So you have this old friend who tells you a new story involving people from your youth. This story plays on nostalgia and features plenty of old faces in familiar situations. By the end of the story, you smile. You’ve enjoyed yourself perhaps a little more than you would have because of the nostalgia value. The story presented, after all, wasn’t all that earth-shattering or, to be blunt, particularly good.
But the nostalgia had you.
That’s the way I felt about the first Expendables film released back in 2010. It wasn’t a great film, in fact I felt that the almost concurrently released The Losers featured roughly the same concept (a motley group of modern warriors) but, in fact, had an overall slightly better story. Still, I enjoyed The Expendables more because, again, of the nostalgia. I loved seeing Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, and Arnold Schwarzenegger share the screen together, even if their collaboration in the film amounted to about five minutes of movie time, if that.
With the success of The Expendables, a sequel was a natural, and this time around a greater effort was made to show more of what the audience demanded. Thus, instead of a few minute cameo, Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger share considerable more screen time (and actually fire weapons!) in The Expendables 2. And if that wasn’t enough, the movie increased your ’80’s action stars quotient by adding Chuck Norris and Jean-Claude Van Damme (effectively menacing as the movie’s villain, a character named…Vilain) to the mix.
…but…
It didn’t work as well for me. Despite the fact that I feel The Expendables 2 is an overall better movie than the first Expendables, that nostalgic feeling I had has since dissipated and I’m left focusing more on the film before me rather than the thrill of seeing all these older actors together.
And, frankly, the film only worked in spurts. The opening was pretty good, if a little too (CGI) gory. Then we get a long slow buildup to the main story and…well…there’s not much there there. Something about plutonium buried away and forgotten and the villain trying to get it out in a hurry (no real explanation for why) which leads to the heroes chasing said villain until a final, bloody, confrontation. It all plays out like a video game, with the bad guys having a near army of red shirts ready to bite the dust with no real repercussions felt (bad guys, after all, have no family or friends!).
The Expendables 2 is a mediocre action film, alas, a return trip that may charm (if that’s the right word!) those who still have those feelings of nostalgia for the heroes of the ’80’s. Others may have less patience.
I saw Killdozer exactly one time before yesterday. Back when I first saw this film, I was an 8 year old boy and it aired for the first time in 1974 on television. Despite the fact that thirty eight (OH MY GOD!!!!) years have since passed, I still had memories of this film.
When I got my DVR setup, I put the film under the que, to record whenever it might show up. A couple of years passed and the film never did show up on any channels. Then, a few days ago, I casually made a search of the film on Amazon and, to my surprise, the film was available as a “manufactured on demand” DVD via Universal.
After thirty eight years (CHRIST I’M OLD!!!), I had a chance to finally see this film from start to finish.
Would it live up to my childhood memories? Would it still be the suspenseful film that eight year old enjoyed so much back then?
Frankly, I was expecting the worst. I had a couple of memories of the film -three to be exact (including the ending)- but I couldn’t help but fear that this long-forgotten-by-most film might not have aged particularly well over time.
As it turned out, I was pleasantly surprised.
No, Killdozer isn’t one of the best of the “machines gone homicidal” suspense sub-genre…I still feel the Steven Spielberg’s 1971 breakout movie (and probable influence to Killdozer) Duel is the best of the lot there, but the movie is still quite entertaining.
Based on a short story (and teleplay) by noted sci-fi author Theodore Sturgeon, the plot of Killdozer is simplicity itself: On an island off the coast of Africa a group of six construction workers have been tasked with clearing a section of the island. The group is led by Lloyd Kelly (Clint Walker, still as tall and massive as a mountain), a man who drives his workers perhaps a little too hard. There is some resentment among his men, but nothing terribly serious until their main bulldozer rams a meteorite and Mack McCarthy (a very young Robert Urich in one of his earlier roles) is fatally burned by the radiation (or whatever) emitted by bulldozer slamming into the rock.
Things go from bad to worse quickly as the bulldozer begins operating on its own. Isolated on this island, the construction crew rapidly comes to the realization that the bulldozer has a homicidal mind of its own and that they must somehow stop the machine before it kills them all.
As I said before, I came into watching Killdozer after all these years (whimper) fearing the worst. I’ll grant you that modern audiences may find the pace of this film wanting. Further, this being a TV movie there is virtually no gore (and not a single drop of blood) at all to be found. Still, the implied brutality of various crew members’ deaths shocked me as a child (particularly the first person to actually fall to the “kill” dozer).
