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 15 of 68: [Prev][10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [Next]
Index 671 reviews in total 

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Time Will Tell

Author: Gary170459 from Derby, UK
1 April 2013

I enjoyed this film a lot; you have to open your mind and travel back in time to when you were young and your mind was always open. The film needs the observer to take a loop, sorry, leap of faith because it does take some liberties with realities. It's full of exuberance, panache and loopholes but the plot contrivances don't bear up too well against post-analysis.

Baddies from 2074 dispose of their enemies by sending them back through time to be shot dead and incinerated in 2044. It would be too easy to send them straight into the furnace. The main character is momentarily nonplussed when his future self (Old Brucie) is sent back for slaughter leading to (both their) getaways from the 2044 baddies. The emphasis shifts slightly from time travel to telekinesis – obviously embracing 12 Monkeys, Source Code and even Children Of The Corn. It's a bloody two-dimensional chase, with even a motive for the ultimately pointless murder of two innocent children sympathetically portrayed and glossed over. The cgi cartoonery department were overused here too, what with suspended objects monetary or animate floating around – but Inception did it better. Also if a baddie from the future was chopped up in 2044 his 2074 self wouldn't be seen to fall apart dramatically limb by limb surely? By the end no matter how tender hearted the story has got you don't feel that interested in any of the characters, even to speculating how they obviously thought time could be changed just for themselves and no one else. Didn't any of them see Joan Collins in the original Star Trek for the logic to be explained simply? And on.

Engrossing, always interesting, well made and a current-time passer, thoughtful only don't think about it too much. And no, I don't want the 2 hours back.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Enjoyable character study even if premise is dubious

Author: mkham6 from RI
1 April 2013

Seriously disagree with the many reviews trashing this movie. Yes, the basic premise is idiotic- sending people back in time to be killed, but watching the relationship between Gordon-Levitt and his older self Bruce Willis is loads of fun, Gordon Levitt is becoming the go-to young actor for action flicks ("Shutup, kid")- he plays the young Bruce stupid: even after there is no reason to kill his older self, he keeps trying as though it's a point of honor. Yes, the paradoxes of time travel are unresolvable- EVERY movie has huge holes- don't let it bother you. It is so entertaining I saw it again 2 days later (very rare)- it helps to understand the convoluted plot- watching one target's fingers and limbs disappear as his younger self is butchered in the past is viscerally chilling, but I missed it the first time.

Emily Blunt is solid, sexy, and very credible; and Jeff Daniels has a meaty role as mob kingpin manager of the past.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

I enjoyed it

Author: kerangador from Singapore
27 March 2013

I liked it. OK, there were plot holes. But the acting and execution of the film did the magic trick and I didn't really notice them.

There is an art to film making and it speaks of a world where Superman can fly, Luke Skywalker can wave a "light sabre" and deflect laser bullets etc.. We don't question that at the time because we accept the craft and skill of the film maker.

He pulls that rabbit out of the hat - and he does it in such a way that we want to believe that he really did do something magical as opposed to discussing the impossibility of the physics behind the act.

That is what separates a good film from a bad one. Its so well crafted that we ignore the inconsistencies and withhold our skepticism.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

How was this not at the Oscars was definitely better than most of the movies this year

Author: WalterSoprano from United States
25 March 2013

Wow now this is an awesome great movie with story and action to excess in this futuristic mob movie. I must say first that I am a huge big time fan of Django Unchained and was pleased with its Oscar win for best original screenplay and than I realized "wait a second where the hell is Loopers best original screenplay Oscar nomination" I was completely shocked that it wasn't nominated a clever thriller with a good screen writing.

If you haven't seen this movie yet go WATCH it now it is a very good movie with the a great story to it. However if I had to say what the best movies of 2013 were the following would be my list. 1.Django Unchained 2. Looper (didn't really get released in theaters in 2013 but was considered a 2013 movie) 3. Argo 4. Seven Psychopaths 5. The Dark Knight Rises (how was this not nominated for an Oscar)

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

A strong, but flawed, SF actioner.

Author: mistabobdobolina from Canada
19 March 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

There are a few of the persistent criticisms of Looper that genuinely stick.

The biggest of them is that the plot device of the 'looper' is arm-wavy in the extreme, and doesn't stand up to close scrutiny; a lot of whether you can like or not like the film will depend on whether it falls for you at that hurdle or not. It's basically never entirely clear why it's so difficult to dispose of future bodies that time-travel is a preferable alternative (along with a host of other things, like "why send them back alive?" and "how is it that only the mob has this technology?" and "why have 'loopers' close their own loops?"), so you have to either decide to suspend disbelief for that or not.

