IMDb > Looper (2012) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Looper
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
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
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Looper More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 12 of 67: [Prev][7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [Next]
Index 667 reviews in total 

Good, but with plenty of disappointments.

8/10
Author: tamer_han from United Kingdom
24 July 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

SPOILER ALERT!!!! I gave it an 8 out of 10, but was split between a that and a 7. It was a good film with some original ideas. I felt that the acting was a little weak by all. A little uniqueness could have made a big difference. The little kid had the most unique look out of all of them. That look in his eyes before all hell broke loose was convincing, and I hope to see him in some future films. Bruce Willis' character could of easily been replaced with any other actor. I didn't think he brought anything unique to the film. Only thing he had going for him is that the eyes looked like a little convincingly like Joseph Gordon- Levitt's. Even to see that, I think you needed to look a little hard. Maybe squint a little. Overall, I liked what they did with the little kid, even though his powers seemed like it was stolen from X-Men, with the all powerful TK girl. I hope to see him again in the future.

Overall, it definitely wasn't a disappointment. Well worth a watch. Some good surprises, but it definitely isn't the movie of the year...

Was the above review useful to you?

A bit of a 'Time' waster!

6/10
Author: tomosp1965 from Cumbria, England
27 April 2015

I so looked forward to this film, as I enjoy 'timetravel' movies. But after sitting through nearly two and a half hours of this movie, I left relieved it was finally finished, and bemused as to why the makers had chosen to have so many long boring scenes. The actors look bored most of the time, and there is some miscasting. Bruce Willis seems to have been cast as a lure for the paying public, whilst Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a dreary and unlikely action hero.

The story is puzzling, leaving more questions than answers, plus the premise is weak, which left me bemused and head scratching at the end.

As for entertainment, well its an OK film. The action, (though sparse) will keep you watching, but at the end you will wonder why you bothered.

Was the above review useful to you?

Entertaining, but kind of dumb

6/10
Author: Hoagie-Man
16 April 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

No, this is not a bad movie. There is a lot to appreciate from it and it is one of the better action movies of the year. It has a lot of interesting ideas, unique characters even decent to great performances. This is definitely a movie that would make you think, but unfortunately that is my biggest problem with this movie.

Let's just say, if you are planning on seeing this movie with the intention to find flaws, then good for you because you are going to find A LOT of them. These are mostly found in its confusing and inconsistent time-travel plot. Personally I don't think you can make a perfect time-travel movie, but you can at least make a decent one. When a time-travel film leaves the results of the events unanswered it is mostly presented to be left up to assumption, but when the film does give the results and it doesn't make sense, you're going to have a lot of questions. And by that I mean: Why would they go through the trouble of having loopers? How did Old Joe even defeat his captors when it clearly shows he wasn't able to do so in his own time line? And finally (SPOILER!!!) If Cid's mother Sara didn't die, thus not leading up to the events of the future (as well as Joe being shot in the process), shouldn't the entire plot not even exist?

Despite its flaws, it's still a lot of fun to watch, but if you're the type of person that isn't able to enjoy a movie because of the plot holes, then you should probably just skip this one.

Was the above review useful to you?

Not for logical folks

6/10
Author: Michael Hurricane from Iceland
28 February 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Self-sacrifice is not worth it.

When i review a movie I think of it as it could actually happen( By the logic of the universe that the movie is happening in) and time travel, no thank you, by no means could actually be real. There was nothing special about it, no outstanding performance or nothing.

The casting. This movie had Bruce Willis and Joseph what ever his name is. But they didn't even do that well, I expected more from them.

The locations/shots. There was no shots really outstanding or wallpaper worthy. I didn't even notice the locations, i guess the big field was the best (background?) location.

Was the above review useful to you?

I did not particularly liked it.

5/10
Author: petarmatic from Sarajevo B&H
7 February 2015

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

One of the Better Time Travel Movies

8/10
Author: view_and_review from California
5 February 2015

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

Looper: one of the worst movies of all time

1/10
Author: joelsmith190
29 January 2015

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

Great praise and adoration for 'Looper.'

9/10
Author: asindt98 from Nebraska
28 January 2015

Looper 86

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.'

Was the above review useful to you?

Inconsistent Core Story

7/10
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.

***SPOILERS BELOW***

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

7/10
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?


Page 12 of 67: [Prev][7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

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