Looper (2012) - Bruce Willis, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and Emily Blunt

Sucked that homeboy killed himself to save a boy that would maybe still be a potential threat. He could've shot his hand off to make sure his older self didn't shoot the kids mom. O well
 
LA-CA said:
Sucked that homeboy killed himself to save a boy that would maybe still be a potential threat. He could've shot his hand off to make sure his older self didn't shoot the kids mom. O well
Click to expand...

well thats a good one.....the ending could have gone in a couple of different directions that would have been far more interesting, it really felt like they didnt want to get too deep with the movie and just patched up the most simplistic ending they could have possibly come up with, i walked out the movie dissapointed because it didnt leave anything to open interpretation...
 
LA-CA said:
Sucked that homeboy killed himself to save a boy that would maybe still be a potential threat. He could've shot his hand off to make sure his older self didn't shoot the kids mom. O well
Click to expand...

His gun only had a range of 15 yards. Never would've hit old Joe from that distance. Let alone his hand.
 
Old Joe could have used his other hand.. And that was hardly the simple ending. It brought back he conversation Abe had about seeing young Joes futur aand the wrong path, so Joe changed it. Plus, we don't KNOW it worked, we don't see him in the future, it's left for us to decide if things were really changed or simply postponed and will still happen in another way.
 
infam0usP said:
some cats just love to complain :smh:
Click to expand...

Apologizing ahead a time about the wall of text rant... the ending to me did kind of bother me.

to me the problem was with the whole time travel thing. i understand i should ignore it or whatever, but at some point JGL closed the loop with Bruce, allowing him to grow old and all that good stuff.. so at the beginning of the movie they show him close the loop cut and dry... but this time when he gets sent back Bruce is hell bent on killing the kid. but his obsession with killing the kid and preventing the rainman is what caused the rainman to become what he became. they said something about the messed up jaw, so i was just waiting to see what caused the kids jaw to break. I understand my thought process basically invalidates the whole movie plot because without his drive or whatever he doesn't escape JGL. But it really bothered me, it was his fault the kid became the rainman and decide to close loops. With his loop closing properly or him never going after the kid it never happens, so where the hell did the rainman come from
 
Old Joe said the thing about the jaw was a rumor, because no one ever saw what the Rainmaker looked like. The way I see it, in the original  timeline where Young Joe closes his loop, he never meets Sara and the kid, but Cid was already set up to become the Rainmaker because he accidentally killed the woman he thought was his real mom, hated Sara, and was still angry for letting his mom die. He becomes the Rainmaker in Old Joe's life, and we can assume it's because he grew up angry and bad. 

Originally, Joe never meets Cid, yet he becomes the Rainmaker anyway. What we saw when Old Joe came back to kill the kid was just another possibility of the same eventual outcome. This time, he would have been shot in the jaw, watched his mother die, and been angry wanting revenge. But that's where Young Joe's "vision" of the future comes in.. he saw what would happen if Cid was abandoned and he saw how things wouldn't change, unless he closed his own loop and sacrificed himself. 

Just because we see him get his cheek/jaw shot, doesn't mean he will become the Rainmaker, Old Joe also said he watched his mother die yet we see him accept Sara as his mom and she doesn't die at the end. With this ending, we see Sara help Cid control his anger and calm down, he accepts her as his mom, and he has a chance to be raised right and not become the Rainmaker.
 
Last edited:
movie was entertaining and Jo Go Lev was really good in it but WHY BW's character goes back in time made me go
eyes.gif
.

other than that, movie was good.
 
The movie was good, but not great. This is one of those films that brings a fresh idea but doesn't have a lasting impact. Months from now we will forget about this movie. I am glad to see something in the theatres that isn't a remake or reboot, but I feel it was missing something to make it one of those movies we remember for a while. ** This is one of the only movies that I actually made it for the trailers, saw the trailer for the movie w/ Tom Hanks & Halle Barry that joint looks epic! #bodyreadyxhunned
 
To answer above dude's question, Blunt's character pushed JGL out of the way NOT because she knew the kid would be too calm and not kill the glock dude, but because she knew either way the kid was going to be so scared that he'd blow up anyways. Or if JGL had missed him, it still would have been curtains.

Okay, now let me get into some real time-travel ish with yall so I can see what you guys think.

Essentially, JGL's sacrifice was arbitrary in terms of a long-term solution with the "Rainmaker" problem

Let's get into it:

We see that when Bruce Willis was in JGL's position, he ended up closing his loop. However, in his time the Rainmaker still appears, and is actually the catalyst for him choosing to go back and kill the Rainmaker as a child.

