Before I continue I will preface this article by saying that I liked Looper from writer/director Rian Johnson – in fact, I really liked it, it’s a Sci-Fi action piece that is, at the very least, competently made by a team that had a vision of creating a new-age morality tale. It gave Bruce Willis his best role since Sin City, continued Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s winning streak of great roles since 500 Days of Summer and put its writer/director firmly on the map. However, let’s not go for blind praise, because there are quite a few mistakes that Johnson and company should’ve avoided.
Part of the fun of these high-concept Sci-Fi thrillers is to discuss them afterwards with the people that you saw them with, to find the plot or “Loop” holes in this case and see what kept it from being great. Oh, and it should go without saying but SPOILERS are ahead. I will be ruining the movie for the sake of finding what didn’t work. Again if you haven’t seen the movie continue no further.
Alright, with all that out of the way lets examine what the filmmaker’s should’ve avoided.
We are currently seeking Film contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a Film contributor, click here.
69 Comments
Why don’t the mob just send their victims back to Year One and drop them into a volcano or something, or the middle of the ocean? No Loopers necessary.
How do people from the past know what Loopers do and are (and aren’t shocked by it)?
Yep, more valid questions, best guess is that it’s a fixed time-bridge of 30 years. Like a worm-hole there is only one specific point in space it can go to. Sara knowing about Loopers could be attributed to her time living in the slums of the city, secrets are hard to keep in a closed community. Good work on the Looper review, again I liked Looper, it’s just very hard to write time-travel. Thanks for the comment.
Why not just not make the movie at all?
Now, now… it’s alright to point out the inconsistencies of good movies (i.e Prometheus Dark Knight Rises.)
Johnson says the time machines are adjustable for location. Which you might think is a silly cop out, but it’s the director’s world, so that’s that.
Secondly, isn’t that just a sign of how desolate the future is? The Loopers walk around carrying guns into public stores. The pawn shops even have gun racks for them. It’s a dark time.
hmmmm…. the only ‘mistakes’ i could see were… when Sid got scared out in the field and older Joe starts floating with Sids mum and causes, what looks like a giant dust storm… why were none of the trees being blown around!!?? and i also noticed when Sid takes younger Joe into that escape tunnel to get away from Jesse, there is a branch holding up the escape hatch… why does the branch keep moving around!!??? its little mistakes like these that i pick up on straight away! hmmmm…
It was one of his closed loop buds…at least that’s what I chose to believe at the time. I was busy suspending disbelief.
The guy who warned him about Rainmaker was one of his closed loop buds…at least that’s what I chose to believe at the time. I was busy suspending disbelief.
Yeah, that suspending of disbelief mechanism was on overdrive here.
That list is fairly good but a bit of a mixed bag in terms of being a “plot hole,” error in logic or taxing our suspension of disbeleif. For example (and I can’t quite remember where I came to this conclusion without seeing the film) it was my understanding that the reason Sara lived a simple lifestyle was because her son was capable of mass execution on a supernatural level. She was keeping him away from others until he could grow up and learn to use his gifts wisely.
But you also bring up things that are even more of an issue than you describe. For example Joe quickly recovering from his “trip” when i believe earlier in the film in flashbacks to Joe after he met his future wife in China, there is a brief scene in which he is being held by her while going through what appears to be serious withdrawal symptoms. As you pointed out, younger Joe’s quick recovery after drinking water seems a bit unrealistic in the context of the movie.
All in all the movie was good. However I don’t understand how people are saying that it “redefined the genre” or is a “masterpiece” when it shuns basic reason just to move the story along. I don’t think it was that much better than Timecop, a movie that shared a lot of the same concepts…and inconsistencies in logic.
Yeah, I tired to cover as many inconsistencies as possible. There aren’t so many “Plot holes” as leaps in logic as it is presented in the narrative. I forgot about the Old-Joe being cradled by his wife flash-back, could be like acid-reflux? If they just added so moments of JGL being groggy or off-balance or slow to react his dependency would’ve been easier to stomach…
Who doesn’t like time-cop? Take a man out of committing suicide by transporting through time, try him, convict him and then send him back to his falling suicide… great stuff! thanks for your comprehensive comment.
