In college I took a film class and at one point we watched Terminator 2, because that is the kind of thing that you do in college. You watch a big budget Hollywood movie about robot assassins that you’ve already seen a bunch of times, and then you sit in an over-heated classroom and listen to an old man explain how the robot assassins are actually metaphors for colonialist imperialism, or something, and how the part where Edward Furlong hacks an ATM machine is a signal of the director’s Marxist interpretation of Gilles Deleuze’s insistence on the flaneur as spectacle or I DON’T EVEN KNOW. All I know is that we watched Terminator 2 and got one juice glass of each kind of drink in the cafeteria and college and it was awesome. But in the discussion group after the movie, I remember getting in a very heated argument with another student. His position was that the movie was perfect, and my position was that time travel sucks in movies and that it never makes any sense if you stop to think about it for even two seconds. This is not to say that I don’t like Terminator 2, because I do. I like it just fine. But if you are in college, and your job is to think about things, then some of the movie’s internal logic does not exactly hold up to close or really ANY inspection. No movie about time travel does. Including this one. But it is still pretty fun!

Looper takes place 30 years in the future (and then also 30 years after that), not that you would be able to tell from the automobiles, which were all made in 1995. (I actually liked that everyone just nail-gunned solar panels to the hoods of old cars to make future cars. There is nothing worse in a movie about the near future than a poorly designed near future car. It’s like those foam outfits at the beginning of Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey times 100.) In the future, 10 percent of the population can spin quarters with their brains, which is just a surprising and unusual detail that we will leave here and it probably won’t even come up again later. 30 years from now, time travel will NOT have been invented yet, but 60 years from now it will have, but also it will be illegal, so the only people who use it are the criminal underworld who send people back in time to be killed and disposed of without a trace on a field by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Paul Dano. Stuff happens. And now 60 years in the future there is a new criminal superboss (literally) who has decided to elimidate all of the people involved in the time travel assassination game. Enter: Bruce Willis. He is Joseph-Gordon Levitt from the future, and he is sad about his wife being killed by the Zoot Suit Riot. They have lunch in a diner. Stuff happens. Look, do you need me to spell the whole movie out for you? You just saw it! Were you not paying attention? There is a chase and a fight and some corn and another chase and another fight and more corn and the farm from Signs and a scary little boy. R. Kelly trapped in the olde timey safe in the closet. Time travel. Loops within loops. Change the cycle. BlunderBUSSTED. The end.

It is a pretty fun movie to watch! As mentioned with the cars thing, the near-future-ness of the world wasn’t too heavy-handed. If anything the focus was more on the fact that in the near-future you’re basically allowed to shoot anyone in the face for any reason rather than, like, showing some night club with all of the hottest future fashions (although they also show the night club, this is a movie after all). Everyone does drugs out of eyedroppers? Of course they do! 2044, son! And Joseph Gordon-Levitt does a very good Bruce Willis impersonation. Cybil Shepard was like “Bruce? Is that you? Come to bed.” Admittedly, I am not entirely convinced that everyone in the near future talks like a Dashiell Hammett cartoon, but maybe they do! Time will tell. Also, I am not sure what is SO appealing about setting your movie/TV show in a borderline-apocalyptic urban disaster zone and then moving the action out to a bucolic farm, but that is a tried and true switcheroo that has apparently not been exhausted yet. Let’s keep doing that, you guys! I am not being sarcastic! It really hits some kind of special emotive button!

The scene where Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon-Levitt argue about whose life is whose? Very very good scene! What most of us would not give to be able to kick our younger selves in the balls. The scene where Future Paul Dano’s body starts falling apart piece by piece? Very very scary scene! RUUUUUUUNNNNNNNNNNNNN! And of course White Akira in the living room was pretty good. All in all this movie had lots of really great, highly memorable visuals and moments that we will all cherish until our loop is closed.

