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 18 of 65: [Prev][13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [Next]
Index 648 reviews in total 

5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Here we go with the 10/10 again!

4/10
Author: Scott Baldwin (Meven_Stoffat) from Canada
22 December 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Wow, SLOW DOWN HERE, PEOPLE! 8.1? you guys REALLY think this is worthy of that high of a rating? Don't get me wrong. It's not a terrible movie and it certainly is better than most of the crap littering cinemas nowadays but there's no way this could be rated 8.1, with a straight face either. 

Now I enjoyed the movie. I won't lie. It was fun to watch and it has an interesting premise. However, that doesn't stop it from being crap. As fun as it is to watch, it's very poorly written. Having done a bit of research on the director, Johnson made a previous film, Brick, which has a cult status. I can ultimately see this movie having the same fate, and it's very ambitious. And in a way, it deserves a cult status. That doesn't stop the film from being insanely flawed though.

WARNING: TONS OF RANTING

1. If the future is THAT poor, how are they suddenly rich again in the further future? Their currency is silver bars, do they just suddenly make counterfeit bars or do they hire some company to make silver? This isn't really thought out well and just seems like an excuse to find some way of explaining how the characters get paid

2. Do they need to use just the blunderbusses? Can't they use their own weapons? The bodies are disposed of immediately in some inferno anyways. And if the shells are left behind, well, there's ways of using untraceable bullets. Blunderbusses aren't that conspicuous of weapons anyways, there seems to be no reason for it at all.

3. Huge plot hole- Time travel isn't legal, neither is the job of looping. At one point in the film, the protagonist goes so far as to explain in detail why it isn't legal too. But then, when he can't kill his own character, the cops are suddenly looking for him too because he couldn't close his own loop.

4. At one point in the film, we get some ridiculous plot about the "Rainmaker", which goes nowhere and exists only so that Bruce Willis can  kill some little kid.

5. Why oh WHY did they have to turn the movie into a ripoff of X-Men at the end? With how the kid can eviscerate people with his mind alone... They never give an explanation except for some silly story about the kid accidentally killing his grandma. 

6. That really stupid cliché of "I'm all bitter because they took the love of my life!" people actually laughed out loud at the cinema because of that that subplot. In fact, how they managed to have Bruce Willis say that with a straight face is mind-blowing.

7. The kid is strong enough to control 3 people at the end? But they say somewhere in the movie that HIS POWER HASN'T FULLY DEVELOPED YET!!!!!! 

8. That whole ending with how he shoots himself to prevent the future self from wreaking havoc, total copout. Couldn't he have just shot his future self so he could have lived with the pretty girl and gone to France? I do like downer endings but it seemed like here they were building up all this tension between the two then suddenly got lazy and killed him off for no good reason.

Okay, so the film realistically would be a 7/10 from me. However, I'm giving it a 4/10 because people seem to be hopelessly jumping on the 10/10 bandwagon, and they seem to be oblivious to the poor writing. I'd recommend it, but by god, this site really needs to help keep things in perspective.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Wasted opportunity

3/10
Author: imdb-535-265360 from United States
22 November 2012

The premise for this film was interesting, but unfortunately, it was yet another example of lazy sci-fi writing, where the opportunity to consider the implications of the initial concepts are soon thrown aside in favor of some fairly dull action sequences.

SPOILER - In the end, some kid with superpowers ( Damon character from the Omen) defeats the combined talents Bruce Willis (doing his Pulp Fiction hit-man character) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt ( doing his Bruce Willis from Pulp Fiction character), because Gordon-Levitt's character finally realizes the writer didn't have enough imagination to find a plot device which would end the story in a satisfactory manner, so he just blows his own brains out. It was great acting, because by that point in the film,I was really starting to feel the same way.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Several levels of implausibility and not a single likable character

3/10
Author: dierregi from Belgium
5 November 2012

Loopers are professional killers who in the year 2044 eliminate assorted people – presumably other criminals - sent from the future. Because the future is a place where they invented time travel, but made it illegal. Also, the future is a place where it is almost impossible to dispose of a body – although when we see it done, it does not seem such a big deal… Anyway, given this bizarre premises we are also explained that loopers are so called because after an indeterminate number of years in the profession, they must close the loop by killing their older self, shipped back from 30 years in the future.

At this stage, whatever effort one made to suspend disbelief comes crashing down. Since they already know that in 30 years they will be executed (by themselves), why these loopers do not try to eliminate the mob king who is systematically ordering their executions? Why do they accept passively to be shipped back to the past with a sack over their head? If this is a serious logical flaw (and there are many others, pointed out by several reviewers), worse is to come, in the shape of a TK obnoxious child, who derails completely the script into an additional dimension of implausibility.