As for cyds tk from the couple of scenes it seems like things are affected within his line of sight not a perimeter around his body also he is causing things not attached to the ground to move so the cane fields wouldn’t move at all which is why the house wasn’t shaking and the curtains weren’t blowing when he used it the previous times. He seems to have tunnel vision when he is angry.
i think everyone assumes that his withdrawl only last a day. Sara said by weeks end Ull be at 30% and the movie doesn’t clearly point how how many days are passing by, we should assume however that it’s possible a week or so has passed and joe has slowly been recovering making it to 50% or so. Also in the future where old joes wife is weaning him off the drugs in his timeline he moves to shaghai and continues drug use and a gangster life style so in those separate timelines you can’t really cross reference these alternate timelines, also 10 or so years of drug use is way different from 30years. I’ve read about how there are alternate realities going on at the same time so viewing one or two in a movie may not necessarily mean there are no other possibilities or things going on. As for the pointless sex scene I think it was just referencing Sara’s old way of life she use to be a party girl probably slept around a lot so when she starts touching her leg it could of been something autoerotic or just trying to remember what it felt like to be touched. So she realizes hey theres a guy downstairs. And in reality this is common many people have sex just to get off or relax. The cigarette after Matched with her pretending to smoke earlier may suggest a slight abandonment from her new morality.
I got the feelng guy blue and abe were the same person
I was thinking that too at times, but if they were it didn’t go anywhere in the plot.
Same here. Maybe in deleted scenes?
Your number 16, I would say I have to disagree with. The reason old Joe didn’t think ahead, nor did he see his death coming in anyway was love. He was too focused on bringing his wife back that the distraction from the truth was strongly apparent. His love was stronger than time.
Well, I address that question of love in #2… yeah, it’s so strong that it throws his moral compass way off as well. That’s no excuse all things considered. Thanks for the comment!
Well at first I thought so too. But now come to think of it, the man basically have nothing left and nowhere to go. Also, why do you think Young Joe chose not to kill Cid? My bet is on 30 years difference of being a junkie and a killer. It changes him to that level. I know, I know the moral compass thing and all, but I don’t think it’s realistic to be fully rationale or keep a good grip on a so-called moral compass for one’s whole life. Consider again 30 yrs of being a junkie and killer. So I guess it’s not so much about love but about Young Joe and Old Joe’s psyche in retrospect.
Fun Fact: His name was Kid Blue, not Guy Blue.
Ugh, IMDB.com damn you for having such small character information text… thanks for clearing it up.
I should make clear how much fun I had writing that because like I think you mentioned, talking about a movie with others who saw the movie is fun, it enriches the experience. So thank you Mr. Stewart for letting me kill some time among genuine fans, even when I may have gotten far too involved and enthusiastic.
Hey Joe, don’t ever feel like you’re too into it. It’s a cardinal sin of mine, to not have an appreciation for film. I really like to believe that those people don’t exist, who can’t find something to relate to on the silver screen. As I said most of all these are nit-picky to an extreme (I had to come with twenty some how). Above all don’t ever too involved about loving a movie. I for one really liked The Dark Knight Rises, but I understand all the criticisms stemming from it. I just think the emotional core of a man trying to understand his identity overrides everything. I am so glad you have found a new movie to cherish. Thank you so much for the feedback, I appreciate it greatly.
*don’t ever FEEL too involved…
Johnson intentionally avoided a lot of exposition due to the wide release nature of the film, he took high concepts and simplified them in an effectual way that the average movie can handle without spontaneously combusting. Shouldn’t Young Joe’s suicide prevented everything from ever happening due to old joe not existing in the future anymore? Nothing is straightforward with time travel. Also, in regards to the police, I got the impression that Abe was in control of the city and any police vehicles we saw were his henchmen, gathering at his hideout or searching for fugitives he was after.
Again, I know that it wasn’t going to really draw on the time-travel logic, the only movie I know that really, really goes into this concept is the cure for insomnia, Primer. It’s just fun to discuss oddities of high-concept Sci-Fi. Thank you for the insight.