Now, before we get into the more problematic aspects of this movie, let me just say that my issues with this movie are not “nitpicky.” A nitpicky issue would be, for example, the fact that Joseph Gordon-Levitt carving arrows and BE-AT-RIX into his arm as an ominous echo of the Paul Dano torture scene is a totally hacky bait-and-switch that isn’t based on any traceable logic. There were a couple of things like that, and I did not mind them. I’m only pointing that last one out as an example of something one COULD complain about, but let’s choose our battles, guys. Life is short, and Looper was still fun. Let me also just say that my issues with this movie are issues and that’s all. Who cares? I still enjoyed myself. I’m not panning the movie. It was good! But if you are going to take on the burdensome mantle of a time travel sci fi movie and all of the intellectual complications that entails, then you should be prepared for your plot to get picked apart, because it can and will be. And so here we go:

Time travel in Looper, just like time travel in all movies that feature time travel, sucks. Oh well! It simply doesn’t work and is impossible. (The one possible exception to this might be 2004′s Primer, although my guess is that the time travel in that movie is less intellectually sound and more just opaque and completely confusing.) Rian Johnson does a pretty good job for awhile, what with all of the fuzzy memories, and the body modifications, and I also like that the mechanics of the time travel are pretty simple. You just crawl into a hot cage? Fine. But the fact of the matter is that–and they loosely touch on this and then forget about it–once you start changing things, the changes echo throughout time, this is called Ashton Kutcher’s The Butterfly Effect. So, when Joseph Gordon-Levitt goes to the farmhouse for a long weekend, which we know he did not do in his original timeline because we saw his original timeline and it involved a lot more lofts in Shanghai, it changes his story and it also changes him. As he kicks drugs on the farmhouse and not 20 years later in China, as he sleeps with Emily Blunt, as he develops paternal feelings for White Akira, all of these things change who he is as a person. Even within his closed narrative arc, by the end of the movie Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a more selfless, emotionally available person, right? Which means Bruce Willis would have aged into a more selfless, emotionally available person. And therefore, Bruce Willis would no longer be the same Bruce Willis, on a myopic quest to shoot all the babies in the face. He would be different, too. But in the movie he isn’t different. He is just blasting his way through to the bitter end. (It also seems very clear to me that at some point there was a scene in which the photograph inside of the pocket watch either disappeared or changed into a photograph of Emily Blunt. They set that up so hard in the first half of the movie and then never went back to it.) This, to me, is the most serious (and I do think it is serious, in terms of logical cohesion) flaw with the time travel aspect of this movie. You are welcome to try and convince me that this is not a problem, but I have already seen the future and SPOILOOPER ALERT you can’t*.

This, of course, is the inherent problem of time travel in movies. I’m not saying I know how to solve this problem. I’m not sure you can! But that doesn’t make it not a problem. Argh! Time travel movies!

A lesser but still confounding question about Looper is also: wait, what? Let me explain: in the future, time travel is so illegal that only criminals use it. OK. But the only thing they use it for is to dispose of bodies, right? And clearly murder is LESS illegal than time travel. Like, time travel is SO illegal that at a certain point the criminal underworld starts MURDERING everyone involved with time travel just so they don’t get caught using time travel. But all they are using time travel for is MURDER. So my question is WHY NOT JUST MURDER PEOPLE AND LEAVE THE TIME TRAVEL OUT OF IT? To make this question even more confusing, we have already learned that in the year 2044 when there isn’t time travel yet things have already gotten bad enough that you’re totally allowed to shoot someone for LOOKING AT YOUR MOTORCYCLE. You don’t even have to wrap them up in a corn tarp and drop them into the abandoned furnace. So, my question again: what?

I’m not even going to talk about the telekinesis thing but I do feel like time travel is already enough to wrap one’s brain around and now we also just have this other thing? OK, Rian Johnson, u r the boss.

Here is my favorite part of Looper**, for what it is worth: so, Joseph Gordon-Levitt is waiting in the corn field to blast Bruce Willis, but Bruce Willis is running late. That’s odd! Then Bruce Willis appears without the customary cheese cloth veil over his future face. Joseph Gordon-Levitt hesitates, Bruce Willis gets away. Joseph Gordon-Levitt wakes up, heads back into town, gets chased, falls off of a fire escape, cut to black. Now Joseph Gordon-Levitt is back in the field waiting to blast Bruce Willis, but Bruce Willis is running late. That’s odd! Then Bruce Willis appears WITH the customary cheese cloth veil over his future face. Joseph Gordon-Levitt blasts that fool and finds the golden backpack. We see him do a semester at sea and turn into Bruce Willis as Nicolas Cage in Bangkok Dangerous 2.

