Looper (2012) Poster

(2012)

User Reviews

Add a Review
697 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
7/10
I wish the writer had finished the movie he started
David Jones29 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Don't get me wrong; this movie is very well made. It was well acted, shot and directed. I was never bored.

But I started out watching a movie about a hit man who shoots mob victims sent back in time from the future, and knows that his final victim will be his older self. Interesting idea--even if it's not very plausible. But okay, let's just run with it. That's the movie I saw in the trailers, the one I expected to see.

So, when his future self comes back, present-day self hesitates for a moment and future self gets the drop on him and runs off. Now present-day self must hunt down and kill future self. Also interesting.

SPOILER FOLLOWS

But then, it's all about a telekinetic farm kid who will one day rule the world with an iron fist. . . er, brain. . . if he isn't stopped.

Huh. . . ? Where the hell did that come from? I know, I know, it's foreshadowed by showing us that 10% of the population has trivial telekinetic powers. They can make coins float above their hands.

But to me, this film starts one story and then switches in mid-stream to a story stemming from a second, unrelated science fiction premise.

While it was refreshing that the movie didn't just turn into a series of action sequences in which JGL tries to kill BW (which would have been a pretty one-sided conflict, admittedly) I found this shift in emphasis to be far more distracting than Joseph Gordon-Levitt's prosthetic nose. Which I never had a problem with.

Anyway, I appear to be the only one bothered by this so just go ahead and enjoy the movie.
538 out of 749 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Badly Conceived.
Calvin Evans30 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Looper was enjoyable enough but I really can't understand all the praise. Maybe I expected too much of this film, but I was looking forward to a slick piece of speculative sci-fi that was thought- provoking, realistic and fairly deep. Instead, I got a lazily strung together generic action movie with a splash of time travel and super- powers.

"I don't want to talk time travel sh*t" or something along those lines is commonly used in this film to breeze past any plot holes and presumably stop the narrative become too complex. This irked me as it was one of the main draws in my opinion.

I was very frustrated by the little amount of effort that was put in to creating a futuristic society. Forget the realistic near-future depicted spectacularly in films such as Children of Men. This world is more akin to the recent Dredd 3D film. Shallow and lacking in realism. Personally, I would love to have had more information on the state of government etc as the mobs seemed to be running everything but there really isn't any explanation given to this at all.

The dynamics of time travel in this film are completely unbelievable. The notion that you can chop someone leg or whatever off and their "future self" will lose it is completely absurd. You're clearly creating a brand new entity when you come back in time. Put it this way. If I created a copy of myself from 0.1 seconds ago next to me. Are we going to be magically linked? Probably not. It also presupposes some sort of multi-verse scenario, in which case, Bruce Willis's character shouldn't even exist in that eventuality. I don't want to rant about this too much but I thought of all the ways they could depict time travel. This was one of the worst.

And then there are the superpowers. Come on. Everyone has pretty much agreed biological evolution is basically over for us and it's all about technical augmentation now. The idea that in 33 years we'll be developing telekinesis is laughable to the point where the fact you're meant to accept this is almost offensive.

On top of this, the whole plot in general is very hard to swallow and lacks in verisimilitude. Again, I find myself being forced to accept these absurd scenarios such as the fact that the mob can't dispose of bodies, but can set up secret time machines?? Or that they have to send them 30 years back in time and not just 2 billion years or whatever.

And then there's the 30 year montage. Oh dear lord. I turned to my girlfriend and said. "Man, don't you just hate it when you get old and suddenly you're Bruce Willis". There was actually laughter in the cinema when Levitt morphs into Willis.

All in all, I really wouldn't agree with the reviews saying its clever etc. In my opinion the plot is extremely lazy and is secondary to the action. Which is fine. If you want to watch an action film. One of the main reason's I've even written this view is to counterbalance these reviews raving about this very mediocre film calling it a "masterpiece". I read reviews touting it's cleverness or how it goes to extra lengths to not leave plot holes and I think: am I even watching the same movie here?

Personally, I found myself rather disappointed.
461 out of 691 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
A disappointing let down from start to finish - caused by bad plot
J Goron6 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
!SPOILER ALERT! Contrary to the trailers, this is NOT a film about time travel. It IS a film about a telekinetic toddler (who is not in the trailers).

If you are expecting this film to be like Blade Runner, Primer or 13 Monkeys, then you may well be VERY disappointed.

Only about 5 minutes of the film seemed to actually involve time travel or Bruce Willis fighting his past self. When the story does attempt to explore these issues it does so embarrassingly badly. Half way through the film the plot changes AWAY from time travel and becomes a film about trying to kill a telekinetic little boy in the current day. A boy who has only a very weak connection to the initial plot about time travel.

This is really two entirely different plots badly mixed in to one. One plot is about time travel. The other plot is about the dangers of toddlers with uncontrollable telekinesis. Unfortunately the film does neither of these plots well, and ends up ruining both.

To make matters worse, the film moves very slowly in certain places. This just gives the audience time to think about how bad the plot it is.

There is virtually no action either - unless you count Bruce Willis's character shooting defenseless toddlers (for which the certificate should surely be more than 15), or needless torture and execution scenes. There is just a lot of running away from people taking badly aimed pot shots. (This happens a lot). Apparently nobody can shoot straight in the future. The only action scene worthy of the name comes in the last 5 minutes where Bruce Willis suddenly turns ninja and takes out ALL the bad guys in about 30 seconds, and then walks off. It's almost as if the writers got to the end of the story and then thought, "Oh yeah - we should probably have Bruce Willis firing some guns or something ..."

This film fails so pathetically to deal with time travel that it is frankly insulting to the audience. They don't give good explanations about why time travel exists, or how it works. Fair enough. There is a certain suspension of disbelief in any time travel movie. However, they DO establish certain rules about time travel during the film, which they then break, re-establish and break again whenever it is convenient for the writers.

Bruce Willis attempts to explain time travel, and give a justification for the writer's itinerant stance on the matter, only to then smash is hands on the table and angrily shout "It doesn't matter!". This makes it clear that the writers didn't even think they were being clever or original. They clearly knew the plot made no sense, and they were just making a pathetic excuse about time travel being "flaky" to justify their random plot lurches and inconsistencies.