It has also been pointed out that (this is a SPOILER) having Old Joe kill a toddler on his Terminator-esque mission to assassinate an evil criminal mastermind called the Rainmaker (whose men accidentally murder his future wife in the course of trying to 'close his loop') is rather cheap upping of the ante; I think it is valid, if horrific -- and the horrific nature of it underscores that Old Joe (Bruce Willis) is *not* on a heroic mission -- but that it could have been handled better and less manipulatively.

Lastly, it's been pointed out that the women in Looper suffer from Frank Miller Syndrome: they're almost all some variant of prostitute or junkie (current or former) with weird issues around motherhood. That isn't good and it gets distracting once one notices it.

The other common gripes about the movie look to me like cases of viewer inattention than flaws in the film itself. The time travel mechanics are straightforward and make perfect sense, the filmmakers make a good decision in having the characters *not* spend the whole movie explaining time travel to one another (much less the politics and socioeconomics of the setting -- no thank you, two-hour features are not a good venue for that). The action is appropriate and for the most part refreshingly restrained, and the one scene that isn't restrained is illustrating a specific point (about the relative back-woodness of Young Joe's Kansas mob operation that's been repeated throughout).

Some people complain about suspending disbelief for telekinesis, but it's no more or less science-fantasy territory at this point than time travel is; others complain that there were "two movies," one about time travel and one about TK, but that is false (TK is the Chekov's gun of the setting, mentioned earlier on and primed to go off by the third act, and is a good shorthand for the expansion of human potential). The cinematography is stunning, the performances (barring a few false notes from Emily Blunt) are excellent -- especially Gordon-Leavitt's Young Bruce Willis homage, which manages not to be an impersonation -- the story is involving, and on the whole I recommend it.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Had Potential

Author: mjk280 from Pittsburgh, PA
17 March 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This was a pretty good concept and when the film started I thought I could've been in for something special. Unfortunately it seems like a concept was mostly all they had, because this movie simply doesn't hold up the further along you get into it.

The first 1/3 to 1/2 of the movie is pretty entertaining. You've got the looper concept which is new, and even though it doesn't make complete sense the film moves at a brisk pace so although you might have some issues with how time travel works in this universe you can set it aside and just enjoy yourself. After a certain point in the run time though the movie just loses where it wants to go, or they decided to go in a direction that doesn't serve what they've built up to this point all that well.

Soon after Bruce Willis inserts himself into the plot the movie starts unraveling somewhat. We are given each character's motivations, but not shown much to prove them. Characters who are absolutely crucial to the plot show up halfway through. We are told of a character or characters that will have an immense impact on the life of the main character Joe, but most of it is only alluded to and we just have to take the film's word for it.

This could've actually been a sweeping, epic 3 hour journey and it may have paid off to take that risk and film the movie as such. I say that because some plot points are breezed past very quickly and a good bit of emotion that should've shone through doesn't.

One dynamic of the movie I felt was new and unique was when Joe meets his older self (Bruce Willis). Bruce is trying to convince Joe that he has to take certain action to keep his future intact, but Joe isn't interested because that's his old self's life and not really his own. This brings up a lot of interesting questions. If you could communicate with yourself 30 years into the future, would you take their advice so your life would turn out a certain way or ignore them in order for things to turn out naturally? The movie doesn't explore this beyond one scene, and it's not the main focus of the story, but it could've been.

One final criticism: You cannot have a movie about time travel and then whenever characters are forced to deal with the implications of it, have them say "Don't start talking about all that time travel stuff, it'll just make our heads spin." That's unforgivable. It's like having a character shoot someone in the head from 10 miles away and when another character asks how they can do that, they reply "You wouldn't understand." No, no, no. Unacceptable. You need to address those things or you don't have a story. Nevermind the fact that a lot of people are going to see this movie based on those types of conversations. It makes the plot more interesting not less!

Overall hardcore sci-fi fans will hate this movie but most people might enjoy it. Other than Bruce Willis killing children (offscreen but still), it's a 'meh' Hollywood product that will entertain those that don't think too hard about these sorts of things. For me even though I am a big sci-fi fan I was able to forgive the plot holes but only until the movie started dragging and took an odd turn. At that point it just added up to a somewhat nonsensical experience that didn't stick with me at all.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Critical-Thinking, Creative, Exciting

