They're both stories about borderline sociopaths living in completely exploitative worlds who discover that empathy exists. And are ultimately willing to sacrifice themselves to defend it. I guess for me they're both about monsters discovering that they're monsters. And I like that kind of thing.

Huh. I never thought about either movie that way (I thought you were going for the "defending a child from bad people" aspect ), but that reading makes me like Looper more. I don't entirely see it in Drive.

Well, defending a child bit is certainly there too, but I think it's more specifically "defending a child who has what I never did." Which I know, intellectually, is not as explicit in Drive but... all I can say is that to me it was pretty clear. I keep thinking about doing a scene-by-scene breakdown in my spare time but bets on when that'll happen.

ita, sorry, I don't really understand your question. I know people who didn't like Drive because it wasn't the heist movie it was marketed as. I went in knowing Ed Brubaker had recommended it, so I expected a live action Criminal, which is about what I got.

I'm kind of with P-C about not seeing it entirely with Drive. Drive also had better music, so that's a 2nd stumbling block!

Thing is, I saw a lot more character growth of the main character in Looper than Drive. The director of Drive (and writer) made some choices in minimalism (on purpose) which makes the viewer fill in a lot of the character's motivation.

No such gaps really exist in Looper, so that's part of why I don't see it.

I still feel a really strong "this is a western"/noir vibe coming off Looper. I could see Bogart or Brando tearing this role up.

Does Drive have the logical consistency of a wet piece of toiler paper, which runs the risk of undermining any narrative arcs they're trying to convey?

Thing is, I saw a lot more character growth of the main character in Looper than Drive.

Agreed.

I still feel a really strong "this is a western"/noir vibe coming off Looper.

Ooh, yeah.

I think this review generally encapsulates my feelings. Although more than half of it is just summarizing most of the movie.

This one is good too. His quibbles are my quibbles!

... I rather hope he doesn't. Some things shouldn't have sequels. (At least, not official ones.) You can't put the lightning back in the bottle.

Buttercup's Baby has been a running joke since the original novel was published. I think at one point you could actually write to the publisher and have it sent to you, but instead of a book you got a letter of apology explaining that it didn't exist.

The first chapter of Buttercup's Baby is in one of the later editions.

Yeah, no, apparently Goldman has been trying for a while to write a sequel, but it never works.