The whole premise of a "Looper" was never satisfactorily explained: 1) Why did the mafia boss who supposedly "owned" the city live in a little basement? In his pajamas? 2) "It is almost impossible to get rid of a body in the future, because of tracking ... cough ... something ... cough-cough." So NATURALLY using time travel is the EASIEST of the available options to dispose of a body!? If a body disappears from the future, for example in a furnace, then surely it also disappears from the future in time travel? Same difference. 3) If mafia in the future are the sole owners and users of time travel, then why don't they just use it to take over the world so that they don't need to even worry about disposing of bodies? 4) Why didn't they just send the loopers back already dead when closing a loop, so that there was no possibility of failure? 5) Why did they always get THE SAME looper to close THEIR OWN loop? Asking for trouble. 6) Why even have more than one looper? Surely the job wasn't that strenuous that they needed to take shifts?

They broke their own rules on time travel, and made the ending of the film impossible and irrelevant given the events in the middle: As soon as the younger version shot himself at the end, then he 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 rain man, and so the rain man would not be standing there in the corn field. Everything would have reverted back to how it was before - in exactly the same way that it DID DO EARLIER on in the film when he fell off the balcony and died and the bit where Bruce Willis traveled back in time got repeated. The rain man 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.

They never actually explained WHY the first thing the rain man wanted to do was to kill the loopers in the future. Presumably it was because they were the only people who could go back in time and possibly stop him? So why didn't he just kill them with telekinesis like he did the rest of his enemies? Why did he chose to kill them in the ONLY method which would actually give them the opportunity to stop him in the past - namely, by sending them back to the past, alive.

The story never really addressed or capitalized on Bruce Willi's character being evil. This could have been a great angle to really explore, but instead they just washed over it.

This film was a dismal train wreck of ideas with great potential.
416 out of 637 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Terminator meets Twilight Zone, Season 3, Episode 8
Turfseer29 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
The near universal critical acclaim for 'Looper' is something I'm having a hard time fathoming. I suppose we haven't seen a great sci-fi thriller in such a long time, that as soon as a mediocre to average flick such as this one comes along, everyone is jumping on the bandwagon, practically calling it a masterpiece!

My first problem with 'Looper' is the overall concept. A crime syndicate in the future (2074)wants to dispose of its victims by sending them 30 years back into the past and have them disposed of by hit men, who they pay with bars of silver. Once these hit men (the loopers) live their lives for thirty years, the syndicate decides to dispose of them by sending them back to 2044, where they'll be disposed of, sometimes even by their younger selves.

It's explained that in the future bodies are 'tagged' so by sending them back in time, they cannot be traced. But why can't the syndicate send their victims in the present immediately back to 65 million B.C. where they would probably be immediately eaten by a dinosaur or other prehistoric animal, thus preventing the time-line from being tampered with? And by cutting out the middlemen (i.e. the loopers) in this way, the syndicate can keep all the profits for themselves.

Once we're introduced to the novelty of the how the looper scheme operates, the novelty soon wears off. We see Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) traveling to the cornfield and then performing executions one too many times. Finally, there's a plot twist: fellow looper Seth appears at Joe's apartment, explaining that his 30 year old self from the future appears in the cornfield and he's unable to finish the job. Abe, the enforcer from the future, forces Joe to betray Seth, who's tortured and his alter ego from the future is hunted down. You might ask what this has to do with time travel or science-fiction. Actually nothing--it's simply all action-thriller at this point in time in the script.

Soon, Joe finds himself in the same position as Seth. His 30 year old future self (Bruce Willis) appears but manages to prevent younger Joe from doing him in. In a rather derivative idea borrowed from the 'Terminator' series, Willis must dispose of a child who will one day grow up to be the 'Rainmaker', the sinister figure in the future who is now bent on eliminating all the loopers.

It might have been interesting had we seen what this Rainmaker character looked and acted like in the future, but that never occurs. We're asked to be content with meeting little Cid, our future Rainmaker, who has telekinetic powers coupled with a severe anger management problem. One is immediately reminded of Billy Mumy in the Season 3 Twilight Zone episode, "It's a Good Life", who plays a mutant who terrifies adults by 'wishing them away to the cornfield'. So the second half of 'Looper' feels much more like fantasy-horror than Sci-fi action thriller.

The meeting between the younger and older Joes in the diner is perhaps the most interesting scene in the film as it underscores the contrast between the more impulsive younger self with the more seasoned, experienced older one. Unfortunately, there is hardly any additional interaction between the two altar egos, with older Joe stalking off to blow away Abe and his crew of malevolent meanies. In true Bruce Willis fashion, the aging 'Die Hard' legend, is up to his old tricks, by machine-gunning most of the bad guys, sans Kid Blue, who appears out of nowhere on his flying motorcycle and immediately gets himself killed, instead of Joe, who is his intended target.

If the Looper second half feels a bit slower than the first, that's because director Rian Johnson spends a little too much time out on the farm, with Joe courting Sara (Emily Blunt). Although there's a feeling that we've seen this before, the ending proves to be passable as we finally have something to feel good about. Younger Joe sacrifices himself, preventing older Joe from killing Sara. He does this after he's able to foresee that Cid, growing up as the Rainmaker, will hold a perpetual grudge due to the murder of his mother and will take it out on all of humanity (including all the loopers) in the future.

Unfortunately, Joe's sacrifice, is not enough to make either young Joe or older Joe, likable. Younger Joe, before he takes his own life, is a criminal and a drug addict and older Joe, is responsible for murdering the second child on his list of three potential Rainmakers. In terms of a sympathetic protagonists, there's little to like here at all.

'Looper' is also unable to score points with its look at the dystopian future. One feels that one is simply viewing a second hand set from 'Robocop'--in that film, 'Old Detroit' looks remarkably similar to Looper's Kansas City of 2044 including the grimy 'futuristic' cars and emphasis on vagrancy as a national blight.

The performances in Looper are all acceptable, with an honorable mention going to little Pierce Gagnon as Cid, who manages to handle a number of complicated lines and take direction in a fashion way above his chronological age.

In the end, Looper proves only mildly interesting. While some of the action sequences are entertaining, the sci-fi premise is not developed into something clever enough to deserve all the the accolades that have been heaped upon it to date.
235 out of 374 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Very clever, very original and very welcome.
janus-2029 September 2012
I would have thought it doubtful that anyone could have anything new to add to the sci-fi sub category of time travel movies. After watching Looper yesterday, i'm happy to report that Rian Johnson has removed those doubts and given me hope that sci-fi in Hollywood can be more than just empty spectacle.

First off i would say, don't get discouraged from watching the film if you think its going to be too complex or difficult to follow. To follow the story and recognise characters motivations does require a little concentration, but not to the point that you wont enjoy the action beats and other more visceral elements.

