this whole movie was really an extension of those questions we all had when sitting around with our friends when we were young, having these 'deep' discussions.. 'If you could go back in time and kill one person, who would it be?' You know the kind of conversations I am talking about. Inevitably people say 'Hitler' (not a terribly bad choice), but there are plenty of others.. ('Rasputin' would be my answer, but that's just me). Anyway, on the face of it, it seems like an easy enough answer because we KNOW what Hitler ended up doing, and we know without an doubt that taking one life, Hitler, would be worth saving the 20 million people or so who were killed as a result of his actions. No question about it. Who WOULDN'T think that was a worthy sacrifice? Well then, extend the conversation, and imagine that you HAVE gone back in time, you manage to find little Adolf at age 6 or so. And you realize that now, with gun in hand, you are faced not will killing a mass-murdering genocidal freak, but instead you a looking at gunning down an innocent child. Even though you KNOW what this innocent little child will become, and how much suffering and death he will cause, could you still do it? That is the dilemma faced by Willis' character. He had been a criminal, a thug, all his life, but over the last, what, ten years or so, he had been changed, saved, rescued - 'redeemed' - by the woman he met and loved, and who loved him back. This caused him to decide to change fate. Because he *KNEW* the 'Rainmaker' would do the things he had seen happen, he knew it, experienced it, he knew that the only way to save the woman he loved was to prevent the Rainmaker from ever coming into being. But when faced with the actual deed - the first child of the three possible ones who could be the Rainmaker - he forces himself to do it, because he knows it MUST be done, but it is devastating to him, as we see. And part of the reason why it must be so devastating is because he also knew instantly that the child he had just killed was the wrong child. How did he know this? Had that child be the Rainmaker, he would have simply vanished. The fact that he remained told him he had to continue to the next child, meaning he had just killed an innocent. In other words, yeah, a really really tough moral dilemma. And yes of course Cid is the Rainmaker. 'Rainmaker' - get it? With his mind he can basically explode a person's body, making it 'rain' blood. So anyway, the moral lesson which always seems to be at the heart of these stories is that the act of trying to avoid a thing is what actually eventually CAUSES the thing to happen - it's cosmic irony. In Willis' attempts to prevent the Rainmaker's rise to power, he actually CAUSES it, because he would have been forced to kill Cid's mother right before his eyes. Which in turn directly caused his lifelong hatred of Loopers. Willis' attempt to break the loop was nothing more than part of the loop. That is what JGL saw at the end, he could see the loop, repeating endlessly. He then did the one thing which actually COULD break the loop, and turned the weapon on himself. Which is why Willis vanished, meaning the loop was successfully broken. Thus saving Cid's mother, thus preventing the Rainmaker from becoming the monster. Obviously the idea of time travel is filled with paradoxes, and this movie dealt with those concepts about as well as could be done. (Kind of makes me want to give Kudos to Star Trek, and the scene where Kirk prevents McCoy from saving the woman he loves from stepping in front of the car - not bad for a cheap 60's sci-fi tv show) Anyway, the one question I have about Looper is, what the heck was the deal at the end when she was looking at the kid's hair, then back at JGL's hair on his dead body? I keep thinking I must have missed something important.. anyone? Beuller? Anyone?
I figured he got the rainmaker name cause he 'splodes people in the air and their blood rains down everywhere...or he should, cause that'd be awesome Nero, and I think she was stroking his hair. Earlier in the movie Joe tries to get the w**** to stroke his hair cause it was comforting to him, like his mother used to do, but was too much of a ho to make it nice for him. I guess it's affection or some nonsense. I wish there was more sci-fi-ish stuff in the movie, and less farm action.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lkJu5VX972M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
well put Nero. my answer is Pol Pot mainly because it hits closer to home but just imagining myself pointing the barrel of the gun to his 6 year old face is sickening.
Good stuff. But the only thing is that I didn't truly feel Bruce Willis was trying to kill the Rainmaker for the greater good, but that it was only from his own selfish desires. I think I felt that way because I never saw much redemption in him. Perhaps they just didn't flesh out his character enough or maybe a second viewing would help.
I am in the "Bruce Willis good, scary ass kid bad" camp. Seriously, the kid is sociopathic from a very young age and doesn't seem to be grateful at all of his mom's love. He is truly frightening and I can't blame Bruce Willis if he killed the kid (though my girlfriend recoiled when the bullet grazed across his face).
Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie, but did anyone else have higher expectations? I didn't have high expectations until I read the thread on here and people were saying how amazing this movie was, how it was worth seeing again and again, etc. I need to stop reading reviews before I go see a movie... I think I'm just hard to please..
Yea expected much more, the first half hour was great then dragged way too long with that damn kid. Not a movie id watch again honestly.
Good movie but expected more from the reviews/ratings. Satisfying ending I guess. By the way, never did anyone else cross my mind as the rainmaker other than Cyd. That kid was crazy.. I wouldn't blame Bruce for offing him one bit (given he seen what the kid would become in the future).
And I have the freedom to talk about the movie with spoilers- especially in a thread that warns of spoilers in it's title. There is another thread for discussion of the movie w/o spoilers. Why not go there?
Were there any things to think deeply about in this movie? I thought it was all straight forward. Now i don't even remember the character names, so i don't know yall are talking about. Wish i saw this thread after i saw the movie.