All in all, I’d recommend this film to those who, like me, have a fondness for these type of films and are forgiving toward the pace of films from the past. Killdozer may not quite live up to Duel, but it is worth a look-see.
Having caught up with many of the “must see” films recently released, I had a chance to explore some recent vintage films that were a little farther down on my radar yet intrigued me. None did so more than the 2012 romantic comedy/sci fi (?) film Safety Not Guaranteed.
Written by Derek Connolly and directed by Colin Trevorrow, Safety Not Guaranteed concerns a (at first) obnoxious journalist for a Seattle magazine who takes two geeky interns off to a nearby coastal town to find and investigate the man who posted a strange notice in the want ads concerning looking for a companion to time travel with. The second to the last line of the want ad states that “safety not guaranteed”.
Without giving too much away, we quickly find that the outwardly obnoxious lead journalist, Jeff (Jake Johnson) could care less about this assignment and, in reality, asked to do it so that he could reconnect with an old love of his that lives in that town. Thus the main investigator of this story becomes the shy and (possibly) damaged Darius (Aubrey Plaza) who, after finding and befriending Kenneth (Mark Duplass), the man behind the mysterious ad, begins to wonder if perhaps he’s not quite as crazy as he seems.
I really liked most of this movie. It had a great independent vibe to it and, despite presenting some of the typical “romantic comedy” tropes (in particular the “main character gets close to other main character for secret reasons and falls in love but when the secret is revealed will love survive?!”), the movie nonetheless delivers plenty of fresh material and oddball situations to keep us involved in the story’s progression.
If there’s a complaint to be made, and it is a minor one to me, it is that the film’s ending felt a little too…obvious. I wish that instead of giving us such a concrete ending the filmmakers had instead offered us a more ambiguous conclusion that hinted to the possibility of Kenneth being right but also left the door open to him maybe being…off. In the end, love can still conquer all.
Having said that, let me reiterate: It is a minor complaint and Safety Not Guaranteed is certainly worthy of your attention. Recommended.
The Unknown, running a mere 63 minutes, is probably one of the most twisted love stories you’re likely to run up against. Director/Writer Tod Browning was known to make some pretty bizarre films, and while this one isn’t quite as bizarre as, say, his 1932 film Freaks, it certainly falls within the ballpark, at least with regard to setting.
For The Unknown, like Freaks, features a circus setting. In this case, there are no actual “freaks”, though Lon Chaney stars as Alonzo, a man seemingly without arms who specializes in trick shots and throwing knives…with his feet. Mr. Chaney’s work in the film is nothing short of astonishing. I doubt there are many actors today who could portray Alonzo as well as he did and with as much dexterity in the use of his feet as surrogate arms.
As for the plot of the movie, Alonzo is in love with his assistant/target, Nanon, played by legendary actress Joan Crawford in one of her earlier roles. My own personal greatest exposure to Ms. Crawford was through her work from roughly the very late thirties/early forties and on, so it was pretty eye opening to see her in her formative years. Ms. Crawford’s Nanon is the object of affection to the scheming Alonzo, who we quickly find out is a criminal on the lam that actually has both arms. In one of the movie’s greatest scenes, we are given a look at how Alonzo (and Chaney, of course) “hides” his arms and makes it appear he is armless.
Alonzo loves Nanon but Nanon has feelings for the Circus’ strongman, Malabar (Norman Kerry). However, she also has psychological issues regarding men. She hates the way men try to “paw” her with their arms, and therefore feels safe around Alonzo (who, as noted, appears not to have any arms and therefore cannot “touch” her). Meanwhile, whenever Malabar tries to take her in his arms, she is repulsed. One gets the feeling, purely by implication, that Nanon suffered some kind of sexual abuse in her past and it may be why she has such trouble “giving in” to her love of Malabar. Of course, this opens the door for Alonzo to try to gain control of her, acting as a friend to Malabar and Nanon while working to keep them apart and ultimately bring Nanon to his side.
Pretty wild stuff.
I don’t want to get into the big plot twist toward the later half of the film, but suffice to say it is a doozy and shows the lengths Alonzo goes to to try to win Nanon’s heart. Though he is clearly the “bad guy” of the feature, Lon Chaney’s Alonzo winds up being surprisingly sympathetic, especially in the scene where Nanon announces her love (and upcoming marriage) to Malabar. The mix of grief, anger, and, yes, utter madness shown by Mr. Chaney in that one take is a thing of acting beauty. Though Mr. Chaney may be known to some more for his incredible make up work in features such as London After Midnight or The Hunchback of Notre Dame or The Phantom of the Opera, there is little doubt he was an extraordinary actor.