The story is well constructed, information and plot points are presented at an entertaining and well judged pace. There are some nice little throw away visual references and metaphors which, if you catch them, add a nice texture to the story and stop it feeling too clinical in its plotting.

The script is tight, hard edged and very dry in its humour, the actors are fantastic. I think its fair to say that Joseph Gordon-Levitt is well on his way to being "one to watch", Bruce Willis pops back to life here, clearly enjoying himself again, (although i wouldn't say this is solely a Bruce Willis movie in that definition).

This is a brilliant movie experience, its an wholly original and entertaining idea, that the writer/director has managed to successfully transpose to film without, it would appear to a layman, pressure or interference from external sources.

No matter how much of a good time you will have watching this film (and you will), Hollywood could stand to learn much more from it.
458 out of 755 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Refreshingly original
markdroulston27 September 2012
Sitting here the day after viewing Rian Johnson's Looper, parts of it are still falling in to place. Standing out amongst this years crop of mostly underwhelming sequels and comic book adaptations, Looper thunders onto the screen, showing, much like Inception did two years ago, that there is a place in 2012 for fresh material and just how good it can be when it's done right.

The film tells the story of Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a hit-man for an organised crime syndicate tasked with assassinating targets sent from the future. After being confronted with his future self (Bruce Willis) and failing to perform, Young Joe is forced to track down Old Joe and finish the job before being tracked down himself by the nefarious mob led by Abe (Jeff Daniels). However there is much more to the story than the basic premise, and Johnson isn't afraid to keep details close to his chest until later in the film than most movies of this type, so I won't spoil them here.

While certainly paying subtle homage to its predecessors, Looper is a stunningly original sci-fi masterpiece, vastly superior to any of the higher profile action releases this year. While certainly made on a much larger playing field than Johnson's previous work (Brick, The Brothers Bloom), there is still a small-scale, independent feel to the film, and it benefits from clearly staying completely under the control of the young director. Delivering excitement sprinkled with thoughtful themes of personal sacrifice, he offers us much to chew on.

Johnson understands that a successful action film doesn't need an explosion every ten minutes, and allows ample time for developing character and story, something which will likely divide audiences. Looper is very deliberately constructed, and after the highly charged opening establishing the intricate time-travel premise and direction of the plot, Johnson scales back the action almost too much as he ambitiously juggles the many and varied story elements he has created. Thankfully, any weakness in the middle of the film is largely overshadowed as Johnson launches the third act with such ferocity that the stark change of pace leaves you breathless.

Despite the problems in the middle of the film, Looper overcomes its flaws purely by being that rare beast in Hollywood nowadays, the totally original script. Not an adaptation, not a sequel or remake, but a fresh idea from the mind of an immensely talented young film-maker. In a perfect world, Looper would be the game changer it deserves to be, slapping Hollywood studios across the face and announcing that not everything has to be a PG-13 franchise based on a comic book. It's unlikely that this will the case, and it remains to be seen whether or not the film will even be a success, but it's encouraging to see that there are young auteurs at work who are fighting to craft new and exciting stories, even if we only get to see the results every year or two.

tinribs27.wordpress.com
192 out of 314 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
To quote the main character: „It's messy."
haosstoposto1 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This story was written by someone who does not comprehend even the basics of time travel problems and paradoxes. It is a mystery why this chaos received so high grades. The plot in short: mafia from the future sends their assassination targets into the present to be disposed of; in the present there are killers, so called loopers (organized by a sadist from the future) who await their targets and kill them. Before or later, the looper receives a mission to kill his future self. Some of them fail to do so. And then the chase begins. First of all, the premise is pretty stupid, to use such advanced technology for such mundane goal. In the movie they have explained, that in the future it is impossible to get rid of someone without being tracked. It is, as it seems, far easier to build a time machine then to avoid tracking technology from a collapsed society. Then we have a pretty horrifying (and illogical) scene of punishment for a failed looper. His present self is mutilated and his future self loses his limbs one by one. This is wrong, all his wounds have been inflicted in the past so they would appear all at once in the future. And it is unresolved if his present self has been killed or will they keep him alive for the next few decades without his limbs, until he is sent into the present. Then we have our „hero", Joe who escapes his captors in the future, escapes his present looper-self and begins his search for a mysterious future mafia boss, the elusive „Rainmaker", who in the future has killed his wife. Then begins a „Terminator-rip-off". Terminator-Joe from the future does not have exact information about Rainmaker, only his date of birth and he manages to narrow his search to only three kids he will have to kill. He eliminates two targets and of course, his past self protects the real Rainmaker, the fact that it HAS TO BE KNOWN to his future self even before his trip to the past, because it is past, no matter when the audience has find out this. Then the Terminator-Joe eliminates his entire (ex-)gang and there is a showdown between him, his present-self and the Rainmaker-Kid. The situation is resolved when the present Joe kills himself and the Terminator-Joe disappears. Which would set in motion time traveling paradox: Terminator Joe does not exist so he cant be sent into the past and all his actions would be reversed. But no, all his actions in the movie remain. The Rainmaker-kid survives and he will grow up not to be mafia boss but exemplary member of future society. The end. Oh, and this Rainmaker-kid has a Carrie-like telekinetic abilities, which has nothing to do with a plot and is complete superficial. As for the pacing of the movie, it is horrible. We begin with a bang (literary), then a movie comes to a halt and we have an hour or so pure boredom (or character „development"). Then we have a final shoot out. All in all a very bad experience, caused by a fanboy-hype. If you want to see Bruce Willis travel through time, watch „12 Monkeys", a far superior movie in every sense.
222 out of 375 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Unfortunate this movie is getting so many negative reviews and comments
luckynumchris15 October 2012
I've been reading many reviews and the discussion boards on this site, and after just coming back from enjoying it, I was very disappointing to see so many negative reviews and comments. I'm definitely going to be responding to some comments in the discussion boards from some specific details of the movie, but for now I will just write a review. And a positive review since there is so many haters out there.

Firstly I have to say I am a big fan of sci-fi and specifically time travel. And as a huge fan I can see how since you're doing a movie/story about something that doesn't exist, or something we don't understand, of course there will be some plot holes and always ask, "why didn't he do this" or, "why couldn't they do that" or "he could've just done this" but being a film with only so much time to tell this unique story I think it did a great job with it. It takes a black-noir sort of character and puts him in the year 2044, where time travel hasn't even been invented yet but eventually does and used by only secret criminal organizations. These organizations seem to gather future "trash" and are disposed by loopers who are told to wait at a specific time and wait to pull the trigger. Which so happens to be our protagonist (who suspiciously reminds me of Max Payne). Now the kind of people that are sent back in time to be killed by "loopers" (yes there is more than one), we are given no prior knowledge of who they were or what they have done. What I really enjoyed was the fact of, what they considered is bad? Who deserved to die?

