IMDb > Looper (2012) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Looper More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 11 of 65: [Prev][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [Next]
Index 643 reviews in total 

Inconsistent Core Story

Author: Helio Copter from United States
10 August 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

First of all, this is a well-made film in nearly every way. Acting, cinematography, dialog, visual effects, sets and locations. And the directing is good on a scene-by-scene basis, with some very nice moments of theme reinforcement. The basic story is also interesting. And of course, there is the gimmick of Joseph Gordon-Levitt playing a young version of Bruce Willis' character, which is really well done all around.

However, and some other reviewers have noted it, the story here takes a turn about midway through and the film as a whole winds up feeling inconsistently focused. In some cases, change-ups and uncertainties are good. In this case, it all feels more like it is unfinished, and could have used some more revisions.


Specifically, the whole idea of "The Rainmaker" needed to have been worked into the screenplay earlier and in a more substantial fashion. As is, it feels to me like a peripheral story element that gets suddenly upgraded to being the primary focus, but there isn't enough of a full-circle effect for what happens in the later parts of the film to feel consistent with what has already happened in the early parts of the film.

All of that being said, though, I do not think that Looper is a bad film, and it certainly has enough going for it to merit a positive rating from me. My gripes here are not the same as those I have with Star Trek Into Darkness, for example. Looper is a bit unfocused as a whole, but more as a matter of editing and foreshadowing. It's still a well-written film, beat-for-beat. The fact that it moves slowly at times is not a flaw--that's just the type of film that this is. And there are some truly powerful moments here and there, brought to life by great technical filmmaking and a top-notch cast. Rian Johnson may not have hit perfection here, but he definitely has my attention as an up-and-coming director.

Was the above review useful to you?

An Entertaining, if not logically consistent, sci fi thriller

Author: clambakejr from United States
24 July 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I certainly enjoyed Looper. It's refreshing to see a sci fi flick that is dependent upon its script, and an original screenplay at that. Also, I have no idea why this film wasn't at least nominated for best Makeup, as it is pretty incredible how much alike Willis and Levitt look thanks to it. However, I had some problems with the logical possibility of the plot. Granted, I had no trouble suspending my disbelief, but since this movie strives to be in the same class as time travel classics such as Terminator and 12 Monkeys, a little scrutiny is called for. To start off, it is logically impossible to change the past. Otherwise, the problem of the grandfather paradox would be possible, where someone travels back in time and kills their grandfather, causing them to somehow never have been born and disappear in a puff of logic. Something close to this very thing happens in the movie, as young Joe (Levitt) kills himself causing older Joe (Willis)to disappear right in front of him. The problem is, older Joe would now never exist in order to come back in time to cause these events to happen. Even if we accept the films premise about time, it is still not completely internally consistent, mainly because of the ending. Since in the movie, it is possible for young Joe mutilate himself so that scars immediately appear on older Joe (when he is in the same time as young Joe), then it stands to reason that when young Joe shoots himself, old Joe should simply drop dead and not disappear. Along a similar vein, the film mixes up two meanings of the word 'can'. To illustrate, one meaning of 'can' is to have the physical (including mental activity) ability to do something. For instance, since my body functions properly, I have the physical ability to eat a hamburger. The second meaning of 'can' is that it is possible for you to do something. For instance, I can eat a hamburger this second if I have one in my hand. However, I cannot (it is impossible) for me to eat a hamburger this second if there is not one immediately available. To apply this to the movie, when young and old Joe are sitting across from each other, young Joe has the physical ability to take out his knife and mutilate himself. However, if old Joe has no scars, then it is impossible for young Joe to mutilate himself, because that mutilation did not happen. It would be consistent for young Joe to mutilate himself if old Joe already had a corresponding scar.

Despite the long rant, I would still recommend this movie to fans of sci fi or thrillers.

Was the above review useful to you?

Nice movie until the climax!

Author: gonat from United States
14 January 2013

I did not like the past self killing himself and thereby killing his future self. When the future already existed, we can not roll it back! If we have to, then we should bring back everything, not selectively! The same way it would not be acceptable if Bruce Wills have killed the rain maker as he is already in the future. One can kill somebody who is in the present either in past or in future! If happens otherwise, then that should roll back everything related with that somebody. It is as good as bringing whole time back to past present. Who writes a story about time traveling, should be little reasonable! Linefill! Linefill! Linefill!