Bruce Willis meets his beautiful wife, but then it is time to close his loop, and then he gets in the fight with the Zoot Suit Riot (oh, that is why he is late!) but he still zaps himself back in time in the Hot Cage because he’s going to kill Baby Kaizer Soze, or whatever. Cut back to Joseph Gordon-Levitt waiting in the field to blast Bruce Willis, but Bruce Willis is running late. That’s odd! Boom: Bruce Willis appears again, no cheese cloth, he escapes, and now we are on our adventure. BUT WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CHEESECLOTH? He was wearing the cheese cloth that one time but then another two times he wasn’t wearing the cheesecloth? This was so casually thrown into the movie, and never really discussed or explored (with the exception of one line of dialogue for half a second, but not really) but it sort of touches on the whole decision tree slash string theory Multi-Verse thing, as if there are other versions of this movie where all the other possible outcomes play out, and that’s neat. I like that. These guys know what I’m talking about:

Anyway, Looper! Pretty good though!

*The closest you might be able to come is to point back to the diner scene when Bruce Willis says that he still remembers what Joseph Gordon-Levitt does after he “does it” (kills Bruce Willis) and gets all sad eyed, as if somehow maybe (this is your argument now) he is foreshadowing that he knows the whole time that they are both going to die or something, but that doesn’t hold up at all. Nothing in the movie points to this being what Bruce Willis meant or that his intention was to reverse engineer his own death in order to change the outcome for the little boy. I don’t buy it one bit. You’re wrong. AGAIN.
**When I say this is my favorite part, I mean that in the “I watched Terminator 2 in college” definition of favorite where we’re talking about themes and ideas. My actual favorite part of the movie was when Bruce Willis smashed Gordon Levitt’s face into a table.

Comments (48)
  1. You loop ‘er, you brought her.

  2. Looper? I hardly know her!

    And with that I’m done.

  3. The first sequence w/o the cheesecloth and the second sequence without the cheesecloth are the same sequence from different perspectives. The intermediary sequence is Bruce Willis’ life up to that point where the loop went as it was supposed to. His older version shows up, he shoots him, he turns into Bruce Willis, lives life as Bruce Willis and then goes back to fuck things up. No it doesn’t make sense since the loop is supposed to be closed and it already closed once and should be cycling in a circle through time forever with young Joe killing old Joe and growing up to be old Joe to be sent back and killed by young Joe over and over again, but if it didnt do that we wouldnt have a movie.

    • Yes yes, this was probably my favorite thing about the movie as well. As I was watching it, I was thinking “Am I getting mind fucked right now? Yes, yes I am.”

    • Rian Johnson put it simply that in the Bruce Willis timeline (the one where he kills his older self), the reason he showed up late was because he struggled against the Zoot Suit Mafia but lost the fight.

      And before people go “But it’s TIME TRAVEL. THey can just send them back to whatever time they want!” They can’t. The future can only send stuff 30 years into the past (I’m assuming to the very second). So if someone is running late 30 years in the future, they are also running late for whoever is waiting for them 30 years in the past.

      But yeah, Bruce Willis winning that fight against the Zoot Suit Mafia becomes a second timeline (even though it doesn’t or something, because what JGL does still effects Willis to an extent, and now I’ve gone crosseyed), which makes him just as late for his JGL rendezvous 30 years in the past as the first struggle that he apparently lost in the original timeline that we the audience did not see but Rian Johnson stated could very well be the reason he was late both with and sans cheesecloth.

      It was a lot of fun tho! Good characters, etc.

  4. Here’s what I want to know, how can you be LATE to time travel. Wouldn’t the machine be set for a certain time? So no matter what time he got in he’d still be sent to the same exact time? Also, what if there’s a lot of traffic and the looper is late getting there or he gets into a hover bike accident and the guy gets sent back to an empty field? Seems kind of hard to coordinate.

    • the only explanation i have for that is that maybe time travel works in defined increments. so you will go back exactly 30 years from when you enter the box, regardless of when you enter it.

      • That’s stupid. No one would be able to make mistakes on either end of the timeline ever, it would be so hard to coordinate.

      • This is the official Looper explanation:

        Each time machine has an inherent tuning to send its contents back a fixed amount of time. This amount is not adjustable. So if a machine’s natural tuning is 30 years, 2 months, 12 days and 25 seconds, that amount stays fixed and the point in the past that it zaps you to slides forward in real time.
        FACT! (

        Which, yes, is maybe silly. But maybe we can also justify it by the apparent illegality of time travel and the junk store quality of the mafia time machines (which are also maybe also space machines).

        I’d like to re-watch just to see if the Willises show up at slightly different times in the different loops.