Anyway we are given a few glimpses of how the rest of the city looks in this time and how a first world country in some parts, looks like a third world country in others. People thrive on scraps, constantly stealing from one another and just surviving. While the rich are comfortable and most probably criminals or in some way affiliated with the crime land. Now I know this can be considered very cheap and cliché, but clichés are clichés for a reason. It's supposed to show how the world is brought down by it being run by criminal minds. People from the future who come from the past to make the past "better" and how these people are ignored for rich people to think of themselves. Which was the point of the movie, because when you are talking about changing the future, do you want to change the future to make it better for you? Or for the rest of the world? This would make more sense to people who have seen this movie, but for those of you that haven't, I just hope you don't read a lot of these "reviews" and decide not to "waste your money." It talks about time travel, different dimensions and for being a time travel movie leaves very little holes (of course they are some but it's inevitable in a sci-fi).

I can't finish this review without saying how great the cinematography of this film was. At time you could just feel how the character was feeling, when he was giving narrating sections while showing all he did was murder faceless people, over and over. And he actually has plans, and start to care for who he is and what he becomes.

I could probably talk about this movie all day, but I don't want this review to be a novel, so I'll finish it here but my main objective of this review is for people not to miss out on this great movie, as the acting is top notch and at some part comical, with a great new actor who is no older than 10! How the director makes Joseph Levitt's character act like Bruce Willis and either Rian or Joseph does a great job depicting it, it's as if I was listening and watching Bruce Willis most of the film. My biggest complaint was the action sequences when it came to gun play. I found it lazy how everyone shot at Bruce Willis but the bullets flew all around him. There were times he took cover and I guess because his character is just smart enough he knows when to take cover and just shoot because the opponents he's dealing with are clumsy and inexperienced. Anyway small complaint for a very well done film. 9/10 Enjoy!
178 out of 301 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Parenthood and Self-Sacrifice
yernelg27 December 2012
i always approach a film especially when it is classified as scifi with liberal suspension of disbelief. because it is only through that that i was able to appreciate such scifi gems as Stargate and Fifth Element and many other that were otherwise written off by these so-called critics.

Looper is one of those films that should be appreciated by its message more than its genre. it uses the science fiction medium, complete with action stunts and wonders, as an apt and well-sculpted vehicle to a very beautiful message of self-sacrifice and positive reinforcement parenthood. the film goes to extra length to make the story plausible and solid and the actors, including the 'rainmaker' child, did a marvelous job of pulling it off.

i've always believed that the soul of any film, even as i appreciate great plot twists and great special fx and great acting and direction (yeah, i said great too many times!), is the message and/or portrait it intends to get across. Looper made a kill for it.
55 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Waste of time
Stephen Wallace Byrne8 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Rian Johnson fiction film (as it contains no science) Looper should be the line in the sand to say enough. Cinema going has turned into such a trite state that a film like this could be critically acclaimed and mass released. In the day and age of no heart films, torture porn and saccharine dramas we again have to endure the waste of time, resources and column space that a films like this garners. At a time when other worthwhile films slip into obscurity of small openings and DVD bargain bins.

Looper commits the most atrocious of cinematic crimes it abuses the viewers trust in a way that even Von Trier would be embarrassed by in all his emotion manipulation. Looper's first thirty minutes run by smoothly. It appears self-assured, paced confidently and even though the science and exposition is at best first grader and a worst lazy film- making we can forgive all of this and just go with it. Taking in the sub-standard portrayal of the future with none of the background social commentary of other genre films. Apart from some lazy shorthand referencing Doretha Lang's depression photograph of Mother With Seven Children replaced with future vagrant mother and child leaving behind any social cause and effect.

Then as Bruce Willis Old Joe meets Joseph Gordon Levitt's Young Joe the prosthetics take on a comically feel (recalling Pachino's villain in Dick Tracy). We feel we are getting to the meat of the story instead we find derivative shoot-outs, chases and uncompelling dialogue. At this point it all falls apart and the film runs into the dangerous space that modern cinema is not only touching on but beginning to permanently occupy.

The portrayal of females in the film is typical of the misogynistic movement in modern America's cinema. Women are passive objects to be both lusted and tortured. In Lopper all the women portrayed are Whores or Junkies or have a perverse struggle with motherhood.

Emily Blunt's character is given a back-story from a daytime drama. She shown to have no motivation apart from giving into compulsion. Any chance at positive female representation is at utter loss when she makes an-out-of nowhere unconvincing booty call with her child's adapted frog toy to Young Joe. This scene is complete with ridiculously out of place romantic piano score. One gets the feeling the film-makers have misogynist issues that should have been worked out in therapy and not in celluloid.

Before all of this trite we get Bruce Willis's terrible act of killing a child an act in cinema that Hitchcock in his conversations with Truffaut remarked is a guaranteed way to lose an audience. It has been done with a level of respect in films such as Afflecks Gone Baby Gone. In Looper it is unforgivable not only because of the act, but also in the way Johnson manipulates the audience and scenario for maximum effect (making him parallel with pushers of Torture Porn).

We are asked to believe that a child straight off a Disney set walks into the wrong film and towards a pretty suburb home, which is unguarded, in this state of societal collapse and mass crime. All this is for effect so when Old Joe shoots him we are more shocked, more horrified It is one of the more distasteful and undoubtedly manipulative scenes in recent cinema.

At the midway point the films personality splits, and it turns into a horror film about telekinetic abilities? In what seems like a pinned on sub-plot brought to the fore because they didn't know how to end the film. The ending of self-sacrifice was a laughable attempt at catharsis.

This infantile film should be laughed off the screens, especially given the sub-standard performances, Emily Blunts failure at acting 101 in the miming smoking scene comes to mind, .