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:


Author: David Holt (rawiri42) from Australia
14 November 2014

Well, this is one movie that I have absolute;y no idea what I think of it! So, you may ask, why am I writing a review? Good question. I suppose the answer is that, once I started watching Looper, it was too difficult to stop. Several times I wanted to but then I thought, that, if I did stop, I would miss something great. (This was not diminished by the fact that the movie had a score of 75 on IMDb, by the way!).

Looper is certainly not a movie to watch if you're hoping for some light entertainment. It takes not one, but two science fiction themes - time travel and telekinesis - and mixes them all up so that there's no guessing what's coming next. Whilst Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon Levitt (who both play the same guy 30 years apart) share the star billing, for me, the real star of this movie was Pierce Gagnon who played Cid, a 10-year-old telekinetic kid. Some of his facial expressions were brilliant for a child actor and I have no doubt that we will be seeing a lot more of him over the next 60 years (if he doesn't destroy the world before then, that is!)

The biggest disappointment for me was Emily Blunt's American drawl (albeit very well done) because her English accent (Young Victoria for example) is so delightful - but then I guess that just shows her star quality.

Maybe I'm a bit slow, but, right up to the end, I was wondering how the whole thing was going to work itself out and, yes, I was surprised!

So my advice is, if you aren't into real complex sci-fi, Looper is probably not for you. I would say the same if you're thinking of hiring something for some pleasant light entertainment. However, if you're a real sci-fi and film noir enthusiast, you'll probably love Looper. Good luck with it.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Disappointing time travel movie from start to finish

Author: Maziun from Poland
23 February 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

*SPOILERS*SPOILERS*SPOILERS*SPOILERS*SPOILERS*SPOILERS "Looper" is one of those movies that promises much because it seems to be based on interesting ideas , yet the ending result is terribly poor. Why this movie received positive reviews is beyond me… The plot of this movie just isn't as good as it seemed on paper . If you think for a second it all falls apart . This story was written by someone who does not comprehend even the basics of time travel problems and paradoxes. There is a certain suspension of disbelief in any time travel movie. You can forgive one or two plot holes and odd paradoxes in films about time travel but there are just far too many here and they are all far too obvious. However, they DO establish certain rules about time travel during the film. When a movie breaks it's own set of rules it's just BAD WRITING.

• The whole premise of a "Looper" was never satisfactorily explained. I don't buy that in the future it's impossible to get rid off a body in the future because of the tracking . Seriously , there ALWAYS was and will be way to deal with that problem , especially for the mob. * It's never explained HOW mob is able to time travel. Did they invented time vehicle or stole it ? * Mob has got a time travel machine and uses it ONLY to get rid off the bodies ?! Why not use it to take over the world ?! * Why does the mo needs the loopers ? Couldn't they simply send somebody back 10,000 years, or to the middle of the ocean ? * Why send ALIVE person through time ? Kill that somebody in the future , then send his dead body in the past. Done. No risk of failure. * Furthermore why not send a paper with somebody's name to the past and have an assassin to kill that person in the past ? * Why did they always get THE SAME looper to close THEIR OWN loop? The had at least few loopers to choose from* Why even have more than one looper ? * Why the mafia boss who owns the city lives in some underground basement ? * Why are the telekinetic powers of most people so weak, but the power of the Rainmaker so strong ? * Why is everyone using civil war era firearms prone to jamming, when there are plenty of high tech weapons around in both eras ? * Why won't the Rainmaker simply use telekinesis to kill the loopers ? * How come a guy who kills for a living suddenly has a cry baby heart and goes out to protect people ? * The ending doesn't make sense . Young Joe kills himself, which erases old Joe from the time line. So all the criminals he killed and the loopers are okay now? How is the kid STILL wounded ? Joe couldn't have lived to meet the woman in China and eventually travel back in time, which means he couldn't have ever caused his past self to meet the Rainmaker. The Rainmaker would have grown up and taken over the world in the same way he did before, and Bruce Willis's wife would still be dead.

This movie is insulting to the audience. At one point Bruce Willis screams "It doesn't matter ! " as if trying to make a pathetic excuse for all the plot holes and inconsistencies.