Yet, at the end of the movie, we see that it's Bruce Willis's fault that the Rainmaker even exist i.e. Bruce Willis shoots Little Rainmaker's mom in front of him, Little Rainmaker escapes and becomes the Rainmaker and makes everything go to hell. So, essentially, JGL fixes this problem by shooting himself, making Bruce Willis disappear and then it's happily-ever-after right? Right? Wrong.

Rewind: The Rainmaker was present during Bruce Willis's own lifetime, but because Bruce Willis closed his loop, there was no storyline where he killed the Little Rainmaker's mom right in front of him meaning???

That there are other factors that caused the Little Rainmaker to become the real Rainmaker. Perhaps it's because he never experienced that life-altering experience that came about because of JGL's intrusion into his life, which caused him to see Blunt's character as his real, loving mother. Perhaps because of something else. Either way, we see that in Bruce Willis's timeline, the Rainmaker came about almost as a natural occurrence, not part of some cycle that JGL could stop. I do believe that JGL's sacrifice stopped the Little Rainmaker from becoming the Rainmaker in that timeline, but in every other timeline the little kid will most likely always be the Rainmaker.

Also, an interesting sidenote: 30 years after the events of Looper, although the Rainmaker won't exist in that timeline, people will still be forced to close their loops as that is a part of their contract (that is, if there is still a remnant of that controlling party left, as Bruce Willis pretty much murked everyone involved with the Loopers). At this point, JGL will probably still have been recruited as a Looper in the past again; however, he won't have to close his loop. His future self already killed himself, so he really won't have to worry about that aspect of his job.

Anyone got any challenges to this? [OptimusPrime]I'LL TAKE YOU ALL ON[/OptimusPrime]
 
Saw it last night, that Kid was creepy from the jump. Didn't need for telekinesis, his stare alone was enough.

Good movie, bad ending.
 
So who was the rainmaker? in the future? I know the kid was the rainmaker...but who played the older rainmaker?
 
i thought she pushed JGL out of the way so he wouldn't get hurt by the boy's telekinesis
 
@ Bruce nergo

Rainmaker became about due to the angry of seeing his mom die. JGL killed himself to kill Bruce in order to save Rainmaker's mother. Which stop Rainmaker from becoming a terror. It was hinted in the movie that if the mom stayed alive and could teach the boy to use his power for good. Rainmaker would not terror god. By JGL changing his timeline ALL timelines are effected. The rainmaker in Bruce's timeline would have forgotten those memories of his mother dying and she would in fact be alive. Bruce's life would have never happen and his wife would also be saved. Basically nothing in Bruce's timeline as he knew it would have happened. Everything would have changed.That's why Bruce wanted to kill kid Rainmaker because he would have saved his wife in his timeline. She and all killed as a result would have resurrected in a sense and Bruce would have disappeared because would have been sent to the past to begin with.

Now this is what the movie set up as the parameters of time-traveling and how it's retroactive and proactive.
 
bruce negro said:
To answer above dude's question, Blunt's character pushed JGL out of the way NOT because she knew the kid would be too calm and not kill the glock dude, but because she knew either way the kid was going to be so scared that he'd blow up anyways. Or if JGL had missed him, it still would have been curtains.
Okay, now let me get into some real time-travel ish with yall so I can see what you guys think.
Essentially, JGL's sacrifice was arbitrary in terms of a long-term solution with the "Rainmaker" problem
Let's get into it:
We see that when Bruce Willis was in JGL's position, he ended up closing his loop. However, in his time the Rainmaker still appears, and is actually the catalyst for him choosing to go back and kill the Rainmaker as a child.
Yet, at the end of the movie, we see that it's Bruce Willis's fault that the Rainmaker even exist i.e. Bruce Willis shoots Little Rainmaker's mom in front of him, Little Rainmaker escapes and becomes the Rainmaker and makes everything go to hell. So, essentially, JGL fixes this problem by shooting himself, making Bruce Willis disappear and then it's happily-ever-after right? Right? Wrong.
Rewind: The Rainmaker was present during Bruce Willis's own lifetime, but because Bruce Willis closed his loop, there was no storyline where he killed the Little Rainmaker's mom right in front of him meaning???
That there are other factors that caused the Little Rainmaker to become the real Rainmaker. Perhaps it's because he never experienced that life-altering experience that came about because of JGL's intrusion into his life, which caused him to see Blunt's character as his real, loving mother. Perhaps because of something else. Either way, we see that in Bruce Willis's timeline, the Rainmaker came about almost as a natural occurrence, not part of some cycle that JGL could stop. I do believe that JGL's sacrifice stopped the Little Rainmaker from becoming the Rainmaker in that timeline, but in every other timeline the little kid will most likely always be the Rainmaker.
Also, an interesting sidenote: 30 years after the events of Looper, although the Rainmaker won't exist in that timeline, people will still be forced to close their loops as that is a part of their contract (that is, if there is still a remnant of that controlling party left, as Bruce Willis pretty much murked everyone involved with the Loopers). At this point, JGL will probably still have been recruited as a Looper in the past again; however, he won't have to close his loop. His future self already killed himself, so he really won't have to worry about that aspect of his job.
Anyone got any challenges to this? [OptimusPrime]I'LL TAKE YOU ALL ON[/OptimusPrime]
Click to expand...