How do people in future(2070) communicate with loopers in 2040?
How do they know that older Joe or Seth has escaped in the 1st placd?
I guess they can send back times to go to the Looper locations, we see young Joe grab a piece of paper with 11:30 on it. Or the organization sends Abe information from the future and sends that off to his men.
They didn’t return to the Hide-out after they were supposed to kill their targets, so they can assume something is up.
You got the Young Joe and Sarah relationship all wrong. They never fall in love, what they do is purely just to satisfy their sexual desires. She is about to, ahem, satisfy herself but then calls up Joe instead.
You can tell they’re not in love and are not “meant to be” because Old joe still remembers his chinese wife and had young joe not killed himself he still would have been destined for her.
Theres an interview with Rian Johnson where he said he wanted to make it clear it was just lust and loneliness between Sarah and Young Joe and that Young Joe didn’t kill himself for Sarah, he killed himself for Cid! He saw the similarities between him and Cid and that if Sarah died that would be the catalyst. There weren’t any romantic feelings for Sarah that made his decision. I think it was a necessary scene to elaborate on Sarah.
That’s all well and good, but again when her child is in imminent danger, that child can turn everyone into a pretzel in a instant and hired-guns are actively looking for Joe? She was really in the mood for a booty-call? I guess that is a… turn-on?
HELLO JEFFREY. HULK UNDERSTAND THAT YOU MEANT TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION AS A FUN WAY OF EXAMINING THE MOVIE. BUT ALL THESE “MISTAKES” ARE NOT ACTUALLY MISTAKES. THEY ARE DECISIONS WHICH PURPOSEFULLY CREATE A FULLY-REALIZED DRAMATIC MOVIE THAT HAS IMPORTANT THINGS TO SAY. MOVIES ARE NOT LOGICAL EXERCIZES. THEY ARE HUMAN ONES.
RARELY, IF EVER, SHOULD YOU ASK WHAT A HUMAN “SHOULD HAVE DONE” YOU ASK WHAT THE CHARACTER “WOULD HAVE DONE” … AND IT IS THERE THAT YOU FIND UNDERSTANDING.
CHEERS AND BEST OF LUCK.
Please start writing articles on this site. Or any.
OH HULK DOES DEAR SIR http://badassdigest.com/author/67
Why thank you Mr. Banner! The characters presented are indeed human (or mutant), but if we just say that all logical inconsistances are just Human failings then almost every plot-hole, leap of logic and implausibility can be explained that way. Yes, Humans make mistakes, does that mean we can’t point them out?
AGAIN, A LOGICAL DEDUCTION. BUT HULK’S POINT IS THAT IT HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH PRODUCTIVE STORYTELLING. STORIES ARE NOT A SERIES THINGS WHERE WE AS “WHAT WAS THE MOST OPTIMAL CHOICE” BUT THEY MERIT AN INHERENT MESSINESS. THAT’S THE NATURE OF MAKING STORYTELLING CHOICES. BUT RATHER THAN GO SUPER INTO HULK ACTUALLY WORKING ON A COLUMN FOR LATER THIS WEEK. AGAIN, HULK HOPE ALL IS WELL AND HULK THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO RESPOND. CHEERS.
Then I shall follow your articles on the subject, sir. It can be inferred that these people are not the brightest of bunch, as well. But, again, I ask what is the harm in thinking about what you would’ve done, as you stated previously, in their given circumstances? Thank you for the feedback Jolly Green Giant…
I thought the film was ok, mildly disturbing, but very fun to read/think about. I personally am in the camp that time travel is impossible, else we’d have time travelers popping up all the time, unless you subscribe to the infinite parallel universe theory. Here’s a really interesting, albeit confusing question: in the film, there was at least one alternate universe when Joe already lived 30 years (young Joe #1 / old Joe #1) only to come back and get whacked by the next Joe (young Joe #2/ old Joe #2), portrayed by Bruce Willis when young/old Joe #2 was released from his Looper contract. Did the “rain maker” exist in Joe #1s universe? Or was he just unable to escape the thugs the first time, but escaped as old Joe #2, 30 years later? Was it the third, or infinity plus-one, “universe” that old Joe dodged young Joe? (JGL would be young Joe #3 if you’re tracking).