So far we were dealing with ruthless criminals who have no problem shooting, torturing and burning bodies, but suddenly women and children are off-limits. This "honour among thieves" is a well-beloved cliché in mainstream movies, but it is an absurd illusion. In real life, cold-blooded killers kill anybody - women and children included - because they are unsympathetic to all human beings, not just to other adult males. Selective lack of empathy is absurd – and so is this movie. Finally, we have the delusional notion that "love can cure anything". Unfortunately, there are no reported cases of paranoid-schizophrenic cured by mummy's love....

One cannot expect much logic in a movie about time travel, but even low expectations are too high for this mess. The only partial saving grace is Joseph Gordon-Levitt who plays convincingly a despicable character.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

uninteresting and lost !!

1/10
Author: Muhannad Kalaji from Qatar
28 October 2012

now let me just start by saying: time travel is so out of date thing and it has been presented in movies hundreds of time... and only very few exception actually worked and i can only think of "Terminator" the rest is just dull and rather silly than interesting, and in all of time travel movies the character has to meet his younger / older self and this should be the peak of the "drama"

and this movie just falls into it exactly, i mean they just mention that 10% of the population can move things telepathically and they move along...just like that and we are suppose to buy it !!

and you can't help not getting any sense of the future, i mean what did we see of that future ? a short gun that can only hit from a very short distance ? a silly bike that looks 10 years old by today's standards ? give me break here ...

Bruce Wellace has not done any good or even decent movies in the past ten years

and the Director being the writer in the same time that dose not make him any special at all and i think he should quit both - directing and writing coz he ain't good in neither

don't waste your time and money

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

Dumb and excessively violent

3/10
Author: judy from Waukee, IA
21 October 2012

I love SF and time travel movies and I like Bruce Willis so I thought this might be a good movie to catch. Boy was I wrong. This movie is dumb from beginning to ending. It has no redeeming characters to attach yourself too and it is excessively violent especially toward young children. I find it hard to believe that critics and others liked this ridiculous premise of a film. I wanted to get up and leave but I was half hoping that the movie would get better or at least amount to something in the end. Sadly it just continued on with needless exposition and a ridiculously predictable ending. I wish I had my 1hr and 58 minutes back.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

Sci-Fi or not, I draw the line at firing a gun at a child

1/10
Author: yourwarmembrace from United States
14 October 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I wasn't the only one to scoff at this scene but I probably was the only one to walk out. Being that there was to be at least one other instance of this, I had no choice. I have a problem with shoot 'em up bang-bang films to begin with. Death and destruction are just not entertaining to me. Not that I watch the news but how about Hollywood giving us something that the public can't see 3x a day on television. And exactly which one is feeding the other? I wasn't always this sensitive but I'm wise enough now to see what's wrong - and that is clearly THE MEDIA. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a great actor and he's very easy on the eyes. Making him up to look like a younger Bruce Willis, however, wasn't so easy to watch. As far as overall plot, this one is a predictable/ "Have I seen this before?" snoozer.

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 36 people found the following review useful:

Boring

1/10
Author: sexygeek11 from United States
6 October 2012

To each their own is true but I have not been so bored by a sci-fi movie, in a LONG time. I kept waiting for there to be plot. A story. Something that kept me guessing. This movie never had a point. Unlike many, I thought the make-up to make GL look like Bruce, was amazing. You didn't see the resemblance, until Bruce finally enters the picture. The movie is one big circle. The circle is ended leaving you thinking, what was the purpose?(spoiler) One interpretation could be the dough left in the end, is what funded the little guy to become he he did. I am not here to pretend I am some great movie critic. This is only the second movie I have ever taken the time to write about. It is so others do not waste their money or lower at least, their expectation.

Was the above review useful to you?

23 out of 46 people found the following review useful:

"Disney's The Kid" Part 2

8/10
Author: Markus Emilio Robinson
2 October 2012

If you could go back in time and kill baby Hitler, would you? Like "The Terminator" with a touch of "Firestarter", "Looper" is the newest attempt at creating the next revolutionary Sci-Fi film (because everybody wants to make the next "Blade Runner"). Written and directed by Rian Johnson, the writer/director of the under-appreciated "Brick", and starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis and Emily Blunt, "Looper" tells the story of a dystopian year 2044, where 10 percent of the population has developed laughable "super powers" that don't seem to go beyond levitating quarters and time travel has not yet been invented. But in thirty year's time (in an even more flawed future) time travel will have been invented and quickly outlawed, only to be used by mobsters and the very rich, to send people back to 2044 that they want killed (because in the more distant future it is nearly impossible to get rid of a dead body) and that's where Loopers come in. A Looper is a hired gun of sorts from 2044, who is paid a substantial amount of money (silver) to kill those who are sent back in time by the mob and said very rich. Joe (Levitt) is one of these Loopers. One day he hears a rumor about a man called The Rainmaker, who, from thirty years in the future, is attempting to rid the world of Loopers by sending each Looper's future self back in time for the Looper to in turn, kill. OK, I'll stop here only because I have undoubtedly confused you all by this point, even though there is so much more to this story I could get into, such as the aspect of futuristic drug use, important terminology such as "closing your loop" and how much makeup one would have to apply if their future self came back in time and looked like Bruce Willis.