Author: Chris P from United States
26 February 2013

This movie is excellent. If you enjoy Sci-Fi, mysterious, action-packed thrillers I highly recommend it for you. Joseph Gordon Levitt has solidified himself as one of the decades most entertaining actors with this film- With help from a perfectly casted Bruce Willis and all around great supporting actors. The TRUE thing that made this movie stand out from others was its creativity. Brian Johnson (The Director & Writer) developed a whole new realm of reality where time travel becomes an issue with people's improper use. The movie like a rope that you keep following through twists and turns, which you later solve with the awesome revelation of the mystery. If you love movies that make you think creatively and cause you're imagination to run ramped, then you MUST check this movie out. Some movies I won't be interested throughout the whole film, however this movie was different. Well done Mr. Johnson. Overall an excellently creative movie which will have you thinking afterwards (:

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

More than just another summer blockbuster

Author: sgtking from United States
23 February 2013

Movies about time travel are actually quite easy to make. What isn't so easy however is making a good one. The 'Back to the Future' trilogy uses this device really well. To keep things interesting, the filmmakers should try something fresh with the concept. Enter filmmaker Rian Johnson, who by this point had directed two feature films. 'Looper' is his first foray into Science Fiction and deals with time travel. What could have been routine and forgettable is instead compelling and multilayered.

Pros: First rate performances. Cool direction. Sharply written. Breathtaking score. Beautiful cinematography. Nice production design. Some good effects. A few nice twists and turns. Well paced.

Cons: Drags in the middle a bit. Some holes.

Final thoughts: Lately, some Action and Science Fiction films have been underwhelming. Some just don't stand out enough and instead play like a rerun of great bits from other films. Though in some ways 'Looper' may remind one of classics like 'The Terminator,' it's definitely it's own movie. A lot of heart went into this and let's hope it's a sign of great things to come for the genre.

My rating: 4.5/5

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

" Picture a dog chasing his tail. Now substitute a man for the dog "

Author: thinker1691 from USA
10 February 2013

Rian Johnson is fast becoming a mainstream writer/director and his movies are proving that. This film called " Looper " is also written by him. Indeed with Bruce Willis staring in this futuristic movie it's sure to become a favorite of many. The story may be difficult to follow, but then Time travel is difficult to understand. Bruce Willis is 'Joe', a retired American Hit-man or 'Looper', living in China with his wife. Reflecting on his life, he becomes aware, his wife will become a victim of a sinister character known as 'The Rainmaker', who is the head of the strongest gang in the future, due to his powers of Telekensis. When Joe decides to prevent the future event, he discovers that the 'looper' he must stop is himself. Things really get disorienting when Joe goes back in time to meet and talk with 'Joe the younger' to try and change the past. The movie is a highly charges with danger and dark futuristic excitement as a man chases himself through the wet streets of the city in an effort to stop the future from happening. It makes for good drama and soul searching events when one realizes that one cannot change what already exists. The cast is extremely top notch and includes Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Emily Blunt and Jeff Daniels as Abe. Recommended. ****

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Loop the loop

Author: jc-osms from United Kingdom
10 February 2013

I like science-fiction and in particular plots involving time-travel but with this film was too much put off by the for me, over-complicated plot and unlike-ability of the lead character in all his incarnations.

That main character, played largely by Joseph Gordon-Leavitt is a futuristic assassin who waits at an appointed place and time in the past to ruthlessly shoot down in cold blood, bound and blindfolded mob victims conveniently sent back in time to be dispatched by time-travel controlling gangsters.This routine of ritual murder was played out too many times for me to be effective and actually ended up being offensive. Moreover, Leavitt's character gives you no other reason to care for or even like him, living a hedonistic drugs and girls-fuelled life-style. Just when you think he's about to show a degree of loyalty to a hunted-down friend and colleague, he obligingly turns him in under hardly the strongest of intimidation by admittedly still imposing gang master Jeff Daniels.

Things get further complicated when he encounters his future-self, played by Bruce Willis, out on a back-in-time mission to take out the infant who has later grown up to be the murderer of his wife. Said child is cooped up in a rambling wooden house Deepintheheartofnowhere,being brought up in between violent mood-swings by his tomboy, gun-toting young mom. The story lines converge around a surprising twist at the end, but not before a lot of hootin' and-a-shootin' takes place.

I tried really hard to keep up with the plot but kept getting skewered by awkwardly-placed events of little apparent relevance or merit, particularly a gratuitous out-of-nowhere sex scene between Leavitt and Blunt, the possible incestuous overtones of which don't bear thinking about.

Like I said earlier, none of the characters evoked any sympathy or even interest in me and I found the violence brutal and over-bearing, deadening my faculties long before the end. It's set up of course for old-hand Willis to steal the show, tooled up like it was the 80's again, but I'm not sure there was much of a show here to steal in the first place.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 15 of 68: [Prev][10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [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