Please don’t read this post until you’ve already seen Rian Johnson’s excellent film, Looper. I’m about to spoil the heck out of it. There are some lingering questions about this movie (most of them crazy theories) that I want to discuss with someone, so I’m asking you, the Internet, to discuss it with me. If you click to read more, I’m going to assume you’ve seen it. Click below to reveal spoilers.
Are Jeff Daniels and Kid Blue the same person? There’s an odd relationship between these two characters, as if Ray, as played by Jeff Daniels, is a father figure to Kid Blue. But why won’t Jeff Daniels kill him? Is it because he IS him? There’s a physical resemblance, and they do dress similarly. Plus, when Jeff Daniels finally bites it, Kid Blue shows a bit more emotion that I would have expected otherwise. So I’m pretty sure they’re meant to be the older and younger versions of each other, with Jeff Daniels trying to mold himself into the himself he would later become.
What’s with Emily Blunt brushing Joe’s hair at the end there?Why does she know he likes that? Joe told Piper Perabo (hooker with a heart of gold but not really) that his mother used to brush his hair like that, so she does it for him. Then, at the very end of the movie, Emily Blunt’s Sara is brushing his hair the same way. Are we to think that Sara is Joe’s mom? Is Cid also Joe? Are they both the Rainmaker? Why is Joe dressed in a similar outfit to the people who eventually take him away? What if Joe is HIS OWN DAD? I mean, how many different circles and time lines could there be? There could be TONS. This stuff is never explored, because it’s ultimately not the point of the movie, but it’s sure fun to think about.
Or maybe Emily Blunt is the Rainmaker? When she finds the money at the end, and picks up the watch, I was thinking that maybe she becomes the Rainmaker, and it’s not the kid. There’s a discussion about whether or not it’s man or woman, and of course if there’s no Rainmaker, there’s no money in that truck. Therefore, the Rainmaker still has to exist. Right? Why couldn’t it be Emily Blunt? Sequel!
Isn’t that “BE AT” bit awesome?C’mon, when you got to that scene where Bruce Willis sees “BE AT” sliced into his arm, you were sure there was going to be some sort of scene at the evil surgical center where the old version of Paul Dano met his end. That’s a nice payoff for people who pay attention at the movies.
Find me a better montage. I dare you. OK, that’s not a question, but the montage of the thirty years after the version in which Joe actually closes his loop is totally awesome. Beautifully shot, great music, just fantastic. And then the montage of all the loops being closed and Joe collecting his silver is nearly as good. No movie has had a montage this good in ages, and this movie had two of them.
Why is everybody getting this wrong? I read multiple reviews of this movie after seeing it that got the setup entirely wrong. For example, Roger Ebert wrote “The shotgun guy is known as a ‘Looper.’ He has been sent back into time to be the trigger man.” Zach Baron wrote that it was about “hit men from the future who travel back in time to kill their victims,” before he corrected it based on a tweet I sent him. (He’s good that way.) So I wonder. Is this movie that confusing? Am I going to have diagram it with straws for people? I thought the movie does an excellent job of explaining itself, of letting you know that multiple timelines exist in much more clever ways than have been done in the past. Am I wrong on this one?