Bro this is not a movie that would make you think...is really simple actually, the movie is called Looper, because that's all it is, a big *** loop, a never ending cycle, Bruce caused the rainmaker, the rainmaker caused Bruce, repeat for infinity.
 
Bruce didn't cause the Rainmaker originally.

The Rainmaker occurs in Old Joe's original timeline, that's why the loop's were being closed and that's why Old Joe's wife was killed. In the original timeline (the one we see that happens quickly after Young Joe kills Old), Old Joe NEVER encounters the Cid or Sara, so he doesn't directly cause anything. Originally, Cid grew up angry and never accepted Sara as his real mom, and continued to believe he caused his mom (really his aunt) to die, that's what made him become the Rainmaker. He was angry, couldn't stop her death, and continued to resent Sara.

What Young Joe envisioned at the end was what the new cycle would be. That's where we saw how things would end up similar (with Cid watching his mother die and becoming the Rainmaker), but it just happened differently than before. So that's why Young Joe decides to change things and kills himself. Cid accepts Sara, she's alive to care for him, and we're left with the possibility that he'll grow up to be good and not become the Rainmaker. Whether or not the future is inevitable and he'll become the Rainmaker by some other way is up for interpretation, but we're given the possibility that Young Joe changed the future and he won't become the Rainmaker.

I don't know where you're coming from with "not a movie that makes you think", there's plenty discussion and thinking involved with it. You can incorrectly simplify it if you want.
Chrispcb15 said:
So who was the rainmaker? in the future? I know the kid was the rainmaker...but who played the older rainmaker?
Click to expand...
We don't see the actor who played the older Rainmaker
 
This is just not the type of movie to leave a lasting taste, it literally be ame an afterthought once the credits rolled...reason why I was dissapointed...it's like cool le me kill myself, the simplest most predictable way to end the movie...whatever happens or may happen is really irrelevant really....Joe is dead, the end.

Btw is it just me or has Bruce died in about the majority of the films hes been in...kind of ironic when you think of his grail DieHard...lol
 
I'm with Steezy on this one. This is a movie in which there is one time line and all of these things had happened in order for the rainmaker to happen which begs the question why was it deviated this time? The easy answer is because the loop was supposed to go through twice in this particular circumstance in order for BW to be killed the second time around to stop the occurrence of the rain maker.

I wasn't big into this movie just because I wasn't crazy about the way they treated time
 
Saw it Saturday night. Really enjoyed it.
1 question though: So the whole premise of the movie is that it's IMPOSSIBLE to dispose of bodies in 2074, so they send em back to 2044 for the Loopers to kill, but they were able to kill old Joe's wife in 2074 when they went to get him from his house?
 
MaddoxKay said:
Saw it Saturday night. Really enjoyed it.
1 question though: So the whole premise of the movie is that it's IMPOSSIBLE to dispose of bodies in 2074, so they send em back to 2044 for the Loopers to kill, but they were able to kill old Joe's wife in 2074 when they went to get him from his house?
Click to expand...

You could still kill people in the future, but it's likely the disposal/getting away with it was the challenge. That's why they set the fire to try and cover up the murder. We also might assume had Old Joe not taken them out, they wouldhave been busted for mmurder anyway.
 
Kinda felt as if no matter what, the future would still pan out the same.....

The jaw quote and the kid getting shot, the fact that the rainmaker would get Bruce Killed, and JGL's monologue about how "life was a vicious circle" at the end kinda made it seem like that.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest News

View All News

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

Site contents may not be incorporated into AI training data or any other derivative works without prior express written consent.

Links to participating merchants may generate referral or affiliate commissions that help support our community. See our policies for details. NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom