entire plot being time travel in having it but not in any way explaining it or keeping it consistent it destroys the plot, cuz the old version pf our character never did the things he saw himself in the past, we see how present day joe changes into his older self after he in his timeline closes his loop, but the rainmaker still occurs in his future meaning present day joe was irrelevant in that development, so when he imagines how the future occurs it would indeed change the future rainmakers future as well
The future rainmaker shouldn’t have had a vendetta against the mob of his time, it would follow more that it was his power itself that corrupted him into wanting that position and him closing the loops is not in the slightest relevant to him, i would argue he wants to prevent anyone from intentionally going to the past and prevent his rise hence why he closes the loops, as the mob is the only ones currently using that time travel
The PK thing does make sense cuz imagine what someone with that much power could do if he learned to control them, hence the presumably power trip that kid developed he probably had MC syndrome, and i mean could you blame someone like that from developing a god like complex?
The movie ended for me when Kid Blue was killed in the present, who killed Old Joe's wife then?
Did blue kill his wife in the future? I missed that.
@@franzpattison Yes, he was the one that was surprised and fired on his wife, killing her.
@@ZatoichiBattousai well in that case for the rest of the movie the poor bastard was sorely mistaken since clearly when blue was killed in the present it would have undid her death in the future so it's all good I guess.
@@franzpattison ya but Ryan Johnson was more focused on the spectacle then the logic. Still an entertaining movie.
@@ZatoichiBattousai Rewatch that part of the movie. Kid Blue did not kill Old Joe`s wife. Blue would have to be an old man 30 years later. The dude who killed his wife was young and completely different person. ua-cam.com/video/2V577E4ylNc/v-deo.html
I finally watched this movie last night. I’ve been wanting to watch it since it came out but I had children and there’s dozens of flicks I’ve been wanting to watch but just haven’t gotten to. After years of folks telling me I have to watch it I took a big ole bong rip and watched it. I couldn’t agree more with what this guys says. The first half was great! Minus the guy losing limbs because his past self was getting mutliated. I chalked it up to the part I have to just let my brain not work logically. But then the whole TK and the little kid becoming some supervillain came about and it lost me. I feel this movie should have been waaaaay better but instead it’s a movie that in my opinion was just sloppy and got too ambitious when it didn’t need to be. I thought it was just me being super high and overthinking shit. But I’m glad to see it wasn’t just me. I couldn’t agree more with this video.
The real fatal flaws are the multiple timelines and the wounds carrying over to the time travelers. The former should cancel the latter even being a possibility. As soon as Paul Dano's character is captured the logic of the film dismantles itself. One of these alone could potentially work, given enough thought, but together they kill the story.
The real flaw is that it's a movie about an adult man hunting to kill a child, and the public didn't notice that for some reason.
Also Joe actually killed a couple kids off screen, if I remember correctly. And he still wasn't framed as a freaking maniac.
I had a hard time believing Joseph Gordon-Levitts's character aged into Bruce Willis.
Honestly, and I know it really is a minor detail, the problem for me, was their ears. Bruce Willis’s earlobe is detached, Joseph Gordon-Levit’s is not. They cannot be the same person!
I know this will fall on deaf eyes but.. this movie is a perfect example of a lot of great possible backstory but mooshed into a movie with little time available to develop. Like Bright
I see you dawg
I just cannot suspend my disbelief enough for the central premise of Looper: that there can be a possible future in which BACKWARDS TIME TRAVEL is easier (meaning less risky, meaning cheaper) than disposing of a body. There's just no way such a fundamentally stupid concept can be accepted by my brain.
Yes I really do agree first half of the movie was better than the second. But when it comes to the rules of time travel of the movie, they pretty much stated “this doesn’t make sense but just go with it”
I think when I give gripe said it best when he said time travel should not be the focal point of your story it should only really be use narratively as a what if scenario
Crapshoot doesn't mean what you think it does. It doesn't mean that something is crap (rubbish) like you're using it. It means "a risky or uncertain matter"
That’s the Mac touch 👍🏼 misusing and mispronouncing words since 2019
in my opnion the bigger flaw was the death of his Future Wife in Shanghai and burning down the house , why the hell the rain man gang members killed his wife but send every other targets back in time , if his wife also would have been sent back in time and die by an another looper instead , this would give the old guy more reason to first find his wife and then avenge her when he finds her dead.
A million points for using the correct character name of the protagonist in the man with no name trilogy.
👍
Love this series
Insane more people don't know more about the series. Millions of gamer channels handful of intelligent and independent film analysts.
Also, I've seen people talking like passive protagonists are inherently bad. I don't think so.
Wasn't TK introduced earlier in the movie than you say?
It was first mentioned about 5 minutes in when Paul Dano’s character is shown doing it but then it doesn’t really come into play for more than an hour later and there is no explanation as to why it’s a thing or why Cid’s powers are mega-OP.
@@MacabreStorytelling aww... Yeah.. I get it now. Really wouldike to have a re-watch now
Great vid new sub 👍🏾
'Maccaballeros 'was right there!
This film would have benefited from a chekovs gun. Something in the first act that had to go off in the last act.
Maybe closing the loop which is the entire premise of the film that fails in the actual film despite Bruce's little speech.
Maybe TK gives irrational powers to time travelers to alter the past.
Maybe anything that sets up a required thing or person in the first act to be acted on in the final act that connects the anything in this movie to anything else!