Brick's much better, I'd say. It's smarter (in its deconstruction of the noir genre), it has far better cinematography, and also a better soundtrack. Looper was great and very enjoyable at the time, but lacked that special spark to make it a memorable experience.
Yeah but sometimes I felt lost between where brick was a parody and just a weird film.... I really liked the main baddie but some of the characters seemed to not go the whole nine yards as far as really satirizing noir.... the female characters had that weird vibe from the chicks in Drive and Perks of Being a Wallflower
It was never a parody. What makes you think it was a parody? It was a homage. It transposed noirish tropes onto a non-noirish setting to provide an interesting means of looking at them- it wasn't attempting to poke fun at them in any way. I honestly cannot see any element of satire in it.
I couldn't think of the right word actually. Don't get me wrong I still loved the movie but there were some strange transitions between the characters feeling really relatable and seeming to not be very human... It's hard to describe.
The characters were quite deliberately unrealistic. That was the point. Characters in noir aren't realistic either- they're these melodramatic larger-than-life sort of people. Brick pays homage to noir by capturing this noir-ish feel of unrealistic characters.
This is precisely what the film did well. I can see how maybe it would seem strange if you are not familiar with what noir is, but fans of noir will be able to immediately recognise the kind of feel Brick is going for and therefore appreciate how clever it's being in transposing these archetypes onto a sunny high-school environment.
Thanks actually. The first time I watched Brick I came in expecting something different. Last night I decided to give it another spin and.... wow. That shit was brilliant. Thank you very much for opening my mind to what that movie was all about. Knowing what to look for kinda filled in all the pieces that were missing from that, and now I get why it was so goddamn strange.
It's like watching Napoleon dynamite and Nacho libre again; kinda opened my eyes to how much smarter they were than as marketed.
No problem, it's not a very conventional movie and if you come in expecting it to be, I can see why it would leave you confused.
Did you notice, by the way, that despite the whole thing concerning drugs and gangs and criminals- not a single swear-word is uttered throughout the entire thing? Just a small detail I noticed last time I watched it.
Mad Spoilers for a really really good movie. Please hide this post if you haven't seen Looper!
Because the whole movie was about Joe's future. The end was to give closure for Joe, present and future. If Joe and future Joe were alive when the movie finished, it would fight for the viewer's attention. The end allows Joe's story to rest, giving Sid's new chance to be good the full attention of the viewer. IMO that made the ending moments of the film more satisfying.
You're of course right with viewer's attention, but...I can't really be satisfied about the ending when I have a giant thought in my head banging on my forehead asking about why did he kill himself if he didn't have to.
Well if he shot his hand then he would be in blinding pain while Bruce would only have a stump, then Bruce would just continue his rampage holding his blunderbus with his other hand.
He already made it clear that his future self (Bruce) probably would stop at nothing to kill this kid, so the only probable ending he saw was for him to kill himself. I mean, Bruce basically lost his whole reason for living (his wife) because of that kid, so there was really nothing else for him to do other than try to murder him in hopes of getting his wife back, so to him, losing a hand would have just been a setback.
692
u/Poos_In_Boots Mar 09 '13 edited Mar 09 '13
potential spoiler alert
Wait, what year is this?
(for those that haven't seen it, watch LOOPER)