I thought it was indeed the Rainmaker that was closing all the loops in the future, seeing his mother killed by them probably fueled it. So, Old-Joe did come from a alternate future where he closed the loop and spent his 30-years.
I’m a little confused as to what this article is trying to say. You present the list as things Rian Johnson got wrong, but then list things like characters making mistakes. Well yeah. They’re fallible characters.
Since he was the main-writer, character mistakes are his own as well…
No, since he was the main-writer, character mistakes are his own decision. That doesn’t mean that they’re mistakes.
Movies aren’t just an exercise in creating logic robots.
Hey, listen the only fun to be had with crap like Battleship is to destroy it afterwards with it’s logical fallings, plot holes and terrible characters . It did terribly at the B.O, because people will not shell out for being considered stupid by the filmmakers. On the other hand Looper is a fun high-concept sci-fi thriller, and as with most high-concept sci-fi films, it is also fun to discuss the logistics of the plot. We would be doing the filmmakers no favors by heaping blind praise onto them, so for the next go around they’ll work out all the errors. It’s the only way to improve the product…thank you for the feedback!
How did Joe manage to do a voice-over describing killing himself?
How did the Rainmaker get created in the world where young Joe executed old Joe 2 seconds after arrival and went on to live 30 years? Those versions of Joe never met each other except for those 2 seconds, and never met Sara and the kid “that time around”. They only meet when old Joe came back; but the point of the movie seems to be that old Joe coming back and shooting Sara and the kid was what created the Rainmaker.
The very precise, clockwork, Swiss-railways-timetable nature of the arrival of victims from the future for the loopers to shoot rather implied a fixed future where retiring loopers seem to be guaranteed 30 years of life. This doesn’t mesh well with what we actually see happening, ie that actions taken now (mutilation, killing, new memories) ripple through to affect the future. (However, I think young Seth’s mutilated body could be fixed up medically so that he has all his fingers and limbs back in 30 years’ time to be sent back to get killed).
I don’t get why the mob contract allows the loopers 30 years of future existence; due to this 30 year bridge the loopers (think they) know when they are due to be bundled back to be shot and wouldn’t some of them go to the authorities, seek protection, hide? The authorities can’t, in 2074, be under the thumb of the mob, otherwise disposing of bodies would be no big deal.
If time traveling loopers are known about by Sara and others in 2044, when it doesn’t yet even exist, how come the authorities of 2074 have forgotten all about it? And how come they are incurious about all these tagged people in the future disappearing from their population database in a corner of a Shanghai factory?
There seems to be too much accurate information and stuff transferring between 2044 and 2074, yet the timeline is still malleable and things can change a lot. Twelve Monkeys works a bit better in that our POV character is the future Willis character and the people of the future have very little information about what really happened back in the 1990s, so are flying blind and making messy targeting errors. Willis ends up creating the army of 12 monkeys which in any case are a red herring; the past is fixed, not changed.
But I enjoyed Looper a lot, and might have to see it again. To those complaining about nitpicking at plotholes, well, for me that is half the fun. I get the metaphorical power of the film story – you can make choices now that affect your mortality in 30 years’ time; what would you and could you do if you could change the past – but thinking over the mechanics of how this and that does or doesn’t work means that the film engaged me.
All great points Narmitaj, as I keep on trying to say one of the best parts of all this is the discussion afterwards. Above all I wouldn’t be writing about say the mistakes in Battleship… I really liked Looper I wouldn’t have spent so much time thinking about it if I didn’t.
the point of the movie seems to be that old Joe coming back and shooting Sara and the kid was what created the Rainmaker.
Actually, the point is that there’s no such thing as fate. So Young Joe doesn’t have to end up with a future that looks like Old Joe’s. So the Rainmaker could be created either by Old Joe coming back in time and killing Sara in front of Cid (and injuring Cid), or– as the film explicitly says– by vagrant attacks on Sara’s farm. Remember, in the future the Rainmaker doesn’t just order mass executions of loopers, but wandering vagrants as well.