    • I think maybe Bruce Willis intentionally set it to be “late”, so that Joseph Gordon-Levitt wouldn’t automatically shoot him. He’s late, so JGL has time to reflect on what the shiz is happening. As a bonus, no cheese cloth!

    • Speaking of hard to coordinate, how do you account for the rotation of the earth and its orbit around the sun? Time travel movies never take this into account. The place you’re standing/sitting right now is not a fixed location. You’re actually moving at 66,600 miles per hour. That’s got to be hard to hit a specific target at a specific time.

  5. the only movie I’ve ever seen where the mechanics of time travel actually kind of seem to make logical sense:

    (it’s on netflix instant as “Timecrimes,” w/ english subtitles)

    And I agree, some stuff in Looper made zero sense but it was still a super fun movie.

  6. i found myself at a party this weekend in the house that was used as bruce willis’ house in china! it was a very cool house! and i loved this movie way super a lot. especially how shabby the future was.

  7. I saw something else that involved loops and time travel this weekend. It made me cry. Also, River Song is the best.

  8. I didn’t read this whole thing because, although, being old means that I have a really long attention span and I can handle a lot of words, it also means tat I know that I’m not going to go see this moving picture, as doing so would interfere with a.) my afternoon nap, or b.) my early bedtime. Also, it is hard to knit in the dark, and knitting is what I do when put on a movie. However, I really enjoyed your use of the neologism “elimidate” in this context, on account of the time travel.

    Also, have you seen my cheaters?

  9. Bruce Willis has done two movies where he goes back in time to fix stuff and two movies where he meets his past self.

    Bruce Willis is the industry-standard for time-travel hijinks.

    • I heard it was three times now. 12 Monkeys, Looper, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand *googling* OH!

      Willis has done THREE movies where his character meets his future/past self, and TWO where Bruce WIllis the actor plays his future self and goes back in time.

      Now I can sleep tonight.

      • Those films are:


        Disney’s The Kid (Willis is visited by his past self, a child)
        Looper (Willis goes back and meets himself)
        12 Monkeys (Willis goes back and sees his child self witness him die in the airport, a memory that has stuck with him as a very disturbed adult)

  10. It seems like most criticisms of this movie are centered around the logic of the time travel, but maybe that is kind of missing the point? I mean yeah time travel stuff never makes 100% logical sense but it seemed (at least to me) that Riann Johnson was aware of that and was using time travel as a metaphor for self-improvement/breaking cycles of selfish and violent behavior/the cyclical nature of violence. Maybe this is a stupid way to look at it, though? I liked it!

    • You are certainly looking at it the way Rian Johnson wants you to look at it. I think he has both Jeff Daniels and Bruce Willis tell the audience explicitly for him “please don’t think too hard about time travel.”

      • Yeah, it seems very unfair to critique a time travel for not making logical sense. With that mindset you’d have to critique EVERY science fiction movie and EVERY fantasy movie whenever they have something that cannot exist in the real world. When you watch a movie, you have to agree to what they are showing you, and only when if they go against it themselves is it ever a “problem.” We’re told this is how time travel works, so that’s how it works. The movie never contradicts itself.

        • *SPOILER*

          It does contradict itself. But I guess its not extremely noticeable, although its a big one: Joe shot himself then Bruce Willis Vanishes right? Supposedly because he never would have existed at that age.

          Now recall his best buddy Paul Dano. Although we don’t know if they killed him, if they’ve caught him, anesthetised him, removed his hands legs tongue and everything, how is it possible for the old version of him to have existed, gone back in time, and convinced the young version of him to let him go? He certainly wouldn’t be singing.

  11. Fun fact: there are apparently another 30 – 40 minutes of the movie focused on JGL’s transition into Bruce Willis in China that will probably be included in the film’s release in China, partly because the film was financed by Chinese investment companies and partly because the Chinese market is becoming so important. I’d really like to see those 30 – 40 minutes because the montage of them looked very cool.

  12. There are certain things in this movie that will probably never add up, and while the movie is good, I don’t know if it’s good enough to even warrant expending the brainpower to try and figure them out.

    But I also agree with Gabe that this movie was really fun and very watchable! Let’s all go see it and enjoy ourselves and not think too hard about it.

  13. I also thought the movie was good, definitely worth watching, and especially enjoyed that it surprised me at a lot of turns. I really didn’t know where the movie was going, which was rather novel. That aside, I was sort of left pretty cold by it. I thought that was how everyone felt, but I had a number of friends go on about how human and heartfelt they found it, so I guess not.