Levitt's notable transformation: The fact that Levitt and Willis' face look nothing alike, even with a heavy coat of makeup and prosthetics, isn't as distracting (or intriguing) as one would think. In fact, most audiences will become so wrapped up by the story, that they will be inclined to simply ignore any visual flaws this movie has to offer. And aside from the much anticipated makeup aspect of "Looper", the acting from the two male leads isn't all that memorable. In fact, Emily Blunt and the young boy who plays her son (Pierce Gagnon) practically steal the show. But even more interesting than Levitt and Willis' overshadowed performances, is the tone of "Looper" throughout. At times playing for laughs and at others playing more for extreme violence, Johnson seems to be in control of most of his story. Issues only arise when the tone of this film is drastically thrown off on two separate occasions. The first major tonal disruption comes during a crucial plot point (aka when the goal of Willis' character is revealed) which I won't give away, but let's just say when the audience I saw this movie with was blindsided by this aggressively dark plot development (involving children) the somewhat light atmosphere in the theater was thrust into an immediate and very uncomfortable silence. The second tonal aberration comes into play with the introduction of a small child (Gagnon) who throws nasty temper tantrums. Though the real star of the show here is Johnson's script, with an almost perfectly structured plot, "Looper" is only flawed by a few visuals that go awry; all of which are centered around the child character. In short, and not to give too much away, the sequences when the child has his "tantrums" are filmed in such a way, as to resemble something out of a bad episode of "Heroes". And while the unavoidably over-dramatized and unintentionally funny scenes of this child having a fit, in slow motion, doesn't take away anything from this massively intriguing storyline, "Looper" is a perfect example of a film that would have been much more impactful as a book (if you know what I mean).

Final Thought: Is "Looper" the greatest Sci-Fi movie of the year? Yeah, it probably is, seeing that the amount of movies which would fall under the Sci-Fi genre in 2012 is quite thin. And it is worth seeing for the story structure alone, but visually I wasn't as blown away (aside from a few scenes of visual brilliance) as I thought I was going to be. In saying that, the hype machine may have gotten to me far too prematurely, because at the end of the day "Looper" is in fact a well constructed piece of Sci-Fi entertainment, which will be thought of by many as being as innovative as "Inception" was a few years ago (even though "Inception" was a better Sci-Fi film).

Written by Markus Robinson, Edited by Nicole I. Ashland

Follow me on Twitter @moviesmarkus

Was the above review useful to you?

43 out of 86 people found the following review useful:

Major disappointment

1/10
Author: layish
29 September 2012

This film was a major disappointment. The trailer is promising.The idea is interesting, and the quality of picture is good. Bruce Willis is in it so you would expect a decent action film. So I went to check it out. The beginning was alright, action, everything makes sense. But then, in the middle of the movie it changes from action film to a boring not making any sense drama. It's like the director forgot what movie he was making and started making something else. Bruce Willis's character kills kids randomly, who the heck came up with that idea? At some point while the movie was still going I wanted to leave the cinema, it was that bad. Don't get dazzled by the trailer and don't go watch this movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

48 out of 96 people found the following review useful:

Yawn

2/10
Author: jakhello147
30 September 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This was a film i was really looking forward to being a Sci Fi fanatic but this film was a huge let down.

I was unlucky enough to get to see this a week before release due to have a Cineworld unlimited card, and what a load of crap it was,. The film is completely stupid the mob in the future sending people back in time to get wacked because disposal of a body is almost impossible in the future. However time travel is also highly illegal and one of the worst offences you can do so carries a high charge than murder so all seems silly. Any way story aside this film is down right boring nothing really happens most of the film takes place in a field and i was expecting more than that. I also didn't like the fact that they included telekinesis in this film as it seemed completely pointless and they still didn't use it to its full extent. For example the Rainmaker is said to have killed loads of people in the future there should definitely have been a scene showing this as it would have instantaneously made the film much better.

I would give this film 2/10 initially it was a 6.5 but the more i though a bout it the more i hated it.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 18 of 65: [Prev][13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [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