Critics drawing positive attention even with the quip that it entertains should be ashamed. The role of the critic should be to enlighten. To shine a light towards the possibly unseen both within popular entertainment films and the unseen films that push the art form forwards.
149 out of 252 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Not even close
Rollum12 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
The whole premise of this story was flawed from the beginning. For SciFi fans time travel is what its all about. Its meant to be intriguing and full of conundrums that most importantly, some how make sense. All the best time travel movies have a consistency that holds the idea together. This is precisely what Loopers does not have. There where so many holes in the plot that it became impossible to go with it. If your going to beam someone to the past to be killed why do you need a Looper. why not beam them straight to the furnaces. And if you have to use a Looper why rely on him to kill himself - let someone else do it. Seriously this was just a few of the canyon like proportions of the gaps in the plot of this flop. If Bruce was not in this i would have walked way before the end. I was fooled. You don't have to be.
73 out of 118 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Intelligent Science Fiction Thriller
Tom Gooderson-A'Court24 September 2012
Looper is a film that goes to extraordinary lengths to leave every base covered in its quest to avoid plot holes and inconsistencies and in my mind it deals with the problems associated with time travel very well. One thing I liked is that the older Joe is aware of everything the younger Joe is about to do which gives him an edge if they were to do battle. I also liked that the older Joe in true Bruce Willis style bypasses the whole idea of trying to work out how and why what is happening is happening by saying he can't be bothered to work it all out. As well as the older Joe having the advantage of memory over the younger Joe, the younger Joe in turn has his own advantages which become apparent. There were several times when I thought I'd worked out what was going to happen or what a particular character's arc was going to be but the film cleverly manipulates its audience, leading them down alleyways only to jump out at them from behind and spin them around. There is a nice early twist which gave me a smile and plenty more to keep you guessing right the way to the end. In the end it turns out that time travel plays second fiddle to another phenomenon which I was pleased by as there was no mention of this in the trailer which I've been trying to avoid for several weeks. The plot is multifaceted with each character having their own reasons for being where they are, when they are and doing what they are doing. It is a dense plot which explores several different ideas and concepts both personal and scientific.

As well as confidently dealing with a complex script which would have been very easy to either make too complicated or too full of holes, Writer/Director Rian Johnson (Brick) also creates a very believable future and fills it with people and events which feel plausible. Cities have continued to expand upwards and outwards but they themselves are filled with tent cities in which a large vagrant class live. Life is cheap and hard in this world in which the have's and have not's are much more separated than today. There is enough in the film to make to world feel as though it is our near future and the technology on display feels as though it is a few logical steps along the road. I especially liked the ingenious solution to running cars after the inevitable the oil crisis and there's also a great line about China in there which had a lot of people laughing.

The writing and direction are superb but another strength are the acting performances. Joseph Gordon-Levitt wears heavy makeup and prosthetics to make him look more like Bruce Willis and although this is occasionally a little distracting, it looks unnervingly good at times, especially closer up which is odd. The effect is actually better in close up than when JG-L is in the middle distance. Underneath the prosthetics though Gordon-Levitt delivers a fine performance, adopting a few of Willis' telltale mannerisms and affectations but avoiding pure mimicry. He appears confident and at ease in the dense lead role, carrying off a mixture of hard edged killer and caring young man while switching from one to the other with ease. Bruce Willis equally is very good but we have seen this kind of performance from him many times before. Nevertheless he is on good form here. The chemistry between the two leads was great and really helped with the believability of them being one person. Emily Blunt was another actor who performed very well and in a departure from her more familiar roles. She adopts a convincing American accent, drops a few F-Bombs and looks comfortable holding a gun. She brings to the fore the feminine caring side when it matters though. Probably the standout actor though despite the three A Listers is Pierce Gagnon, a very young child actor who is incredible in a pivotal role. He and Gordon-Levitt have some funny and tense scenes together which work very well.

Overall there was little I didn't like about Looper and it has gone straight into my Top 10 films of the year so far as well as being probably my favourite Sci-Fi since 2009's Moon. It treats its audience with respect and isn't afraid to keep you them of the loop for a while as it teases them with false and sometimes seemingly false information. It is well designed and acted and features a wonderfully multifaceted and intelligent story which rewards patience and concentration with a fantastic ending.

www.attheback.blogspot.com
334 out of 593 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
High Concept Intrigue
Mek Torres18 October 2012
Looper seems like it's inspired by Philip K. Dick's several works. It's a Sci-Fi story that is set in the future with a quite interesting concept. The ads shows this as a typical nonstop action film. Surprisingly, it's much better than anyone would expect. It's actually a mind blowing film that tells an unpredictable story and has a great amount of thrills. The performances are strong and the directing is solid. Unlike most modern Sci-Fi films they depend on the action and the explosions. Looper is all about letting the audience intrigue all the way on the concept.

The important thing you should expect in this film is the brilliance of the concept than the action. Yeah, there's fighting and gunfights but it's mostly about the idea. The film tells it in a stylish and mind boggling way which makes it compelling. The story development is clever. The first half lets the viewers root for the film's world until the plot twists. It's great when a scene suddenly becomes confusing then it all make sense afterwards. Aside of its storytelling, Joseph Gordon-Levitt did a great job playing the young version of Bruce Willis as he imitates Willis' accent and gruffness. He still plays the role with his own style. Gordon-Levitt is energetic and striking. The rest of the cast are excellent.

The production design is decent. Its futuristic world looks magnificent and their weaponry looks awesome. The camera-work is one of the merits of the film. It makes the action look stylish and brings cool vertigo to the trippy moments. Every shot of the film is impressive. The most interesting one is when Joe was in the fields, you prominently see a cloud trail on the sky remarking the scene. The script is smart enough for explaining its concept and making things gripping.

Looper is one of those films that would stuck in your head in a long time because it's plain brilliant. It's so different to popular modern Sci-Fi films. This film is not an action movie cookie-cutter that leaves the high concept as the background of the film. This film simply narrates, mind-bends, and intrigues which makes it amazingly interesting. The idea is original with some inspiration. Looper has the art, the heart, the tension, and the brains that any science fiction fans would love.
121 out of 207 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
A Disappointment
Ben Greenwood30 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
The premise for this film is fantastic, the cast appears great, and its a movie that wants to be seen. However, it is a major disappointment. The whole concept of hit men and time-travel is intriguing- and the concept of your future self being the target, even more so, but this, in truth, is not what the film ends up being about. In a Terminator esque manner Bruce Willis turns his antics in the past to a 'save the future' kill quest wanting to destroy a future-crushing "rainmaker" (whom we know very little about and have little incentive to want killed) whilst he is still a child. The aforementioned has 'TK'- the films terms for Telekentic powers- and this is barely covered and feels like one idea too far, almost an add on that is ultimately crucial to the narrative but is not presented to us enough. In all the film leaves you dissatisfied, feels clunky, and disappointing as on paper it could have been so much better..
93 out of 160 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
The Past In The Future.
Zane Tinning27 September 2012
To begin, Looper is a sci-fi film set in the future, dealing with the implications of time-travel, although it is very much a film about the past. The film is all about the past, how it affects the present and the future and how it drives people with the majority of the film building characters and establishing plot.

