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 »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 14 of 68: [Prev][9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [Next]
Index 677 reviews in total 

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Hollywood, Plagiarism is Thy Name...

Author: Farid_Hijab-Nadweed from Lapjat
18 July 2015

Watch the Korean film "2009: Lost Memories", Looper is plagirism right down to the camera angles.

Why would they remake a film by the master and fail to credit it? The whole idea behind remaking films is to remake something that was maybe a good idea but had bad execution. The original "2009: Lost Memories" is a 10 top to bottom, story, script, action, actors, direction, why did they try to remake perfection.

Danny Day lewis is good but when you start comparing him to the pain and anguish Min-Chu Park convaed in the Korean version there is no way to compare the two. Also I like Spike Lee and some of his work but he was the wrong choice for this.

Still not sure who thought this was a good idea, it's like eating a McRib when you can have Korean BBQ, which one sounds better to you. Watch the Korean version.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

"No spoilers will be shown, in your wildest."

Author: cmv32261 from United States
11 May 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Very disappointing ending, just because Joe from the present shot and killed himself preventing future Joe from killing Sarah does not guarantee that Seth would not grow up to be the Rainmaker, the kid had a very short fuse. Very disappointing ending, just because Joe from the present shot and killed himself preventing future Joe from killing Sarah does not guarantee that Seth would not grow up to be the Rainmaker, the kid had a very short fuse. My review does not contain enough lines, yet I repeated all that needs to be said about the movie. Very disappointing ending, just because Joe from the present shot and killed himself preventing future Joe from killing Sarah does not guarantee that Seth would not grow up to be the Rainmaker, the kid had a very short fuse.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Loop the Loop

Author: Guy from UK
7 May 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

LOOPER is such a refreshingly good American film that it's almost possible to forget that it's essentially a B-movie. The plot is based on the idea that time travel will be invented in the future but will be criminalised, so that the only people to use it are the Mafia, who send their victims back in time to be killed in the past by specialised hit- men called Loopers. Once you accept that absurdity - and the presence of telekinetic powers - the film creates a simple but clever plot, in which one of these hit-men finds himself asked to kill his future, older self. He fails and soon finds the mafia after him, whilst his older self tries to hunt down the man who will kill his (their) wife in the future. The future is well imagined in low key ways - unusually for a SF flick, half the film is set in rural areas - and intelligent. What really sets it apart though is the cleverness of writer- director Rian Johnson, who elevates what ought to be a generic B- picture through a masterful use of music, writing, editing and image.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Couldn't Get Through It.

Author: dwpeaker from Windsor, Ontario
31 December 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I wanted to stop watching "Looper" about a half-hour in. I stuck it out for another half hour, then went and surfed the net, listening with half an ear while my wife continued to watch. (She didn't like it either.)

I could say many negative things about "Looper"--the premise was clunky and absurd; the pace lethargic; the plot unfocused--but what made me stop watching was that I simply did not care what happened. Both young Joe and old Joe were brutal assassins which hardly made them sympathetic characters. The stakes didn't seem important--they had to stop the villainous Rainmaker from wiping out the crime lords of the future and killing off the assassins. Making the future safe for crime isn't exactly an inspiring goal. Granted, old Joe wanted to save his wife as well, but she had hardly screen time so I didn't really care about her either.

In summary: Didn't hate the villain, didn't love the hero, didn't care about the outcome.

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:

Looper Fails to Excite

Author: jb_campo from United States
15 July 2014

I had high expectations of Looper, but ended up disappointed in the final product. The story falls flat and gets caught in its own repetitive loop, which drags it down the tubes.

Joseph G-Levitt lives in the past, does drugs, and is a looper whose job is to kill people sent back from the future by mobsters. Apparently the bad guys cannot just kill someone in the future, so they grab them, send them back in time, illegally, and the looper kills them for silver. This guy is a loser who just goes around killing people with no soul or purpose or respect or really anything at all. He just does what he's told to do, sleepwalking through life, and getting paid for. His only marginal friend is not really a friend. He shows his social side by studying French, a useless throw-in that served no apparent purpose.

How many times do we need to see this guy shoot somebody with his special gun? I didn't count the numbers, but enough already!! We get the point - he kills people. Kind of reminds me of 8 Mile, when the first few F-bombs have an impact, then you just get numb from overuse. Obviously, the plot didn't have enough depth, so the director used this tactic as a filler that added no value.

Enter Bruce Willis, Levitt's older version from 30 years in the future. OK you think, now it's going to get interesting. Not really. Willis and Levitt had no real chemistry. Casting mistake here. You learn some stuff about Willis in the future, and you learn he's trying to preserve his future by controlling his past. OK, yep, we saw this in Terminator 1, 2, 3. Nothing new here.

There are chase scenes, and killings, and an interesting Diner scene, but really, the story drags. I started using fast forward so I could get somewhere where something would happen. The final scene takes place on this farm which I think lasts a good 30 minutes, and brings in Emily Blunt. She does an OK acting job, but her role again lacks depth of character, so there's not much to work with. The ending, oh wow, what a surprise...not. Figure it out yourself, you don't have to be too imaginative.

Boring plot, disappointing chemistry, ad nauseum killing, standard b-grade acting. I cannot recommend this film, despite the advertising you see. It's just a poor film all around. I recommend instead Source Code which plays on a time travel theme, without the killing, and a superb storyline with superior acting. Skip Looper - it stinks.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Yet another one

Author: contle
27 June 2014

The idea, to make a movie that is more romantic than the Twelve Monkeys and more philosophical than the Butterfly Effect is a nice try, but it failed.

The time travel stories' basic problem is the paradox, what happens, if someone changes the past, and if it is even possible. In this one the concept is different than the usual, and the more it is shown, the more mistakes come out. The story is also nonsense, the characters are not real, skipping the reasonable choices. The writer didn't show the script to anyone before filming?

It disappoints me, that kneading some ideas, action, drama with time traveling can be called a sci-fi.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Not bad, but not as good as it thinks it is

Author: Leofwine_draca from United Kingdom
7 May 2014

LOOPER is the latest Hollywood movie to tackle the thorny topic of time travel. This one's a little bit like the Van Damme vehicle TIMECOP, although it strives to be less cheesy and more realistic thanks to the presence of former indie director Rian Johnson, who also made the high school murder mystery BRICK with Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Gordon-Levitt plays an assassin who executes criminals sent back from the future for spurious reasons, although inevitably he soon finds his life spiralling out of control when things take an unexpected twist.

I really wanted to like this film. It feels fresh and appealing in many ways, and visually it's a triumph. Gordon-Levitt's performance is fine, although that prosthetic make-up is distracting, and it's fair to say that Bruce Willis is pretty good too, as this is probably the best performance he's given in a while. The action sequences, when they come, are efficiently handled.

So what gives, then? Well, the truth is that LOOPER isn't quite as entertaining as it thinks it is. For once, the story doesn't really work under close scrutiny. All of the other time travel movies I've seen have made a point of not allowing the characters to encounter themselves in another time period, as this would cause a paradox. In this one, Willis and Gordon-Levitt share cups of coffee together, and it never quite gels.

In addition, the pacing is off, with long, boring and tension-free interludes spent sitting around in a farmhouse with the miscast Emily Blunt. Yet another twist involves characters who are telekinetic, which is all a little too much; wasn't the time travel plot enough? Although it's not bad for what it is, LOOPER doesn't hold a candle to the ultra-efficient low budget Spanish time travel movie, TIMECRIMES.

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?

Page 14 of 68: [Prev][9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [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