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.

I don't see how that is different from Seth's timeline. I mean, how did Old Seth talk to Young Seth and escape and drive a car when he'd been reduced to a faceless torso 30 years earlier? But if Old Seth didn't do those things, there's no reason to chop up Young Seth. So both things must have happened. And before you even get to the end, you see Young Joe shoot Old Joe immediately, which is the only way Young Joe can survive to become Old Joe and then go back and avoid getting shot and cause all this nonsense.

So in this particular story, the universe tolerates paradoxes. I don't have a problem with that.

To you that's tolerating paradoxes, to me, those are fundamental flaws that I didn't list--it's not like I was being comprehensive. In part, the actions of the characters depend on certain mechanisms and predictable results of actions, and there is nothing predictable. In truth, Joe's sacrifice isn't a sacrifice at all--he shouldn't be dead, he shouldn't be any worse off, he'll just reset to his silver hoarding self--fine, so he doesn't pork the Madonna figure.

But the character arc seems to require him to be giving something up, and finally valuing other people more than himself--something neither old nor young Joe really did (since his wife would theoretically have been fine if they never married--his problem was that he wanted to have the cake he was eating). But if you go by the rules that make the conflict possible, that's not a gesture of growth. It's a reset button on a scale only Captain Janeaway can really relate to.

I'm sorry, I have a strange feeling that Doctor Who may be to blame but I truly can't make sense of your first paragraph. It's not that I disagree with your interpretation; I honestly don't understand what it is. Which leaves me suspecting that there's something fundamentally different in how we approached this. Or, possibly I'm dumb? I've been dumb before. I just don't see a reset implied anywhere and I really don't see what led you to that.

spoiler for image in Iron Man 3.

I love the math involved in refuting this stunt. sexy brains.

[link]

Also, those high heels would NOT be staying on. At least, not on every woman. Unless my experience with my shoes not all being perfectly fitted is outside the norm. (And that's why my heels are usually Mary Janes or t-straps -- they stay on that way.)

And I'm amused that I had to whitefont all the shoe stuff so as to not give hints about that picture.

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

Hmmm. There are parts of that article I agree with, but the writer thinks Big Fish is a bad movie, which is such an utterly wrongheaded statement that I am just sitting here sputtering.

Everyone knows I am a huge Tim Burton fangirl, but I admit he's made some crap. I don't think I'm ever going to get over my sense of betrayal about Alice In Wonderland. But Dark Shadows was fun (and far less "zany" than I had feared), and Frankenweenie is note-perfect.