IMDb > Looper (2012) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Looper
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Looper More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 17 of 64: [Prev][12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [Next]
Index 639 reviews in total 

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Disappointment

6/10
Author: zeluis tavares from pt
20 October 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The whole plot relies on the fact of a man - a looper - who gets the job to kill his own self of 30 years later sent back to the past - closing the loop, then. The situation opens field to a set of narrative and slightly philosophical questions. One just never understands why the closure of the loop isn't done by someone else besides the self. This option would surely make the whole situation so much easier, and surely there would not be loopers tempted not to kill their self selves. Why didn't the big bad guy that rules the world in 2074 thought of this? Forgetting that basic but yet so important plot fail, it is a well put together action film and Emily Blunt is beautifully filmed - i guess Rian liked the girl. If the narrative would go on in 2012, and being the future the time where the to-be-killed guys would be sent from, everything would be exactly the same. So, not much of science fiction here besides cool design cars, sophisticated weapons and a few more ordinary things that don't bring anything actually essential to the plot.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

A senseless and irrational dream

3/10
Author: TyTanner from Australia
18 October 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

We've all had convoluted dreams we thought could potentially make brilliant movies but know would never really work because of their irrational nature, however it seems director Rian Johnson has actually endeavored to make his vision in to a big Hollywood blockbuster.

Well that was a mistake.

Looper is basically an attempt to resolve some kind of senseless dream Johnson may have had one night that was based around time travel in a cornfield and also had some telekinetic premise to it. And he though he should cast two Hollywood heroes to give his movie a bit more credibility.

This attempted science-fiction/action/thriller is disjointed and perverse. It tries to be clever but in doing so becomes a complete joke and fails to capture the audience's attention.

It does a poor job at trying to deal with time travel and after the first half of the movie is complete, it tries to regain the viewer's interest by bringing in a telekinetic sub-plot and a kid with extra-ordinary powers.

There are so many inconsistencies and plot holes that it is not worth listing them in this review. A complex sci-fi movie should not allow it's viewer to drift off, have time to leave the cinema, get some more popcorn, come back in and miss absolutely nothing.

Moreover, the length of the film is ridiculous. Two-hour movies should be reserved for powerful, intriguing and information-packed features, and Looper is none of the above. The movie goes on for far too long about nothing in particular and when it finally comes to an end, the two main characters become completely futile.

Pierce Gagnon who plays Cid, the child 'rainmaker,' is the only good thing to come out of the movie in that he is a fine young actor and deals with some difficult scenes surprisingly well.

With some pointless characters (the dim-witted Kid Blue), a couple of dreadfully time-consuming and uninteresting monologues between Joe (Gordon-Levitt) and Sara (Emily Blunt) and the fact that it'd be so much easier for the crime lords to kill their victims in the future then send them back to the past (avoiding any hassles with an escape and even eliminating the need for a Looper) or sending the victim back to the Middle Ages (seeing as though they have this time travel thing operating so efficiently), Looper makes the list of 'the worst movies I've had the privilege of watching in cinemas.'

But don't let that stop you from going to see it and making up your own mind about a film that should have remained in Johnson's mind as a messed up and illogical dream he once had.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Looper--Was it about time travel, steampunkery or telekinesis?

3/10
Author: kolrimes from Atlanta, GA, USA
16 October 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Nothing would have worked in the film if the deus ex machina of telekinesis had not been introduced with that ugly kid, who of course can make supposedly terrifying faces and plunge everything around him into automatic turmoil.

And then we have a totally gratuitous and unexplained love scene between the central male and female characters. This apparently arose purely out of the need for immediate sexual congress and little else.

The lead actor had very little talent other than a propensity to look like he was always dead serious about the tragedy of whatever thing he considered tragic at the moment. It was clear that he was chosen only for his sketchy resemblance to Bruce Willis.

It's just another dystopian-future movie punctuated with post-industrial ruin and gratuitous steampunkery, viz: the time machine and the many garbage-strewn urban settings.

Okay, the future is going to be wretched. We get the point. Also, some big warlord is going to make everyone's life miserable. We get that point too. The future belongs to gangsters. We all know that by now.

Also, it is clear that silver and gold are the best monies you can have, something that is not viable even today, but cherished among those who anxiously await Armageddon and want to secure their safe place away from it with precious metals. This movie should make all the precious metal freaks of today very happy. In the future, you're going to need ingots---lots of heavy, hard to transport ingots.

Also, everyone gets to have a weapon and blast others whenever needed, which in this movie is most of the time. This should please the Second Amendment gun worshipers who think that society should be heading that way now.

The movie was stereotypical of what one expects from anything starring Bruce Willis, who is usually close to unconquerable. It's a good visual show for those who like people living in ruins among a lot of hanging cables.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Entertaining time travel scifi

7/10
Author: Tomas_T from Finland
8 June 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Director R.Johnson brings another good addition to the sci-fi scene with Looper. Rather coincidentally the film is released in almost yearly continuum with other solid sci-fi films such as Inception (2010) and Source Code (2011). It is good times for the sci-fi film fans.