    For me, the morals of the Bruce Willis future version just broke down for no real reason. He gets cleaned up by his wife, says she taught him to be this human, more selfless person, but his plan to save her just straight up is shoot all the babies and past gangsters in the face and that’s fine by him. I guess I just wanted more character motivation besides loosing his wife for him to want to undo everything she supposedly did for him.
    Then the whole, the kid is Jean Grey for kind of no reason other than it looks really ‘cool’ also distracted me from caring about the movie. I think it would have been just as effective if the kid were basically normal, but with some anger/resentment of his mother that made him grow up to be a criminal. He didn’t really need to be The Phoenix and I found his creepy scenes just too far off base from the rest of the film so made it very hard for me care about it.

    • I don’t think those Bruce WIllis morals ever existed in the first place. That timeline’s Young-Joe-to-Old-Joe Bruce Willis SAYS he thinks he’s more human and selfless, but he still can’t see the forest for the trees when it comes to why he’s doing what he’s doing, and he did spend the past 30 years killing his future self, seeing the world for a couple years, getting an eyedrop monkey on his back the size of King Kong, getting right back into hardcore crime & misdemeanors, and then spending a few years with a beautiful woman shaping him back up for a bit.

      Take her away, and he’s right back to his old tricks and intent on seriously disrupting the past. He probably thinks he is doing it for his wife, but he had THE chance to save her in the diner when Young Joe asked to see her picture so he could avoid her in the future so she’d never get in the line of fire in the first place. Old Joe turned down the offer. That seals the deal right there. He can’t stand a world without her. Romantic, but a selfish plan not exactly moral in any way when executed.

  14. I really liked it, would watch it again, will probably buy it, but I am coming to terms with me never loving a Rian Johnson film as much as I love Brick. I’ll always watch his stuff because he’s got a distinct style that is cool and different, but I dunno. I watched Brick when it first came out on DVD and I was 17 and it really struck a chord with me, so it might be just that. Can’t wait to see what he does next.

  15. Terminator makes sense! 12 Monkeys makes sense! Oedipus makes sense! All these “You Can’t Escape Your Destiny” stories do is assume that time is circular, and that there’s a circular chain of cause and events. The future causes the past.

    In stories like these, there’s no good answer to the question “What was the original timeline before events from the future changed events from the past?” And to some people, this means that the story “doesn’t make sense.” But I think all Y.C.E.Y.D.s are assuming that there was NEVER a timeline that wasn’t circular. It’s a perpetual cycle that’s always existed.

    And sure, you can say that’s all nonsense, because from a human perspective, time doesn’t appear to work like that. But think of how, in real life, we’re hung up on questions like “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” Or, like, “What was the first moment of time, and what was there before that moment?” The idea that time somehow moves in a circle is actually a decent theoretical answer to those sorts of questions.

    But I do agree that You-Can-So-Escape-Your-Destiny movies like Looper, Back to the Future, or Terminator 2 don’t really make sense in the same way. Movies like that usually have happier endings, though.

    • Terminator time travel states that no inorganic matter can be sent back (i.e. why you have a nude Arnold starting the picture instead of a metal robot Arnold who is armed to the motherfucking teeth and his teeth are guns too), yet in Terminator 2 the guy is made of pure metal and, therefore, shouldn’t be able to go back in time.

      What I’m trying to say is the effects of time travel and what would or wouldn’t work is theoretical physics which none of us, including and especially filmmakers, have any license to talk about other than a “wouldn’t it be kinda neat if”, but the difference between inorganic and organic matter is explained the second week of high school chemistry class.

      Ergo, Terminator 2 is scientifically bullshit by its own rules. But still fun!

  16. I can’t defend the movie because it is full of holes, but i offer a possible explanation to one issue discussed which was why the lops were all SUDDENLY being closed. My guess as to why the Holy Terror mob aka the Rainmaker aka White Akira tries to close all the loops in the future is because he is trying to prevent his mother from getting killed in the first place? He knows his mother was killed by a looper. …When Paul Dano’s older self describes the future as being run by the badass rainmaker who saw his mother get shot, that made him so angry at the world he grew up to become the rainmaker. And since everyone knows that can change the present by going back and rearranging and butterfly effect and ipso facto.

  17. To your issue with the gangsters of the future utilizing time travel to dispose of bodies – didn’t young Joe say something about the sophisticated body tracking methods of the future? Kind of a throwaway explanation, but it was addressed. Maybe hiding and using the time travel device to murk fools was more feasible than doing so in the present.