So the Rainmaker’s origins aren’t set in stone. But Old Joe coming back in time to kill him as a child represents one possible origin.
I liked this movie, but it doesn’t mean it isn’t flawed as Hell. Pop culture is there to be discussed – and movies like this and TDKR absolutely deserve to be broken down. That’s why Blade Runner is still a classic 30 years later – it holds up. Others, like Looper, might not.
Thanks TJ, exactly what I seemingly keep on trying to reiterate, a major part of film enjoyment is having reasonable discussions about them. This movie makes you think at the very least, that in and of itself deserves the acclaim it has gotten.
Blade Runner is easily one of my favorite movie, in no small part, because they present uneasy questions giving no easy answers. Thank you for the feedback.
Anytime.
I’m sure this has already been said, but because you don’t understand or agree with how or why a character did something a certain way, or with the decisions of the director when it comes to where he chooses to place focus and what he chooses to show and explain: that doesn’t make it a movie mistake that ‘should have been avoided.’
Well at least for me, these things and mistakes should’ve been avoided… but yes perhaps I should’ve titled this “my own major gripes for the film”. Thank you for the feedback.
I loved this film but I just wish they’d made more of a ‘big deal’ about TK. I thought it would have been cool for some of the action scenes and battles to involve. I feel that the trailers deceived us in that sense. Also I may be wide of the mark here but shouldn’t the two Joes have TK?
Great article.
It seemingly was only the kid that could use TK powerfully, the rest of the people can only lift coins with it. Joe never had the ‘TK’ gene apparently. Thank you so much for the kind words! Keep Reading!
YOU GUYS! ;)
New infographic explains Looper’s convoluted timelines
http://io9.com/5950197/new-infographic-explains-loopers-convoluted-timelines
Well, about the third mistake. There could be an explanation. If Old Joe killes Sid, he wouldnt grow up to be rainmaker, and hence wouldnt close all the loops. Therefore, old joes home wouldnt be attacked and his wife wouldnt die. And in the timeline, after rainmaker was killed, Old Joe would just disappear, awake or something in HIS timeline, in China, with a fading memory of what happened when he went back in time. Anf as for young joe, I guess he’d also go back to the point before old joe was sent to him, with a fading memory as well. He’d continue killing till the timelines would sync so that he’d relive Old Joe’s life.
Hey,
First, I loved the movie and I also that this was a great article talking about possible inconsistencies. I found a lot in your list that I didn’t think about prior, and this makes me look forward to the next watch.
Two things that bothered me:
1. When they killed Old Joe’s wife. They killed her at her home and then burnt down the home and didn’t even take her body to dispose of by sending her back as well, (Maybe even more efficient way of doing it. Killing the person and just send back the body for disposal?). So yeah, they have to be super careful about who is killed, but had no problem with her?
2. If everything is a closed loop, when joe originally killed his old self then went on living his life to become old joe, how did rainmaker become who he was? He was still evil and didn’t have crazy old joe that had killed his mom? I feel like this could be a misconception I have, and would love to have it cleared up.
Other than that, I thought the movie was pretty amazing.
Thanks for the great article,
Cheers
A pretty good list, but a couple of things I want to mention…
1) Old Joe isn’t trying to “bring his wife back”. He’s trying to change events so that she doesn’t get killed. He himself will never get to experience or share her presence again – he’s not expecting to meet her again, only to ensure that her meeting him doesn’t end up getting her killed. In a way, Young Joe’s sacrifice is a mirror of Old Joe’s “sacrifice” (he could have just let himself be killed and not have to go on living with the knowledge of her death). At least, that’s how I read it. :)
2) The Hooker with a Heart of Gold. Yes, it’s a cliché, but I got the sense that it was a deliberate cliché. Almost the whole of Young Joe’s life was a cliché – living life fast and on the edge. The fact that she turned out not to be a/the love interest was – I thought – a neat twist on that cliché. That she turned out to be important to the story in an unexpected way was a further bonus.
3) The lack of concern on the part of loopers for their part in/impact on shaping the future didn’t strike me as odd. These are killers. Concern for or even interest in other people would be a disadvantage. For them, time travel exists, it makes them rich. Who cares how it works or the consequences of their actions ? We might do, they simply do not.