Do I recommend this film? To film fans, absolutely, though I recognize modern audiences may find it difficult to sit though this relatively short film because it unwinds at a much slower pace to modern films. Regardless, if you’re curious to see the great Lon Chaney at his most devious and Joan Crawford at her most beautiful, by all means give The Unknown a look.
Usually when I settle down in my theater seat and watch a film, I tend to soak in what’s going on before me. I try not to be too terribly judgmental of the things going on…unless, of course, there’s just no way to avoid critiquing them.
In the case of Skyfall, it is a credit to director Sam Mendes, Daniel Craig, and all those in front of and behind the cameras who delivered a movie that it moved as well as it did. In fact, so well did it move that with one exception, it wasn’t until after the movie was over that I realize the screenwriters delivered a truly underwhelming, ultimately silly story.
OK, if you want, you can add to the fact that Silva also wanted to destroy her career as well. But that secondary goal was achieved fairly early on. No, she wasn’t completely repudiated in the MI6 circles, but she was already being pushed into retirement as a kindness by her superiors. Her career was effectively done.
Thus, when Bond shows up unannounced in her flat (so much for security!), it could just as easily been Silva there to kill her. Had he been there instead of Bond, the film would have been over close to two hours earlier!
Still, at that point we as viewers weren’t aware of Silva’s endgame. Instead, we get some great scenery as Bond gets back into the service after being thought dead (death and rebirth are a big subtext within this film). He follows an assassin and winds up meeting the beautiful Severine (Bernice Marlohe) who eventually gets Bond to Silva.
Severine’s story winds up being the one truly sour element of the film to me while first watching it and before realizing what the whole story entailed. Her total screen time runs to little more (perhaps even less!) than ten minutes and Bond’s flippant comment following her death was needlessly cold (he showed more emotion to the loss of his Goldfinger Aston Martin car than to her!). Yet in that brief time with her I felt she should have had far more to do than be a tragic messenger delivering Bond to Silva.
What a missed opportunity!
But getting back to the film in general: Yes, the plot/story ultimately is so small scale and full of logic flaws that I can’t blame some for hating the film outright. Yet I can also sympathize with those who love the film because the fact of the matter is that this film moves like lightning and entertained me to the point where I only considered most of its defects after the fact.
In the end, I recommend Skyfall. It may not be among the all time best of the Bond films and the villain’s goal may be underwhelming, it is nonetheless a pretty good ride.
With the release today of Skyfall, the latest James Bond film, there have been plenty of internet bandwidth devoted to exploring the best and worst of the James Bond films. Some of the sites include:
I find the lists intriguing as I’m a bit of a contrarian regarding at least on of the Bond films many view as a disappointment: Diamonds Are Forever. This film, which was the last “official” outing by Sean Connery as James Bond, also seemed to set the template for much of the Roger Moore films that followed: Campy, jokey (at times), while delivering some good action and wild scenery.
But many others, it seems, aren’t as taken in by that film as I am. I happen to love the lighter tone and found the entire work a fun film. No, it certainly wasn’t one of the “serious” Bond films…not by a long shot, but I enjoyed it for what it was.
For what its worth, my all time favorite Bond film is probably From Russia With Love, the second Bond film made. However, Goldfinger, the film which followed this film and is considered by many as THE best Bond film of the lot, is also extremely high on my list.
As for the others, I like Timothy Dalton’s first foray into Bondian territory, The Living Daylights and felt Pierce Brosnan’s first Bond film, Goldeneye, was likewise his best. Similarly, Daniel Craig was damn good in Casino Royale and, while I was disappointed with the follow up film, am curious to see him in Skyfall.
Which leaves us with the one oddball (IMHO) Bond film On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. There are those who consider this, George Lazenby’s only outing as James Bond, one of the best Bond movies of them all. I’m not one of them. Yes, there are some good action sequences, but overall the film doesn’t do it for me. George Lazenby is not that bad, but on the other hand he doesn’t quite project the charisma needed for a James Bond. Again, IMHO. Further, the plot I always found confusing. Why doesn’t Blofeld (Telly Savalas) recognize James Bond -and vice versa- right away when they meet in this film? After all, in the previous Bond film, You Only Live Twice, they confront each other in that film’s climactic conclusion yet in the follow up act as if they don’t know who each other is.