Putting aside that "Looper" is illogical movie and you have to turn off your brain to watch it , it's just a dull movie. The future world was incredibly poorly realised. The directing and editing were utterly terrible. Most of the time it looked like the director was trying to be stylish, instead of actually making a good film. The pacing is horribly disjointed. The film moves very slowly ."Looper" has all the pretense of being an edge of the seat sci-fi thriller, but then proceeds to bore you to death, and continually tries to pull on heart strings without having earned the right. Neither old Joe or young Joe are particularly likable. You have no REAL reason to care about anybody . The movie lacks interesting dialogue and there is virtually no action. When it happens it's SO UNINSPIRED without a small bit of excitement.

"Looper" borrows elements from many movies : "2009 Lost memories" , "Terminator" , "12 monkeys" , "Matrix" , "The One" and few others. I wouldn't mind it if the movie was able to make something interesting of them , but unfortunately this is not the case here.

The movie doesn't have anything interesting to offer in terms of visual style or music. The acting is OK . Joseph Gordon Levitt ("500 days of summer"), Bruce Willis ("Die hard") , Emily Blunt ("Adjustment bureau") and Jeff Daniels ("Speed") aren't bad , but their acting is simply bland and forgettable like the movie itself. The problem is also that all the characters are barely written and impossible to care about. The change of heart by young Joe is simply unconvincing.

"Looper" is stupid and dull movie. Avoid it. One of the biggest disappointments of 2012. I give it 1/10.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

An average and predictable action movie that could have been so much more

Author: dalejones22 from United Kingdom
3 October 2013

Looper wasn't a bad film, however it fell well short of its potential and no doubt falls into the category 'only watch when bored'. My biggest issue with the film - aside from its climax being predictable - is the plot, which seemed confused and noticeably switched focus midway through the film.

Whilst I'm not against that if done correctly, it was the subsequent lack of character development that really made this film suffer. Most of Looper's characters seemed insignificant - you found yourself simply not caring about them. This to my mind was caused by the surface level knowledge you're given throughout the film. That said I did enjoy Blunt and Levitt's performances, whilst Bruce Willis does what he does best. The action set pieces are okay - nothing you haven't seen before - but are thankfully good enough to hold an audience's attention.

Overall a decent watch but nothing that will make a lasting impression.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

where is time travel when you need it?

Author: philip
17 September 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

i wish i could loop back in-time and not watch it, go firefly hunting, or feed some stray cats. this movie was retarded... i skipped through most of it which may or may not make this review, a review, but: the whole "life runs in a circle" thing as drawn at the very end of the movie was a nice concept but with the plot and story board of this movie... lame. the hinting of "the ends justifies the means" with killing the children, added to the fact that the one who supposedly cherished life and love was the one who was carrying out this horrendous escapade, was even more fuel to my fire of how... retarded this movie was. i watched the preview again after i watched it... i don't see a connection? someone please help me on that one..?..!

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Puts characters in right place, and looks good. Still not a big success story