I was somewhat concerned initially with Looper's cliché-ish time travel plot as most of these films tend to implode on their own absurdity. Adding to my negative expectation was the fact that the one of the main actors is no other than Bruce Willis whose last sci-fi undertaking Surrogates (2009) left much to desire.

Thankfully my negative preconceptions were quickly dissolved as Looper kicks up the gear right from the start and wastes no time with lengthy introductions. In no time the viewer is plunged into the dystopic future where criminals send their victims back in time to be executed and thus leaving no evidence behind. The story follows one of these futuristic executioners Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) whose execution routine is disrupted when his older himself (Bruce Willis) from the future appears in front of him to be executed.

The story can be a bit hard to grasp initially and requires some processing, but after the initial confusion dissipates the film becomes thought invoking and rewarding.

To me the director did a great job keeping the film together and quite easily approachable despite its complexity. It also helps that the film is well balanced between action, suspense and intriguing story elements to maintain interest factor high through the film.

As much as I liked Looper and its intelligent sci-fi scheme, it cannot be overlooked that the film has quite a profound change around half way into the film which might act as a deal breaker for some. Where the first part can be considered relatively easy going and light in mood despite the occasional violence, the second part is quite the opposite. The seriousness level is tuned up considerably in latter part with B.Willis struggling with his conscience about terminating children to save his wife and the appearance of a raging prophet child is also quite heavy to digest. Personally I appreciated the change of tone as it brought more depth to the film, but can understand that it is not everybody's cup of tea.

Lastly as the script is based on Time Travel there are bound to be lots of plot holes, but if one can tolerate/ignore them, Looper offers a very entertaining couple hours.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

New low in community moral sensibilities.

1/10
Author: MATTHEW TANNER (mjtanner@uga.edu) from United States
26 January 2013

I'm just as much of an advocate of the First Amendment as anyone, but I'd just as soon that they circle file this movie, despite any redeeming virtues that it may or may not have, given its depictions of DELIBERATE GUN VIOLENCE DIRECTED AT CHILDREN!

I'm just as much of an advocate of the First Amendment as anyone, but I'd just as soon that they circle file this movie, despite any redeeming virtues that it may or may not have, given its depictions of DELIBERATE GUN VIOLENCE DIRECTED AT CHILDREN!

I'm just as much of an advocate of the First Amendment as anyone, but I'd just as soon that they circle file this movie, despite any redeeming virtues that it may or may not have, given its depictions of DELIBERATE GUN VIOLENCE DIRECTED AT CHILDREN!

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

They lost me in the middle

6/10
Author: davidgeller41 from United States
24 January 2013

So the idea of the film is very interesting, until you start to think about how this all pieces together.

If you start demanding the viewer make enormous intellectual decisions while trying to concentrate on a fast moving sci-fi plot, then you are losing the audience by the minute. I watched this on DVD and was interrupted twice by my wife asking me to explain the plot. My 80 year old parents would have given up after 10 minutes.

Anyway, Bruce Willis certainly deserved his fee for the movie. Why they plastered a fake nose on JGL thinking that made him Bruce Jnr, well it just didn't cut it for me. As to why the hell Emily Blunt agreed to do this film, it should have been Olivia Wilde or Elizabeth Banks.

One point I would agree with - the demonised kid (future criminal overlord) was brilliant and very scary.

What you had here was a killer idea - in the wrong hands - this had all the makings of a Total Recall (the original) and left me thinking B movie all over.

You might enjoy this movie more if you are completely drunk or with a group of teenage boys who like violence.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Plot with more holes than a colander

6/10
Author: patterncatcher from Spain
8 January 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

My enjoyment of this film was marred by its time travel plot holes.

Spoiler alert! Firstly, the whole premise of the film is flawed. Why would gangsters send people to be killed back in time only 30 years, surely it would be better to send them back to the time of the dinosaurs? Secondly, why send them back alive, why not shoot them first then send them back in time? Also, when they send the looper back in time to be killed, why on earth would you send them back to be killed by themselves in the past? That is just asking for trouble - send them back to be killed by someone else.

And when the young version of the main character carves a message for his future self in his arm, his future self only sees it at that exact moment - surely he would have had it carved in his arm for 30 years.

When he shoots himself at the end, his future self vanishes. That would mean that everything that had happened in the movie couldn't have happened, because he wouldn't have existed to come back in time, so his younger self wouldn't have shot himself.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

I am stuck in this loop!

5/10
Author: troy-manatunga from United Arab Emirates
30 December 2012

How do I react to LOOPER? Did I like it? Was it Original? Was it worth the time? Hopefully by then end of this I may be able to provide valid explanations to justify my answers.

LOOPER: is definitely one of the better movies of Bruce Willis in the year 2012. It also indisputably is the year of Joseph Gordon - Levitt. With 3 great movies this year and with good performances in every single one of them, Levitt's consistency can be considered "one to look forward to".

To answer the first question, I began to grow to like the movie with time. Director Rian Johnson treads smartly with his tactical approach in cinematography. The grainy filming of the future draws an ambiance to the entire movie that the future is dark, corrupted and a broken place where life as we know it, simply is more sephia-hue than colorful. One too many movies have been shot and digitally mastered as such that it did not feel original. However the concepts behind the screen play is quite original (please note I mentioned quite original and "not" original) that they dismiss each other off.