Anyone looking for an action film will be sorely disappointed because this is first and foremost a writer's film, focusing on plot, character and dialogue. As mentioned above, the brunt of the film falls on development, more so than action set-pieces and CGI. The portions of the city and the near future Johnson has created, whilst some may see as unoriginal, I see as tributary. A lawless country split socially in half, poverty on one side, excess on the other, the world Johnson has manufactured carries an air similar to that of Alfonso Cuaron's Children of Men, a comparably important sci-fi film in the struggle to build the credibility of the genre in the realm of modern cinema.

Not only is the film intelligent, it also acts as a courier for Johnson, a director of hit (Brick) and miss (The Brothers Bloom) repute following his sophomore outing.

If you support intelligent science fiction in the intellectual vein of Inception and Primer, Looper is a film sitting firmly in the middle of the two. Break the box office with this film and bring intelligence back to film-making.
251 out of 457 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Very predictable and extremely annoying
tinyone212 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
The ending makes the whole experience a huge flop and major waste of money.

Despite being a real fan of sci-fi, the ending doesn't make any sense. If it did happen like that then none of it would've happened in the first place as the older version would not have existed to begin with. So, I am baffled that some one thought that would make a realistic or entertaining ending. Really?? Like trying to pin jam to a wall.

The action scenes are actually really good. Unfortunately that is the only good thing about the movie.

The younger version of the character is incredibly annoying. He does not resemble the older version's character at all. It is really difficult to bring the two together. The younger character lacks logic, perception or any type of savvy. A complete moron. Again it doesn't fit with the more sensible and intelligent older version that's trying to save the world.

I just kept wishing the younger version would grow some brain cells.
58 out of 99 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Entertaining but very poor story line.
abuse-this21 September 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Plenty of reviews here go into detail on this movie but I thought I'd add my two cents.

Before seeing this movie, I saw the plot summary listed by the Media Center TV listings and thought it a pretty lame idea. Bored I turned it on anyway at one point. The acting, the direction, the entertainment factor are all good, but the base plot line stinks.

Why would you have an mob assassin kill his future self and why would you pay him so much better for that hit than others? He just shot his future self, him. He knows that he is going to be murdered by the people for whom he works. Why would he continue or want to work for them? The premise of murder in the future being too difficult to deal with bodies ... just because you can't hide the body doesn't mean people stop killing each other. Either they get caught more often or the number of disappearances reduces and more unsolved murders are on the books. The Mob could still kill people all sorts of ways.

And why send them back 40 years earlier to be killed? Why not send them to the middle of the Atlantic rather than some cornfield. You wouldn't even need the assassin in the early years. Just drop your victims in the middle of the Pacific. Much cheaper and cleaner.

The handling of future self verses younger self is very poorly handled. Everything that happens to the younger self would be in the memory of the older self such as the identity of the Rainmaker and he would never go after child 1 and 2. The rainmaker is supposed to have a plastic jaw from the gunshot at the closing scene. If is jaw had to be replaced, how is it he is still talking?! With young Joe falling for Sara and Cid, why would he ever continue his life to become old Joe in the first place? And how is it these GAT men of 2044 act as almost a police force and so brazenly? Jesse for example carrying a large caliber hand-gun at his waist in a front holster. And why would 2044 be so much easier a place to dispose of bodies than any other, like a war zone or the black plague? Why even transport the back alive? There are far too many problems with the plot of this movie to warrant any sort of rave praise or recognition, but it is somewhat entertaining.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
"Looper" Is A Pooper!!!
zardoz-1328 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
"Looper" qualifies as a sordid science fiction thriller about time travel with an awful ending. Stir a little H.G. Wells in with some Stephen King and add a pinch of "The Sopranos," and you've got the basics of "Brick" director Rian Johnson's contrived, unconvincing chronicle. Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon-Levitt are cast as one in the same character in this disappointing actioneer that pits them against each other with a no-win outcome. Furthermore, both protagonists emerge as more anti-heroic than heroic. If you dismiss the fact these talented thespians bear scant resemblance to each other, you must still consider the scarcity of information about a distant future as well as a warped premise. These shortcomings constitute the chief flaws in this imaginative but predictable sci-fi saga that unfolds in an erratic manner, lacks quotable dialogue, and features one character with no qualms about shooting innocent adolescents. By the time this uninspired, R-rated, 118-minute, spectacle has worn out its welcome; you have no reason to care about anybody, including an obnoxious telekinetic tyke who doesn't know when to keep his trap shut. Mind you, the future has never appeared more dystopian. Some people are born with a mutation that enables them to levitate objects, and these fellows find that they can lure facile-minded babes into bed by making quarters float above the palms of their hands. The economy has hit bottom, and vagrancy has become epidemic. Citizens can execute vagrants on the spot if they feel so inclined. Any time Hollywood undertakes a time travel tale, the filmmakers conjure up some of the ugliest vehicles. While the cars and trucks look hopelessly tacky, the motorcycles resemble something Luke Skywalker might ride. Basically, you see a guy straddling a cylinder with handle bars. Computer-generated special effects blur everything beneath his feet so he appears to be cruising on a cushion of air.

Johnson's screenplay is as amoral as his narrative premise is warped. Imitating the best Mafia movies of director Martin Scorsese, Johnson relies on the voice-over narration of his lead character to acquaint us not only with his unusual profession but also with the seedy world in which he thrives. Kansas in the year 2044 serves as the setting. Presumably, Johnson is making an ironic "Wizard of Oz" joke with his futuristic fable. The premise of "Looper" is that a guy can live the high life by killing individuals from the future who have been sent back to the past. Joseph Simmons (Joseph Gordon-Levitt of "The Dark Knight Rises") is a killer who was brought up the ranks by his boss, Abe (Jeff Daniels of "Blood Work"), to do his dirty work. Actually, Abe was beamed back from the future to coordinate the equivalent of Murder Incorporated. In the 1940s, the Mafia relied on out-of-town gunmen from to ice enemies on their own turf. For example, if the New York Mafia wanted to dispose of an adversary, they contracted a Chicago gunsel to eliminate him. The rationale was that the authorities always sought a motive. What motive would a Chicago mobster have for killing New York mobster that he didn't know? This remained standard operating procedure until the authorities figured out the connection.

