|Page 11 of 65:||               |
|Index||648 reviews in total|
I was surprised to see that this film received so many good reviews and
has a high overall grade. Although it wants to be an interesting and
intelligent sci fi thriller, I think it fails that mission. I do not
like particularly acting as well. Although Bruce Willis is very renown
actor, I do not like his acting or films he participates in.
In the beginning this film had some promising parts but quickly turns into shooting action film. It is fine by me who likes those kind of films but I thought that this film was supposed to be a sci fi film, which only is a friction of time.
Altogether, I can freely recommend that you skip this film I barely waited for its ending.
Looper is one of the better time travel movies I've seen. I put Back to
the Future at the top of that list and maybe Butterfly Effect then 12
Monkeys. Now, there are other movies with time travel in them although
it's not the main focus. X-Men: Days of Future Past, Terminator and T2,
for instance, are about time travel in a general sense but the movies
aren't built upon the premise of time travel.
In the movie Looper time travel is illegal. The mob uses it to do hits. Send the guy back in time to a designated spot, have a guy kill him and dispose of the body. Very clean and no traces. The hit men, or loopers as they're called, get paid handsomely in silver for their hits. If they have to kill their future self, they get paid in gold and live out the rest of their days (up to the point they're sent back) how they like. That is called closing the loop.
I mention that part to bring forth the point that all time travel movies have inherent flaws that can't be avoided and this is no different. Even though the concept of time travel is an interesting one and has been toyed with for ages it opens up conundrums. You will quickly see the conundrum that is created in this movie when the older Joe (Bruce Willis) attempts to change the past. But even with that there is enough going on to get lost into without dwelling on the paradoxes of time travel.
The movie has some nice action and a terrific overall story. I like the casting because they really pulled this movie off. The characters are good enough to draw you in and make you concerned with the outcome. And you know that anything with Bruce Willis will involve a lot of shooting and high body counts. This movie is no different there but you may just like it.
When you have an all star cast and a great trailer and you still buzz
under the radar, it's worrying to some consumers.
I didn't expect Looper to be a massive cluster**** like it was.
The trailer looked interesting, the guns looked cool, the cast had J Gordon Levitt and Bruce Willis, the plot seemed nice, but once you watch this movie, you wonder what the hell just happened.
First things first, nothing went right with this movie except for maybe should'ves.
The movie is painstaking to watch, immature, nonsensical, stupid, lazy, boring, and just feels disconnected. Like, what you're watching has nothing to do with you. Not the kind of movie I want to watch. I want to be dragged into the atmosphere.
The plot is so convoluted that it leaves you out of the LOOP about twenty thousand times.
I'm done with this movie. There is nothing to like about this movie except for when it ends. And when it ends, it feels like somebody threw you in lava, dragged you out, and did everything to make you feel better than ever. Know why? You've just began your life after watching this garbage. Now you realize how better life is. And it might seem like I'm exaggerating, but I'm not kidding. This movie is awful. I want to give it a zero. If there was ever a movie that deserved a zero, it's this garbage. One of the worst movies ever, and if you've watched it, you probably agree. And if you're one of the people who helped it get a 7, shame on you, sadist.
Rian Johnson did a great job of directing, catching every little detail and emotion to make this film great. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, one of my favorite actors is great in this movie, capturing the older Joe, Bruce Willis, and the makeup department did a great job. The story is great and original, from what I've seen, in every aspect. Although there are some plot holes from the time continuum concept, it is the way the story goes so I accept it. The originality of 'Looper' is by far the best aspect of it. It is fresh, new and exhilarating all at the same time. You are back in the spot where you are trying to figure out what is going on and piecing the events together. You have to process what happened and think about all that is going on to figure it out, and I enjoy doing that. Great praise and adoration for 'Looper.'
*** 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
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.
*** 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
Despite the long rant, I would still recommend this movie to fans of sci fi or thrillers.
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!
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.
*** 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
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.
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.
|Page 11 of 65:||               |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||Newsgroup reviews||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|