Now did I like it? Yes I did. The slightest indication of innovation needs recognition since it's the efforts of such that someday may bring forth another Spielberg or Scorsese. LOOPER isn't a Bruce Willis movie that one may anticipate. Bruce Willis is a great pick for the cast considering the monetary aspect. It is tough not to appreciate his work. Gordon-Levitt is the star but I found it hard to believe since the hardest work done on him is his facial prosthetics whilst the screenplay barely scratches the surface of the characters growth. He comes with a gun and goes with a gun and in between he is just an unhappy soul simply said. One character to look out is the child star Pierce Agnon. He does justice to his role. He is sweet and sinister that does not make it hard to believe the future of his own character. If there was no Pierce Agnon I am not sure I would have liked it at all.

So is LOOPER original? Maybe! Is it a great Sci-fi Movie? No it isn't (I would hardly pass it as sci-fi). It is watchable and it's good but not great. The concept of time travel has not been explored much in Hollywood and it may be considered an untapped source for entertainment. However the originality takes a spear to heart and drops hard since Rian Johnson take one too many shortcuts. Is it the lack of experience or the shallow script? It's a combination of both it seems. The director pays attention to all the touch points of a great movie. He sets the tone, he is good with filming, sound editing is decent, visuals are acceptable and realistic, and however each of the touch points is whiplashed upon and not driven deep enough. There is lack of premise for each concept. The entire concept of LOOPER is to travel back in time to stop the Rain Maker. The damage the rainmaker does isn't elaborated enough. He kills people smartly. So does every villain in every movie? So do you think it's original?

Loopers are hired assassins from the year 2044. Joe (Gordon-Levitt) is one of these assassins that stands in a field looking at his antique pocket time piece (in 2044) waiting for his employer to send his assignment through time from 2074 so he can shoot him. Apparently bodies are tagged in 2074 so they cannot be killed without drawing attention of the law. So they are sent back 30 years in time to be shot at and disposed off. These Loopers from time to time find themselves shooting their future selves (There you go a bit of Christopher Nolan for you right there!). Suddenly Joe (Gordon) finds his older self (Willis) at his own gun point and thus LOOPER unfolds.

I have just one last question. If you had the ability to send someone through time to be killed and if you need to pay an assassin to do it, why not save the money and send them back in time to when the dinosaurs ruled the earth? Too easy? #sigh#

TITLE: LOOPER DIRECTED BY: RIAN JOHNSON STARRING: BRUCE WILLIS, Joseph GORDON-LEVITT, PIERCE GAGNON AND EMILY BLUNT. RATED: R RATING: 05/10 RUNTIME: 119 MINUTES

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Great movie, except for one big flaw...

5/10
Author: Paul Magne Haakonsen from Denmark
15 December 2012

I had high hopes and expectations for this movie, because everyone kept saying how nice it is, and given the fairly good rating it has gotten here on IMDb. So it with was a certain level of anticipation that I sat down to watch "Looper".

I will say that the storyline is indeed original and interesting. There are some really nice touches to the movie and the story does progress quite nicely. Well, at least right up until the super telekinetic child was introduced and you saw his powers. Then the movie just totally fell to the floor for me and took a turn for the worse. At this point I was ready to turn off the movie, because it became a joke onto itself. However, I did manage to sit through it to the very end.

What impressed me about "Looper" was the concept behind the plot and storyline. It was a really nice twist on time travel, and the story was actually really nicely executed. And also the performances of both Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon-Levitt was quite good. And I must admit that I was pleasantly surprised to see Jeff Daniels in a role such as the one he had in "Looper", it was really out of his usual league, but he did a great job with his role.

Also the way that had altered Joseph Gordon-Levitt's face was impressive, though I didn't really see much resemblance between his face and the face of Bruce Willis. But still, it was a nice touch to the movie, and it did take a little while getting used to seeing Joseph Gordon-Levitt that way.

The reason for my mediocre rating of the movie is pure and simple; because of the telekinetic child. That totally blew the movie to pieces for me and left me laughing at what the movie turned into. The movie could have been so much more had director, Rian Johnson, not opted for that approach on the storyline.

"Looper" is still worth watching though, because of the interesting storyline and because of the great performances to be seen in the movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Mixed feelings

5/10
Author: Chris L from France
21 November 2012

Looper had a good potential story wise. The script seemed interesting, but ultimately the movie is disappointing, riddled with incoherences, the most shocking one being the end of the movie itself.

The first half is too speedy and kind of muddled, therefore pretty hard to follow and understand all the the whys and wherefores. On the other hand, the second part is weirdly slow and the film loses all its intensity, especially once Young Joe meets Sara.

The direction is below average, the lighting being pretty bad with a lot of halos and a few very dark scenes. JGL is barely recognizable with all the makeup and Rian Johnson certainly didn't need to be that drastic to make them look alike.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 17 of 64: [Prev][12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

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