Mobsters in the year 2074 cannot murder their adversaries because humans have become too easy to track. Since the mob cannot kill their own, they contract hits out to mobsters from the past. Gunman designated 'loopers' kill and dispose of these victims that the mob has beamed back so nobody can find them. Our hero wields an exotic shotgun called a 'blunderbuss,' and the looper waits near a cornfield in the middle of nowhere with his weapon and a tarp spread on the ground. Eventually, a bound man with a bag over his head and silver ingots strapped to his back materializes. After he murders his prey, Joseph incinerates him so no traces remain. When a gangland assassin in the future has worn out his welcome, however, the mob sends him back to the past so he can kill himself. They call this 'closing the loop.' After Young Joe botches the job of killing Old Joe, he has to dodge the bullets of his former associates—known as 'gat-men'--until he can corner and kill himself. Losing one's older self is referred to as 'letting his loop run.' Joe's quick-witted alter-ego from the future (Bruce Willis of "Twelve Monkeys") escapes and searches for a mysterious person known only as the 'Rainmaker.' This enigmatic individual wants to eradicate any trace of the loopers. Older Joe has been given a map with three possible addresses for this 'Rainmaker.' Joe wants to wreak vengeance on the 'Rainmaker' because the ladder dispatched trigger-happy gunmen who accidentally murdered his Asian wife.

Instead of keeping things simple, Johnson complicates matters with a subplot about a kid with telekinetic powers. Cid (Pierce Gagnon of "The Crazies") lives on a sugar cane farm with his mom, Sara (Emily Blunt of "The Adjustment Bureau"), who runs the place by herself. One of the locations that the Old Joe has is Sara's farm. He suspects Cid may be the reason that assassins are knocking themselves off. Essentially, what we have here is a good assassin and a bad assassin who share the same body from drastically different decades. Young Joe stakes out Sara's farm so he can terminate Old Joe with extreme prejudice. This uneven, high body count stinker doesn't flow well and is often confusing, too. Moreover, the logic is questionable. Wouldn't it be easier for the future mob to kill their enemies and send the remains back to the past for disposal? Furthermore, what would happen if the victim that they sent back managed to escape like Old Joe and gum up the works? In most movies, you look for a character that you can either love or envy. Nobody is lovable in "Looper" and parts of this movie are just plain downright dull.
87 out of 156 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Hollywood trash at it's best
AshishPrasad3 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
What is wrong with the critics these days? Either they've been paid well enough to keep their mouths shut of how lame this film is or they are just a bunch of quacks. Honestly, I can't imagine how deceiving Hollywood has become with flashy trailers.

There's nothing there in the story. As you guessed from the trailer, it's about a guy who is hit-man who kills random people(who are masked) for money. So these random people are from the future apparently as disposing bodies become impossible in the future, the criminals transport these random folks from 2072 to 2042 where this guy kills them and cremates them. The guys who kill these randoms are called Loopers. And then there comes a time when his company wants to shut down and wants to terminate all the loopers. So this is where he meets his future self(older self) and has to kill. Of course he doesn't kill him because the future self knows every move he could think of. Finally after 118minutes of nonsense, this guy finally realizes, " oh wait, I could just kill myself and the future self dies with me ".

With a poor storyline such as this one, there was no way in hell the producers would have agreed to invest, so the writers create a few more characters, ( such as a 2year old kid and her mommy to prolong the movie with some emotion/drama) some telekinesis disease(it's like HIV of the 2040s) and more bla bla bla.

This was the time I felt like walking out of the theatre if I hadn't paid $16. Absolute rubbish.
90 out of 162 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
This time travel crap; just fries your brain like an egg…"
TheSquiss25 September 2012
Time travel films open up all manner of questions because of the paradoxes every action and reaction produce. If X occurred, surely Y would happen, which means X wouldn't happen after all… And so it is with Looper.

Alas, to avoid dishing out hugely unpopular plot spoilers I need to skirt around the concerns, so you'll just have to come round with cake and we can discuss it in private. But there are some pretty substantial issues with Looper that cause questions to be asked and lead to more than a couple of possible explanations as to what exactly is going on. Don't see it alone; you'll need a friend around to discuss it on the journey home.

Equally, don't be put off. You don't need to be Einstein to enjoy Looper, as some of the audience proved…

In 2072, time travel is both possible and illegal and murder is more easily solved because corpses are harder to lose. However mobs and Mafiosi types are prevalent and have ingeniously devised a solution: tie your victim up and send him back in time to a location where a looper will be waiting to blow his/her brains out. However, when a looper's contract is up, they find themselves blowing the brains out of their older self. Except when looper Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) stares down the barrel at a version of himself that is thirty years older, Old Joe (Bruce Willis) outsmarts him and so begins a cat and mouse chase where there are multiples of each species and most of them aren't called Joe.

Confused? Good. Don't think any more or you'll confound yourself with your wondering and wandering along all the possible flows and tributaries that lead from them. Like, Is he actually... Dammit.

Along with the quirks, possibilities and matters left to interpretation, there are one or two clear boo-boos that cut against the rules writer/director Rian Johnson (Brick, The Brothers Bloom) has set himself. I'm sure you can work out from the subject matter that there are occasional murders so I'm giving nothing away by stating that a particular murder in 2027 cuts against the rules. It's not a major problem in terms of enjoyment but it does cast a shadow over everything if minor errors are not avoided.

There's only one way to watch Looper: suspend all disbelief, put your logic in stasis and get on with enjoying the romp. With that frame of mind employed, it's a superb film. No, it's not as intelligent a film as Inception, but it kicks the ass of Wanted and Gordon-Levitt is potentially a bigger star in the making than either Leonardo DiCaprio or James McAvoy.

I'm not sure that I buy Gordon-Levitt as a young Willis but the transition is simple and effectively executed and it needn't stand in the way of a couple of hours of great entertainment. He's matured as an actor and, though he's been stamping around Hollywood for a good couple of decades, it's the last five years or so that have really seen him ascend the ranks and there's no sign of his climb slowing with both Spielberg's Lincoln and Don Jon's Addiction (which he also wrote and directed) in the can and Premium Rush earning plaudits on both sides of the Atlantic.

As for Willis, it's good to see him earning his fee again in a film worthy of his presence rather than phoning it in for a fat wad in the truly awful The Expendables 2. Emily Blunt (Sara) and Jeff Daniels ably provide support, the former, sadly, barely stretched and the latter, as Abe, the loopers' boss, clearly enjoying himself. Equally, Paul Dano gives a wonderful, trademark sniveling wretch performance that is all too brief. But Looper belongs to Gordon-Levitt and One Tree Hill's Pierce Gagnon as the child, Cid, whose middle name is probably Damian. Unnerving is an understatement!