Very strange, continuity wise.
As for the worst Bond films? Of the Connery ones, I’d have to go with the already mentioned You Only Live Twice. It was a little too much gadgetry and not enough humanity, despite some interesting elements which would be reused in the far superior Spy Who Loved Me (that film was essentially a remake of You Only Live Twice!). Of the Bond films, the worst include The Man With The Golden Gun (perhaps the greatest potential wasted…having the great Christopher Lee as the villain should have alone made the film a knockout. Instead, the film moves around lifelessly), A View To A Kill (Roger Moore was really looking waaay too old for the role by then), and my least favorite, despite a pretty good opening act, Moonraker. Too much silliness.
Ah well, let’s see if Skyfall lives up to the hype and proves to be one of the better ones!
A few years back, the James Bond franchise hit a wall. The current actor playing the James Bond role had obviously played himself out, it appeared, to both audiences and the producers of the films. Realizing they needed to make a change, the producers of the films decided to go in another direction and bring us a more “serious” Bond. They wanted to make the stakes higher and minimize the “camp”.
Alas, box office history wasn’t made there nor, especially, in the second and last (and, IMHO, pretty terrible) Timothy Dalton Bond film, 1989’s Licence to Kill. Though its hard to judge and I may well be “mind-reading” here, I nonetheless had the feeling Timothy Dalton knew this second Bond film was a dud. His performance throughout was pretty dull and he looks to be having a terrible time before the cameras. It hardly came as a surprise, therefore, that he didn’t return for thirds.
Strangely enough, history essentially repeated itself afterwards. The next Bond, Pierce Brosnan, certainly looked great in the role of James Bond. However, I found his films to be…mediocre. Though I saw all of them, I’d be hard pressed to give you details of any of his films…other than the first, Goldeneye, which I consider the best of the lot.
So when Pierce Brosnan was let go, the producers of the Bond films once again decided to “go serious” and brought in Daniel Craig. Unlike the Timothy Dalton experiment, their fortunes were rewarded this time around even as history repeated itself in other ways. Like Timothy Dalton, the first Daniel Craig Bond film, 2006’s Casino Royale, was pretty damn great. The follow-up, 2008’s Quantum of Solace…wasn’t. In fact, I think I enjoyed Licence to Kill a little more than Quantum…though at least Daniel Craig remained more interested in his role here versus Timothy Dalton.
Which is my very long winded way of saying that I’m curious to see the new James Bond film, Skyfall.
But am I the only one who thinks Adele’s theme song for the movie is…pretty terrible? Don’t get me wrong: Her singing voice remains a pure joy to hear and, on the surface, getting her to sing the theme song to a Bond film seemed a total no-brainer.
The problem, in my humble opinion -and, no, I’ve haven’t sold quite as many of my own albums as Adele has! ;-)- is that they put “Skyfall” and words that rhyme with it a little too much into the song. It’s just a little too much, IMHO.
What are my favorite Bond theme songs? Three immediately spring to mind:
Goldfinger by Shirley Bassey. Perhaps what Adele was striving for?
Then there’s the rockin’ Paul McCartney “Live and Let Die”:
Finally, loved Carly Simon’s “Nobody Does It Better”. Really liked the way she subtly threw in the movie title, “The Spy Who Loved Me” within the context of the song. Pretty much the opposite of the way Adele has Skyfall a little too pronounced in the song’s lyrics.
First off, the 1927 Todd Browning/Lon Chaney feature London After Midnight is perhaps one of the more famous “lost” films of the silent era. Perhaps even THE most well known of them all, given the talents involved. (lists of famous Lost Films can be found here and here and here)
According to IMDB: (London After Midnight) is believed that this film existed until 1967. Inventory records indicated that the only remaining print was being stored in MGM’s vault #7 which was destroyed by fire in 1967. By that time, all other elements had been destroyed or were missing.
On TCM the other night, however, they aired a slightly under one hour “reconstruction” of the film. Since there is no actual footage remaining of the film, they used still and creative zooming/panning along with title cards to give viewers a sense of what this lost film was.
Visually, I have to say the film (or rather the still) sure deliver the goods. Lon Chaney’s vampire character is certainly memorable, as is Edna Tichenor as Luna the Bat Girl, the vampire’s assistant.
But the story…well…
Look, its silly. Perhaps even beyond silly. London After Midnight is, at its heart, a murder mystery. Five years before the patriarch of a family dies in what the detective in charge (Chaney) rules a suicide. But he clearly doesn’t believe this to be the case. Five years later, the house beside the deceased man’s estate is rented to what appear to be a pair of vampires (Chaney and Tichenor) who creep out the neighbors…one of whom may be a murderer.
Again, what follows is rather silly, storywise. If you must know, much of the vampire subplot is nothing more than a way for the detective to push the people next door into thinking that the suicide (actually murder) victim may be brought back to life…and therefore expose his murderer.
I am, however, pleased with the presentation, limited though it was to static stills. The people behind this “reconstruction” did a pretty good job of giving us what we needed to know so that we could at least visualize the lost film.
One remains hopeful, however, that sometime in the future a print of the actual movie will be found. Silly plot aside, I’d love to see the great Lon Chaney’s every scene as the vampire!
There are an awful lot (29!) of films mentioned, and some of the “headscratchers” may be more a function of lapses in logic with the screenplay.
For example, there is no way to understand or explain why the alien invaders from the movie Signs decided to target our planet when it has the one item (water) that can effectively destroy them. The sad thing is that, for the most part, I enjoyed the film, but that lapse in writing logic really sunk the movie.
The movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, presented an ending that was also very ambiguous, at least in parts. As the article states, one realizes that there is story structure clearly evident before and after protagonist Dave Bowman’s “psychedelic” trip. The monoliths that take the Earth explorers out to Jupiter, and subsequently had Bowman enter a monolith floating out there and transform into a “cosmic” star child, indicated this was the next step in evolution. The scene also neatly replicated the first part of the movie, where we witnessed the evolution of apes to humans via touching the monolith and gaining an understanding of using tools. The question, of course, is then: What about the elegant room Bowman was in? His aging? His meal? Dropping the glass of wine? If you look closely at the scenes, Bowman is aging. He appears first as the astronaut he is in his full spacesuit. He subsequently (I believe, anyway), is allowed to live out what is left of his life in comfortable surroundings. Perhaps it is a gift of the alien race. Once he ages to the point of death, it is then that he is reborn as the star child.
At least that’s the way I saw it!
If you make it far enough into the list, at 29 they mention another headscratcher that, like the Signs example, I feel is a major writing flaw. The movie is the 2009 reboot of Star Trek and the issue cited is the convenient way the young Kirk meets the old (now alternate reality) Spock on Delta Vega following the destruction of Vulcan. When that scene played out in the theater I was watching it, I couldn’t believe it and for the reasons cited in the article. Far fectched doesn’t begin to do justice to the astronomical coincidence involved in Kirk and the elder Spock meeting in that barren planet. Yet the scene plays out straightforwardly and no one in the film questions Kirk’s incredible luck.
Anyway, the list is there for you to read, should you be interested.
When early word got out about the then upcoming film Looper, like many others I was intrigued. I’ve always been fascinated with the whole time travel genre, even though so much has been written about it since author H. G. Wells essentially created it with his 1895 novel The Time Machine.
What was most fascinating about the early reports on the film was that the film would feature Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis playing the same person, old and young versions of a hitman whose job in our near future is to kill people sent back in time and dispose of their bodies.
The wrinkle to the story is that these hitmen, known as “Loopers”, eventually wind up killing their thirty year later future selves. This winds up being their “last” job and is paid for in bricks of gold. The Looper then has thirty years to live out their life as they please, owing no one anything, only with the knowledge that after those thirty years are up, they will be sent back in time and killed by themselves.
Got that?
Personally, I find it an intriguing concept but one that, on the outset, is somewhat flawed…though ironically enough that central flaw plays a big role in the film’s ultimate resolution. Without getting into too many details (or spoilers), what young Joe realizes at the end of the film applies not just to him, but to everyone who has been sent back.
Anyway, the film was released in, frankly, a very dead time for movies, which made me curious. Early word was that the film was very good, yet the release date is usually a movie dead zone, a time when the studios release films they don’t think/expect to be quite worthy of summer or major holiday blockbuster release. Still, the film has done well, though after three weeks it does appear to be on the verge of dropping out of the top ten list.
Which is kind of a shame, for Looper is a very solid piece of entertainment.