    • Yeah, I basically understood it like that. The future guys couldn’t kill guys in the future because people had like trackers and heart monitors and stuff attached to them. Killing them would set off too many alarms. So they send them back.

      Also, a couple things I’d like to submit regarding Bruce Willis having the same change of heart and maybe deciding not to kill the Rainmaker.

      1) Regardless of what JGL goes through as far as character development, Bruce Willis still had the love of his life taken by this dude, so I’d say he’s gonna have a slightly different opinion about this child, whether or not his younger self bonded with the boy. JGL doesn’t have the memory of losing someone close to him at the hands of this person, so it’s easier for him to just see a cute kid.

      2) The movie doesn’t give a definitive answer on whether or not the kid still becomes the Rainmaker. Perhaps Bruce Willis’ memory, which is changing ever so slightly with each new change in the present, still sees this kid grow up to be a total monster? Even though he gets to be “raised right”?

      I don’t know, I guess I can’t change your mind or whatever, but to me it makes sense.

  18. I still don’t understand why they did that to his face. It’s so distracting to me. Make your voice the Bruce Willis voice with ACTING and I’ll be like, “Alright, Joey G Levs is really killing this acting!” but the face stuff is just so stupid. We, the American People, know Bruce Willis never looked like that at any point in the past thirty or forty years. I know you’re an ~*auteur*~ but I’m still watching a Bruce Willis movie, you can’t fool me.

    So yeah, I was not that engrossed.

    • JGL had all sorts of Willis-inspired mannerisms of varying nuance, which were all fun to see, but at the end of the day that’s still JGL. Both the makeup and his Willis-acting where the same on that level with Willis on the surface and JGL peering out from underneath.

      I would argue that casting Bruce Willis in this film actually undermines the story to an extent, because this is a story about Young Joe, not Old Joe, BUT Bruce Willis is a screen icon who gobbles up attention.

      I agree that at times I was mildly distracted by the Willis makeup, mostly because occasionally I slipped into analytical mode, studying JGL’s face whenever it was in new lighting. And yeah, it wasn’t entirely necessary, but c’mon! Makeup is fun!

      Was anyone distracted by Young Paul Dano looking nothing like Old Paul Dano? Was that more because Paul Dano wasn’t wearing makeup or was it because the actor that played Old Paul Dano wasn’t a film icon? Probably the latter, right? JGL didn’t have that luxury. We all know what Bruce Willis looks like.

      I bet on a second watch, now knowing what the film is, the makeup would not feel nearly-as distracting, and the same goes for the presence of Bruce Willis.

  19. Life is so lonely. I’m a 42-yr-doctor living alone by the lake. I’m looking for a classy, intelligent, and adventurous woman to become my companion, my true love of life, and my wife. So I got a profile on ageloves com. my id is sdfalzone. It’s a focused community for rich older men dating classy younger women. Maybe you can take a try.

  20. Poor Paul Dano, limbless and on life support for thirty years in some terrible mob hospital. Along with all the other open loops I assume have happened.

  21. Can’t you see? This is the reason time travel movies are great! It makes your brain electrify with endless possibilities.

  22. Was I the only one who found the constant lens flares to be one of the most distracting things about this movie? I mean, they weren’t JJ Abrams bad, but it seemed like every fucking scene had to have some kind of light in the background so it could have a gratuitous goddamn lens flare in the shot.

    People need to let this go, and by people, I mean all you shithead movie directors more concerned with making your movie look “cool” than telling a good story.

    Also, I found this movie immensely underwhelming, and the hype/marketing they built for it (“THE BEST ACTION MOVIE OF THE YEAR” etc.) was so off. I have a feeling Dredd 3D will do more for me emotionally than this movie did. I didn’t really care about any of the characters, and I never really felt engaged by any of them. It was just one “cool” story beat after another. I never felt like I was actually rooting for anyone.

    And do we really need another movie for Bruce Willis to barge in and be a giant, hulking, Bruce Willis-y guy? I mean, I’m sure it’s easy money for him since people see him as an action star, but Die Hard was great because he was a mostly regular joe in the wrong place at the wrong time, who does extraordinary things despite incredible odds. Now he’s just Bruce Willis in everything, and he walks around dual-wielding P90′s effortlessly killing bad guys, and the audience yawns yet again. That was probably the only thing more distracting than the lens flares.



Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post, reply to, or rate a comment.