Sarah was never shot, that was a vision of Joe's realisation of what was happening. It's why it was all colourised along with Cid on the train.

Also I retract my last thing about Kid Blue not being Abe because of usual time paradoxes. The way it works in the film means he's totally Abe.

OH ok then B-)

Understood, didn't consider that. I had a good time poking fun at all the plot holes in the Dark Knight films with friends, but I consider them good movies because the "holes" aren't necessarily distracting. From that perspective, as I said, I agree Looper was a good, entertaining movie.

I love movies with ambiguity (multiple, slightly imperfect ways of interpreting the narrative). The slight inconsistencies are key to those movies because you are supposed to be unsatisfied and unable to fully accept any one interpretation. For example, American Psycho (murderer/delusional) or 12 Monkeys (time-traveller/crazy person).

I don't think that Looper is ambiguous like that (a movie intended to rack your brain about). I suspect that the viewer was intended to dismiss the time travel mechanics debate and focus on the story (as future Joe suggests to present Joe in the diner). But I didn't notice the story go anywhere too deep, thematically, either. For that reason I'm surprised with the kind of praise it got (smart, thought-provoking, rather than good, entertaining). Again, I'll grant that I might have missed something (just my initial impression).

shut up

I like the direction that you're headed here...

Saw it, and really liked it until the last 15-20 minutes. IMO Young Joe should have just killed the Cid kid when he had the chance. I mean, this would've solved all the problems. He was a really ugly kid, too. And he killed his mom's sister and that one underling. In that regard, Old Joe seemed much more clever, even if he was more ruthless.

Joseph Gordon Levitt did do a great job, I have to say: he really did come off as a killer. All the more frustrating that he didn't shoot Cid in his buttface tbh...

One thing that wasn't too clear for me, though, is why did they have to mutilate Young Seth? Why not just kill him?

what do you mean 'solved all the problems'. 'killing the kid' is a problem. he could have just killed every other character and that would have 'solved all the problems' too...

seems like you got a real issue w/ the li'l boy, Koobs

Maybe they've never had to kill someone in the past before. Paradoxes and such.

Maybe it's because time travel is meant to be a gigantic secret and they don't want some old guy possibly vanishing in public.

Maby killing him would cause too many unknown re-procussions in the timeline that everyone was experancing. Thay did not explain enugh in the movie to say what the difference was exactully(killing/ keeping him alive in that state for the next 30y), but i think thay were trying to work around "why not just shoot young joe?" when he dident close his loop.

Saw it just yesterday.

So do you guys think there was a matrix within the matrix?

The defining moment of the movie, to me, was when older and younger Joe met up for the first time in the diner. Younger Joe, aka you dear viewer, was trying to ask questions about the whole time travel business, and Brucey Joe smashed his fist on the table shouting 'IT'S COMPLICATED DAMNIT'.

So STFU, please. PLEASE.

How very condescending of you, Tenshu

Just trying to help spread bruce willis' message, dude needs to be heard!

Yeah, but then Young Joe goes ahead and shoots himself... So whatever repercussions killing Young Seth would've brought upon the world, Joe's untimely demise pretty much would've brought the same thing.

I'm not sure that I buy that Cid grows up to be Joe. Either way, let's discuss this: The whole premise of the movie is that people are sent back in time because for some unbelievable reason you can't get rid of a body in the future. But when they come for old Joe, they shoot his wife dead without any hesitation. Does this bother anyone else?

Good point! I thought it was an accident, but yeah, you're right, why were they shooting in the first place? Never really thought of it before.

Presumably you can't get rid of bodies ofimportant people as easily. Or maybe they send back her corpse. For that matter, why send back the person while they are alive at all?

Maybe people are chipped, it could detect vitals?

That was my guess, they mentioned the tracking in the beginning of the movie

If that was the case, they wouldn't have shot Joe's wife. It doesn't add up.

It seemed to me like it was a rash decision in a moment of panic?

I don't think it really matters. They probably still have ways to cover it up, but time travel is the best. Besides, she probably wouldn't have gotten a lot of attention because she wouldn't have been important enough.

If the Rainmaker is taking over whole cities on his own and these are the guys working for him, who's to say that killing people hasn't gotten easier? Body removal as a legal problem doesn't matter when you control the legal system.