Granted, there are elements of other films here, most notably the essential structure of The Terminator (or, if one wants to really get into it, a pair of Harlan Ellison stories, particularly Demon With a Glass Hand and Soldier, both of which appeared on the original Outer Limits tv show).
The big twist here, and what separates Looper from these works, is that in this case the old and young versions of Joe, the protagonist, are both operating with a different perspective. Old Joe (Willis) has seen an unpleasant future and, upon being sent back for his execution at his own hands, manages to escape from his younger self. His goal is to save the future in this past. The Young Joe (Gordon-Levitt), meanwhile, knows his older self is just one possible future, and that if he gets rid of him like he’s supposed to (and get the mobsters that are now coming after him for this botched assassination of his future self) he can effect change from the present on.
Frankly, I love the fact that one can look at both perspectives and realize both Joes are right in wanting to fix things their way. And as the film progresses, one of the central questions becomes just what is the right way to go about fixing the future.
But, but…but…
SPOILERS FOLLOW!
YOU’VE BEEN WARNED!
One of the little wrinkles this film presents is that in this future world of Looper assassins, a group of people have developed telekinetic powers. The powers are nothing terribly big, those able to can lift small objects (usually coins) six or less inches off the palms of their hands.
However, in the future of “Old” Joe, one person, the mysterious “Rainmaker”, has taken over all the mobs and is intent on ridding the world of all Loopers and assuming all power for himself. No one knows who this “Rainmaker” is, but he is effectively terrorizing the entire power structure of the future world. When “Old” Joe returns to the past, thus, he is intent on finding and killing this future “Rainmaker”.
Like the Terminator searching for Sarah Connor, “Old” Joe has three possibilities, children born at the same time and at a particular Hospital his future self determined was where the “Rainmaker” was born. His grim task is to assassinate these three children, one after the other, in the hopes that one of them will turn out to be this “Rainmaker”.
As it would turn out, young Joe gets to the future “Rainmaker” and his mother first. The young child has telekinetic abilities far beyond those of everyone else, and it is through these abilities that his future self is able to rule the criminal world. However, in the present, young Joe who comes to realize that this boy can turn out to be good rather than evil, provided his mother is there to raise him as she has been. Old Joe, on the other hand, is set on killing the boy and, in so doing, risks killing the mother and setting off the very thing he is, ironically enough, trying to avoid: Making the “Rainmaker” evil.
Thus, young Joe comes to realize that he’s effectively witnessing a time loop that’s bound to go on again and again and again, where the “Old” Joe and the “Young” Joe will inevitably butt heads and the “Old” Joe will inevitably kill the young child’s mother and the young child will escape and become an evil figure.
So, the young Joe realizes there is only one solution: Suicide. By killing himself, the “Old” Joe will cease to be and mother and child will live to a (we presume) better world.
The problem? The time loop, as I said before, applies to everyone sent back in time, not just to this situation.
Person “A” kills his older self “B”. He then lives thirty years and becomes “B” only to then go back in time and be killed by “A” who then lives thirty years and becomes “B” only to then go back in time and so on and so on and so on.
In the case of old and young Joe, however, another wrinkle is set up:
Person “A” fails to kill his older self “B”. “B” heads after child but never gets him and the “Rainmaker” grows to become a powerful mob figure. “A” grows up into person “C” (person “B” might, after all, still be around in this new reality, though a very old man by that point) and is sent back in time where he either merges with “B” (two people appearing in the same space at the same time=splat?!) and “A” wonders just what the hell that was all about. Then person “A” grows up to be “B”, is sent back in time, escapes (because he knows the evils of the “Rainmaker”), fails to get the boy, “A” grows up and becomes “C” again and splat! once again.
Or…there is no splat and each subsequent “Old” Joe appears before “Young” Joe until there is literally a field of “Old” Joes sitting before “Young” Joe, all intent on killing this one boy.
As I said before, and it bears repeating: The first time loop applies to ALL the Looper killings, not just to “Old/Young” Joe. They’re all in a time loop, young and old versions, all killing their older self and growing up to be older people who are then sent back in time, are killed, and grow to be older and are killed again and again and again.
Time travel stories can really make your head hurt.
Still, if you aren’t like me and don’t get so damn anal (like me) about these things, I nonetheless recommend you go out and see Looper. While it may not leave you cheering at the end, it is nonetheless a great diversion and an intelligent take on the whole time travel concept.