Author: moviesrme10
24 June 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This film was really an interesting film to watch. And I mean it. When it was released back in September 2012, I had no such interest in watching it. For me the film just looked lame. I know you should never judge a book by its cover; I was just totally uninterested in this film. For starters it had that gangster's vibe going for it. And I just don't like gangster movies, for one and the fact that it involved killing people randomly, which I like, but this film kind of (for me) seemed to go over the edge and get a little too extreme. When I watched it, it had a very realistic and dark thing about it. What got me threw it all was the mesmerizing performances, by lead Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and supporters, Noah Segan and Emily Blunt. Okay so the issues with this film include Bruce Willis, length, and ending. Bruce Willis. The man behind Die Hard. I don't know what to say, the guy has lost it. He just can't act anymore, why he does it most likely now is to put food on the table. Whenever he's on screen he just doesn't seem to be n it, he doesn't have the same momentum he used to have. The dude unlike Sylvester Stallone just can't do it anymore. He's given up trying. His scenes were very poorly acted. The length of this film is way too long. I can think of a couple of scenes that should have been cut, or shortened more. It's just way too unbearable. This film could have made for a decent Hour and a half film, but instead the people behind it added un- necessary additions to the film such as the half naked women in the bed scene, and the "kid blue" getting his knuckles cracked scene. Those were lengthy additions that made little difference to the story. The ending to this film was also a bit of a disappointment for me. It ended with Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character killing himself so that the crazy future him, Bruce Willis wouldn't kill the kid. It was a very poor ending. The kid should have just been killed and Levitt's character ending it by killing the future him. The kid was freaking nuts, and would end up being a ruthless killer. The kid killed people, he was already a lost cause, and Emily Blunt's character man was she a freaking air head. She should have killed the son. Heck with it, I would have, he was nuts. Well now to the good things. It includes the acting, special effects, and character development. The acting as I already explained was very good. Memorable you could say. Joseph Gordon-Levitt nails another role in the head. He is most likely one of the best actors of today. Every film I see him in is more un- forgettable then the last! He is excellent in his role, and adds depth to his character. And a few supporting cast members as I've already stated were excellent as well. The special effects, while minimal, are excellent and sharpened to the tip. The character development is by far the best thing. All of the character's back stories are told neatly and well. All of the character's had an emotional back story, and you felt something for each one, good and bad. You felt their issues and problems, big and small. Every character was proved to be realistic and had something about them that at least one person could relate to. All in All, Looper might not be a big success, but it puts its characters in the right place and just seems realistic, and emotional. C+

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Bend It, Shape It...This Is Nothing New

Author: LeonLouisRicci from United States
28 April 2013

The Eggheads can have at it, picking away at the Time-Travel paradoxes. None of that here. After all this is a suspension of disbelief Art Form and that's that. Practically anything goes in this realm and unless you have a "Beautiful Mind" and work with a chalkboard or are some kind of Savant this stuff is only Entertainment, not Quantum or Theoretical Physics.

It's a Movie. One more made for the popcorn and sugar drink salesmen and Home Theatre types, that's it, this is not High-Art. This is not Cinema at its best. This is fantastical fluff presented as some sort of intellectual stimulation and clever storytelling. But it is a rather sloppy Shoot-Em-Up that tries to be a bit different. Despite the Critic's ravings, it is nevertheless just average.

Nothing here is new, especially the Action or the SFX. It is somewhat labored and laconic, pedestrian and plodding, with a jolt now and then of some often seen scenes of Telekinesis and remorseless wholesale slaughter shown with very little style. It is far from the creative criteria of the best of Sci-Fi and is a wholesale cribbing of better gun battles. In the end this is nothing but hyped-up Entertainment and will not stand the test of time.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:


Author: John Smith from Australia
26 April 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Looper is set in a mob controlled society in the not too distant future. The mob use 'loopers' to carry out death sentences by transporting the victims back in time to a pre-arranged time and place. When their usefulness is over, loopers themselves are transported back in time to be terminated by their younger selves (closing the loop). If a looper fails to complete the termination, the looper then becomes a target. A new mob leader takes over all 5 mob syndicates and orders all loopers to be terminated. This leads to an attempt by one looper to use time travel to prevent the mob leader taking over.

Overall the movie is good. There is action, suspense and good acting.

What irked me was the variable theory of time travel used. On one occasion a looper fails to close the loop and later on is killed. After being killed the looper is taken back to the point where his older self is transported back in time to be terminated. This happens again, when Bruce Willis fails to prevent his younger self falling from a fire escape and being killed. It took me a while to figure it out - what they are saying is that this is a time travel paradox and the paradox is not allowed to happen. However the movie ending had the looper die and this time the looper's older self disappeared. I am OK with the latter case (its similar to the grandfather paradox and in line with one of the theoretical solutions). In the first case, I did not find the approach particularly intuitive. The movie offers no explanation.

The second issue is the makeup and prosthetics used by Joseph Gordon-Levitt to look like Bruce Willis 30 years younger. Everyone knows what Bruce Willis looked like 30 years ago from Die Hard (well 25 years ago). Gordon-Levitt looks nothing like him. The makeup failed for me.

Some of the story elements are far fetched such as the complicated way the mob uses to dispose of people by transporting them back in time to be killed.

So what score to give it. Has a few deficiencies but Bruce Willis is in it - 7/10.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 11 of 65: [Prev][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Parents Guide Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history