4) Quick withdrawal recovery is entirely plausible and consistent. Having spent just a few weeks on only a moderately strong pain killer and taking myself off it “cold turkey” (not having had any advice to suggest that I shouldn’t) I can tell you that the first day (few hours) is absolute hell. After that, no worse than a mild flu. And it’s perfectly plausible that pharmacology of widely used, recreational drugs (there is nothing to suggest that whatever drug “droppers” use is illegal, so it may well be well regulated) would be “improved” in the future to make them more palateable . However, if I were an addictive personality with $m’s of gold to spend, then in a 30 year time frame it is highly likely that I would get into some stronger and far more serious sh*t that would have a far harder impact on my system when I came off it.
Above all else, I would simply add that the strength of Looper is that whatever apparent loose end you choose to pick at, there is something in the warp or the weft that prevents the thing from unravelling entirely.
Any question that beings “Why would [character] not just do [alternate action] ?” is pointless. Unless what the character does is utterly inconsistent with their own actions, then a character is free to be as dumb or naive as the writer wishes.
e.g. why wouldn’t the Gatman return to the farm with backup ? Answer: Because he’s a who he is, and a Gatman – he’s used to being in charge of any/every situation. He’s supremely overconfident. Sure, there is no direct evidence of that, but you can assume it from the fact that he didn’t get scared and need a bunch of buddies in order to go back and finish his job with/for him. His lack of need for support would only be a “problem” if he had previously demonstrated an unwillingness to tackle a situation on his own.
etc etc
Nothing is wrong with having a discussion about a film you enjoyed and it only enriches the film experience but just out of curiosity are you nit-picking at popular films that caught on with mainstream viewers? I’m sure even your favorite film are filled with flaws. All films are filled with plot-holes, inconsistencies and errors, just that some are better hidden through edits. It’s just too grand of a scale for everything to be perfectly coordinated when directing, shooting and producing a film. It’s the nature of being human to make mistakes.
Again it was enjoyable reading the little things you picked up and I am grateful for your article. All the best Jeff!
I think I can field the romance problem between young Joe and Sara. He is his own father, that sexual situation has to happen for joe to be born.
If in 2074 it is “impossible to get rid of bodies” (which as you mention in #1, is already rather a weak and unconvincing point in itself), why didn’t they have a problem shooting Old Joe’s wife and what did they do with her body? (As a matter of fact, they burned the house down, but hey, that means getting rid of bodies actually wasn’t that hard after all, right?)
I think the mob boss/members mentality is living for the future good of the mob. I dont think that they would care about disrupting a timeline that doesn’t affect the mob from the future. Paul dano’s character basically was at the end of his employment with the mob,Which was why he was meant to close his loop. The story tells you that after you close your loop your free to go, so why would the present and future mob care about your timeline after you “retire”. Also gangsters are not exactly the most rational group so trying to find their logic is a tough task. When they dismember Paul dano he already finished his work and that’s all they would care about. Yes they could of just killed him and in another reality he wouldn’t exist for the mob to send back. Joe going back in time with no way to return to 2074 shows is characters inability for forward thinking. Movies cut a lot of corners and hope that we just accept or put things together in our heads, also looking for absolute truth or rationality from characters is pointless. Probably as well with real people.
Another thing that boggled my mind after watching the movie just a while ago.
Remember that Future-law-enforcers have a “tracking” technique that will allow them to trace anyone who commits murder…
Guess what, old Joe’s wife got shot and killed IN THE FUTURE by the future-mob.
What could this possibly mean for the mob?
Good stuff man!! I just finished the movie. and started looking online for inconsistency threads and this is where i came first to.But I guess these are more plot holes than “time Logic” mistakes.
In terms of how the rainmaker still exists if young joe killed his older self.. I feel they were basically telling us that despite what happens. cid still becomes the rainmaker. I felt that when the last moments of the film was showing cid asleep as if creating a sense of doubt in the viewers mind. The fact that…has anything really changed or have they actually led to toughening up a young boy to become the man he is going to be.. any thoughts jeffrey?
