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 guide
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 16 of 69: [Prev][11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [Next]
Index 686 reviews in total 

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:

Creepy eyes, bad prosthetic nose constantly reminds you this is a movie and not reality

Author: schf from United Kingdom
11 September 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A young murderer called Joe lives a life of pre arranged shootings and wild drug parties,until one of his suddenly materialising victims turns out to be an older version of himself. How we know this is because that's how the film has been advertised not because of any thing like a resemblance . Which bring us to the heart of my problem with the movie,Joseph gordon levitt has been made up (badly)with a rubber nose and contact lenses to try and resemble a young bruce willis .They really ,truly failed. Every single time I looked at the weird eyes of JGL it broke the reality of the film for me. Creepy, bright and totally out of place. oh dear I'm sure it was good other wise even if almost everyone in the cinema guessed the ending long before the punch. Shame i couldn't enjoy it felt like it was constantly holding up a sign saying Sack the make up department

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Terrible from the get go

Author: Marc Colten from United States
13 July 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I'll confess to being very judgmental about films and TV shows. If, in the first minutes, you see that the entire premise is absurd, I'm against the whole thing. From the minute you are told that people in the future send their contracts back 40 years to be killed by over-paid people who themselves are later killed, by themselves - the entire movie goes off the rails. Once you ask yourself why they don't send them back 10,000 years, or to the middle of the ocean - you're done.

All the rest, the TK, the Terminator rip-off, the "One" rip-off of The Matrix and others - well, it's just crap piled on crap. The time travel concepts are ridiculous. Okay, so a guy is sent back and then his current self is mutilated, which appear instantly on the older guy. So how did he spend all those years without his limbs to be sent back intact? No, I call no way. Same with the ending. So 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?

Just really lousy.

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:


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?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Weird yet original

Author: ChristianUnchained
23 April 2013

The Short: A twisting science fiction thriller with brains, brawn, and originality that doesn't disappoint in the slightest.

Looper. Where to begin? Rian Johnson has directed an incredibly quality science fiction film that is truly original. It starkly goes against the grain, focusing on strong characters and an unique premise to drive forward one of the more intense and perplexing sic-fi action films since 2009's incredible genre bender District 9.

The first great element of Looper are the characters. Both main characters, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis, are complex character studies and are anything but the cut and dry sci-fi heroes (or anti-heroes) we have seen lately from other films (such as the recent Dredd). The true surprise here is kid actor Pierce Gagnon, who no doubt has a bright and versatile acting career ahead of him. Emily Blunt plays a great character as well, both strong willed and independent. The chemistry of all these actors is very strong on screen, and it truly makes for one completely unexpected but incredibly well presented casts that is serious, funny, intriguing, and scary all at the same time.

The true, and albeit unexpected, success is the incredible plot. It is told with finesse, executed and told in a manner that is both complex but comprehendible - it puts the latest box-office success films to shame. The time traveling premise is and old story telling feature, but Looper uses the time travel premise very differently and to a great effect - it's both perplexing and entertaining to see where the movie is going to go next. It is no doubt complex, but the way the story is told and presented is ingenious and leaves no one behind.

And with all the amazing premise and creativity of Looper, it would be easy to simply let all of the artistic value be a side thought. But Looper goes against the grain even in this area. While being tremendously entertaining, Looper is never short of being artistic - it is directed with attention paid in all departments.

With all of the brilliance this film offers, it must stumble somewhere, right? Aside from a mildly cheesy part and a minimalist backdrop (both subjective opinions), Looper is darn near perfect. The only nagging flaw that Looper has is some decidedly understated scenes that, in comparison to the rest of the film, feel low budget. But in context of the plot the cheesiness is explained thoroughly and makes sense, and the intended display of a darker, but much more approachable and realistic future (and a scary one) for a wider range of audiences, Looper delivers.

And everything else in-between is just as good. The action is strikingly violent and explosive, but none the less realistic and important to the main character of Joe and his metamorphosis throughout Looper. There is one rather strong scene of innuendo, but again it's used artistically - it's a huge character turning point for Joe and a massive stray away from his current life - one that he so desperately is conflicted to live.

In the end, Looper is a redemption story. One of sacrifice, death, life, and choice. It's anything but the cut and dry we have come to know and accept in film lately, and Looper is a refreshing science fiction action that has smarts and character to boot. The only nagging flaw are just a handful of low budget scenes that needed more umph.

Despite that single gripe, Looper is without a doubt the best science fiction film since District 9 and most likely the best time traveling movie ever made.

Strong Recommendation - 4/5

Was the above review useful to you?

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?

Page 16 of 69: [Prev][11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

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