There is a very strong argument that the best person to direct a film is the writer because s/he knows it better than anyone. Clearly that wasn't the case with Maximum Overdrive (Stephen King being the fine writer who should never be allowed either in front of or behind a camera again) but with Looper it's a very strong case in point.

Johnson, though he bends his rules, has created a multi-layered, rapidly paced trip that is littered with bodies and to-die-for quips, to wit, "I cleaned you up. And put a gun in your hand." He juggles the time zones effortlessly and maintains the excitement while allowing sufficient moments for us to pause, cogitate and catch up before whipping us to the next sprint, jump or shoot-out. Though he has nothing (publicly) on the slate, there'll be plenty more from him in the next few years.

As is increasingly the case, my biggest complaint with last night's viewing has nothing to do with the film itself but with the screening, namely the blown speakers all along one side of the auditorium (big thumbs down to Cineworld) and the moron in front who played with his phone and gave muted shrieks of excitement every time there was a shot or splatter of blood, even taking the time to relive it with his friend. Who are these people? Why are they allowed to breathe? When will time travel come to my aid? Ah, but these are niggles and hopefully you won't be subjected to such when you watch Looper. And do see it. Maybe you'll absolutely hate the confusion it causes you, but if you don't mind giving a film some real thought and you enjoyed the possibilities of Inception, then Looper is for you.

Just don't think too hard. As Abe laments, "This time travel crap; just fries your brain like an egg…"

For more reviews subscribe to www.thesquiss.co.uk

Like the Facebook page: http://on.fb.me/RpitOG
121 out of 223 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Terrible
kendrick-w1 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
The concept of the movie was flawed from the start. "It is nearly impossible to kill someone in the future and get away with it so they send them back to the past to be killed and disposed of." Why not kill them in the future and send their remains back to be disposed of.

The movie dragged on and the ending was anticlimactic. It left me with the impression that he was the young boy on the train and he too was from the future, a kind of echo. If that were the case then why did he not disappear too? Why would the gold stay when Willis disappeared. His disappearance indicates that he was not sent back and neither was the gold. Finally why would you leave a kid alive who you know is going to turn into the most monstrous person in history? Are we to believe that a kid with those powers will turn himself around with the help of his mother? Had he changed the time line that much? The kid already turned on of the "gats" into mush!

OK... It is just science fiction... bad science fiction.
77 out of 139 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
What might have been.
almdemo8 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Very disappointing film,not even The wonderful Emily Blunt or JGL could save this film.

On paper it looked a great film but very little character development and a mish mash of films ( including 12 monkeys, The Omen and Terminator) reduced what could have been an excellent film to barely watchable.

No characters in the film show much emotion and it really is time travel by numbers with a token love story thrown in.

How this Film got so much praise is a mystery to me with Willis beating up everyone in sight cringe worthy like JGL face and fake nose.

Time travel,the future,the whole nut and bolts of the story are just skimmed over as an afterthought.

Overall very disappointing.
22 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
"Science fiction" for dummies
thunderhead6 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Having seen the overwhelmingly positive reviews of this film, i mistakenly believed it would at least be a passable science fiction/action movie. Sadly, the so called "science" portion of this movie is so absurdly handled i was compelled to vent about it.

If you are entertained by Bruce Willis movies of the past few years, this may seem a step up in quality.But the how the hell could that happen moments are so frequent that i found it to be insufferable.

The tons of plot-holes are maddening and quite frankly, an insult to the intelligence of a fifth-grader.Yet, the issues of how you can come back in time if you have been dead for 30 years, seem to be entirely forgivable be those who champion this pathetic excuse for sci-fi.If you ignore feasibility it is fantasy. Saying "that is the reality of this movie" does not erase the absolute absurdity of it.

This is not Science fiction. It is a bad comic book movie without the people in spandex. And that is an insult to comic book movies.
13 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Bored to Tears
talentedripples19 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
If I was bored to tears why is this getting two stars, I hear you ask? There are two simple explanations really: the acting of Emily Blunt, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis, all of whom were typically good and believable as their characters; and making Joseph Gordon-Levitt look not only ill half the time but plausible as Bruce Willis's younger self - they did more than simply give Joseph contacts to wear (his eyes are typically a dark brown).

The movie starts off slow, with the hint of a promise of improving. Unfortunately it doesn't. The peaks of interest in Looper are small, too few and far between. First of all the tag line: 'Time travel hasn't been invented yet, but thirty years from now, it will have been' is badly worded and used too much for comfort.

There is too little happening for too long. All we do is see Joe kill a few too many in a corn field. Boring.

The story continues on slowly. One of the interesting points was the time travel, actually, when they chop up young Seth so they can lure in the old one. It was rather horrible to watch pieces of Old Seth vanish before his eyes until his legs literally fell off. It was rather accurate. If your younger self doesn't possess something, then you don't either. The paradox comes in that you don't have prosthetics for you lost limbs: you wouldn't. You're in the same time as your younger self which creates a paradox.

Then there's the pathetic yelling and fighting between both Joes.

By this point I was playing a game on my phone.

And the story edges onwards slowly, to the point where nobody cares anymore. Neither old Joe or young Joe are particularly likable which is probably the point. Old Joe changed but not that much - he's still the childish selfish man he was when he was young, just toned down. And young Joe is entirely jealous, selfish, childish, doesn't know how to be responsible and has like... no emotions. His only redeeming point comes at the end of this long journey.

It turns out Sid is a demonchild 'rainmaker' whose presence in the story appears to be the only justification for the time travel. Why rainmaker appeared in the first place is never explained, only with the thin explanation that maybe the rainmaker became a big bad man because something happened to his mother. Joe's sacrifice at the end was touching.

The various themes of fighting for survival, and how far are you willing to go to survive, as well as what will you do to exact your vengeance, various moral issues etc. However none of them worked.
25 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Mad Max Beyond Terrible
vctesse1 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
First of all, forget the plot. There isn't any, just a bunch of half baked, overdone, derivative ideas flung at the screen in the laziest piece of film writing I've ever seen. Visually the picture steals from Mad Max, Blade Runner, Witness, the Matrix, Carrie and another half dozen, better movies. But the most unforgivable thing it does is de-charm Joseph Gordon Levitt. One would not have thought this possible. Also in resurrecting the tiresome, bullet headed Bruce Willis, it reminded me of why I've always hated that guy. (His scenes with the Chinese broad were particularly excruciating.) All in all, a horrible mess that doesn't even have the guts to follow through on its set-ups.
68 out of 126 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews