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

His quibbles are my quibbles!

That reviewer calls it thoughtful, which I just can't. Way too much handwavium, and no little bullying of the audience to just stop thinking so hard and just shut up and accept the ride.

Even though the ending risked going up in literal flames, hell, I'd call the ultimate failure of Sunshine more thoughtful than this seemed to be. They both collapse under their own weight, but Sunshine sure went out of its way to tip the whole thing over, whereas Looper just doesn't have a stable base.

I loved the moment (in Looper) when the door opened (that could have a couple ways to finish the sentence, huh?) to reveal Garrett Dillahunt. Raising Hope aside, the audience knew shit just got a whole lot realer, and reacted appropriately.

Tim Burton: How did it all go so wrong so fast?

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

I don't know, I don't see all that much in Looper either. It's slight change on one axis.

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?

I would say no, but I wouldn't describe Looper that way either so I doubt my verdict is of much use.

Strega,

just going from the final acts of the main character in both movies, don't you find that watching them involved a lot more movement of the character and his worldview and individual perspective about life in Looper than in Drive?

I mean in Looper, you have the character greeting himself so you know the two ways he could live his life. He was a seriously selfish asshole until he hit middle-age (and even then, I would gather he was still as self-centered as fuck). Not so in the final act.

In Drive, I didn't get that he was so self-centered. We saw him crush on a cute woman almost from jump street. He didn't vary from that. We first saw him as a driver and he ended as a driver. Sure he committed some acts of violence in between, but his main love always remained. I saw the main character of Drive as someone who acted as mostly a response to circumstances, where in Looper, he very much created and acted upon the circumstances.

Strega, you didn't think Looper had little logical consistency, or you think it had enough to get by?

I thought Looper had jst enough to get by. I was taken enough by the characters and some of the world-building that I didn't mind doing some hand-waving.

I think Driver's motivation is a little more complicated than sexual attraction. He eavesdrops on Irene talking to Benicio lovingly in the store, and that's presented as the reason he, after some hesitation, gives them a ride home. She's a loving mother; that interests him. And, I think, implies some things about his own childhood. When Standard is freed, Driver backs off. But then the kid is threatened... If it weren't for Benicio, there's no way Driver gets involved in that mess.

Selfish may be too strong a word, since that implies greediness -- but we're presented with someone who's extremely focused on self-preservation. And then he takes risks to protect other people. If his motivation throughout was selfish, he really ought to pick up the money and go get the girl at the end. There was nothing to stop him.

I'm not sure what you mean about seeing two different ways Joe could live. Old Joe is not any different from Young Joe. I certainly agree that he changes in the final act, but again, I think that's the same change that happens in Drive.

ita, I wasn't struck by any particular inconsistencies in Looper. I can't say I was looking for them, since I didn't think the story was about that. I guess, I expect time travel to make as much sense as zombies or kaiju or inception-ing.

As far as I'm concerned, the very foundation the concept the film is based on s violated by the end, so I'm left with a plot turned inside out, and a feeling of mild disorientation and dry mouth. And that's not a plot hole thing, but more a "that's not how you said it worked, was it?" kind of thing. But even that is kind of elusive, as I feel the movie is deliberately fading from my memory--perhaps as a kindness.

Strega, the very idea that if he kills himself, then he never comes back into the past and he never has these adventures, therefore there's no corpse in the field, and no bars of gold for Good Momma to hoard...isn't that the premise of the whole movie contradicted by poignancy shown in the climax? Never mind how many actual actions erase themselves--those two things clearly can't occur. I felt like that five minute bit depended on emotion to carry past the "makes no sense, breaks apparent rules" thing.