I feel its the same with seth.. They keep him alive..maybe in a coma..because of the fact that he was sent back 30 yrs later after fixing him up. i know it seems all unnecessary.but it solves that question.
But I guess the only solution I see in all this is that same thing everyone says..when u try to change time, u create an alternate universe with it.
Here’s another big plothole that I don’t think anyone caught. The only reason that Time Travel is neccesary for the mob is in order to successfully kill them due to the tracking devices that would make it impossible to get away with murder. When they caught Old Joe 30 years from then, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t they shoot Old Joe’s wife in cold blood at point blank range right then and there? Suddenly this whole logic of time travel has become unimportant to me.
Love the time-travelling ideas. Plot was 6/10, but if you’d read the trivia on imdB, you’d love the little hints in the movie. I particularly like the idea of Cid being called the Rainmaker, as you would probably have known it has a direct reference to his TK ability too. But I do notice that you fail to point out one major flaw in the movie, oh and please don’t hesitate to correct me if I’m wrong.
How exactly did the Rainmaker exist in the first place?
Old Joe didn’t kill Older Joe, that’s for sure. So how on earth did Older Joe kill the Rainmaker’s mom to cause the build up of the further events if he’s already executed by Old Joe?
I really liked the film, too – but I agree fully with Rafael and Machiel: why could the mob simply kill Joe’s wife in the future? This drives me crazy since the fact of the wife getting killed AND the situation that bodies cannot disappear easily in the future are very key eldments on which the whole plot is based. AHRGL!
I couldn’t find a mention of a doubt that I have, how does the mob know that a loop hasn’t been closed, and they know right away too.
Another big big mistake (the biggest one i think): The film surmises Old Joe killing Sarah eventually made Cid become the Rainmaker. But Old Joe can’t become Old Joe without first being killed and letting Young Joe grow up to meet his wife. In that timeline though, Cid would grow up normal because Sarah wasn’t killed by Joe. How does that all work? How does the Rainmaker exist in a timeline where Old Joe didn’t kill his mom?
anotehr big mistake (the biggest, I think): The film surmises Old Joe killing Sarah eventually made Cid become the Rainmaker. But Old Joe can’t become Old Joe without first being killed and letting Young Joe grow up to meet his wife. In that timeline though, Cid would grow up normal because Sarah wasn’t killed by Joe. How does that all work? How does the Rainmaker exist in a timeline where Old Joe didn’t kill his mom?
I completely disagree with your ‘romance’ problem. For one, I don’t think there is ‘romance.’ The sex scene takes place the night after Jesse shows up with the potential to kill everyone. In this scene, Sara learns that she can totally trust Joe with Cid, and that the two boys have grown close and shared pieces of themselves they couldn’t share with others. Sara no longer fears that Joe is a threat. That night, Sara, for the first time in a very long time we can guess, Sara has a young, attractive man sleeping in the same home as her. As he’s no longer a threat, she realizes how long it’s been since she’s been with a man, and after such a frightening, life-or-death experience, she wants to feel something other than fear, she needs to feel alive. So she calls him. The reason why this scene absolutely works for me is in how it is acted and what happens afterwards. When Joe comes in, he is under the impression that Sara has seen something, or that they might both be in danger. She approaches him and kisses him. It takes him a few seconds to understand what’s happening – there’s a look of fear on his face at first – and when he does, he has the same realization as her: that it’s been a long time since he’s felt anything other than survivalism. Every person he’s come in contact with in recent events (and the same for Sara) has been a threat. Finally these 2 lonely people can relax with each other and be people again, instead of killing machines or fierce protectors.
Usually I hate sex scenes thrown in movies like this. For example I didn’t think the sex scene in the Bourne Identity worked at all. However, the characters in Looper are much more realized than most films, and both Joseph Gordon Levitt and Emily Blunt are excellent actors, and the writing before and after justifies the act. I don’t think that after sex they are in love with each other, or even like each other more than they had before. However, I do think that is because they sleep together that Joe can’t bring himself to just shoot Cid when he’s covered in Jesse’s blood in the field. Although that could be a stretch.