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

Reviews & Ratings for
Looper More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 18 of 68: [Prev][13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [Next]
Index 677 reviews in total 

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

have we lowered our standards this much?

Author: Cravos Vermelhos from Portugal
16 June 2014

After watching this film we have to assume that in the near future, neither women or non-white men will have any part in society (apart from the obvious clichés for motherhood and exotic dancers for females).

It only had 3 female characters important for the plot. One is the focus of Willis' affections, and did not have any lines. She is portrayed like the perfect woman, the one that cleans and leads the male character into the moral and correct path. The other is an exotic-dancer that appears either naked, half-naked or with a child in her arms (again, either exotic dancer or motherhood clichés). Her only lines are to show how insensible she is to Gordon-Levitt's feelings, creating a situation where you are lead to compare the moral goodness of G-L's character, with the insensitive and futile character of the disposable female. Finally, the other female character is the mother of the young kid Willis' character was looking for. In her first shot she is shown as a very strong independent woman, defending her farm and child. So far so good, until she trips over a rock and fells. Everything goes down hill from this moment on, and she shows herself to be dependent of G-L's attention and protection. The perfect damsel in distress we are all so used to. Needless to say, it fails miserably the Bechdel test (again, tested regarding women or non-white males).

Concerning the plot, and because they did not enter the "time travelling" explanations too further on, I can't state any obvious fails. Unless if you want to talk about the fact that being this film about time traveling and not talking about it the whole time is an obvious fail.

Bruce Willis does what he does best, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt tries to imitate Willis (being him the young Willis), acting in a way that you wouldn't understand if it was an awkward homage or just making fun of Willis.

The make up is very bad, and it is not worst because of the lack of facial expressions in G-L acting (again, the homage vs making fun of Willis' presence on screen).

It is very disappointing to see a story that could have made a great film being so poorly executed. It amazes me the fact that people on average actually gave it a considerable high value. I can only assume that this is what we expect from Hollywood, and our expectations have lowered this much.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Very Contrived!

Author: Mustang92 from United States
24 October 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

As others have pointed out in reviews here, this movie is very, very contrived.

The biggest bullsh*t contrivance? Young Joe turns the gun on himself, to end the loop, save Sarah and perhaps change the future. HOWEVER, killing himself was NOT motivated. On the contrary, he's fighting for his life the entire film (after his older self outwits his younger self upon time traveling back). He repeatedly tries to kill his older self, and wants to "get right" with Abe. He's fighting the entire time to live and not be killed. Yet, now, at the end of the film, just after battling one of Abe's last men to stay alive and not be killed, he's NOW going to turn the gun on himself...???? What????

All he would have to do is just kill his older self who's 20 feet in front of him about to shoot Sarah. Kill his older self, and he SAVES Sarah and Cid. And then he can go on with his life, for the rest of his life. Simple, yeah? Any reasonable person would have made this choice.

Yet young Joe doesn't, but in fact does something unmotivated in killing himself. Makes NO sense, and destroys the movie. This last action of his is only there, I'll bet, to provide an unexpected twist. But unexpected twists must work, or the film fails.

Of course, the film was already problematic with other contrivances and story logic. But... this denouement really puts a wonderfully stupid cap on a movie that had much potential. Brilliant writing there, Mr. Johnson.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

One of the most watchable and enjoyable blockbusters I've seen recently...

Author: cleary-joshua from United Kingdom
27 August 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The second time travel related movie in two days (see 'Primer'), and I have to be honest, I preferred this one a fair bit more. Yes, it's a lot longer and has a bigger budget, but these weren't the things that made me prefer it. They contributed, but honestly I thought the story was better and that it managed a similar amount of cleverness with much less confusion. It's really well crafted, and one of the most watchable and enjoyable blockbusters I've seen recently.

'Looper' tells the story of Joe, who works as a hit-man in the year 2044, killing off people who are sent back from 2074 in order to remove them cleanly from the future. The first 40 minutes of the film are mostly exposition, and we don't get to the main event (the arrival of Bruce Willis) for a while, but it's still really interesting as we learn how our world is different to theirs. We see lots of poverty, new drugs, the arrival of telekinesis, and it's clear that the film is trying to be both close a reality in some parts, and distant in others. There are no flying cars or anything as extreme as that. The arrival of Bruce Willis is done with an incredibly clever segment, where we see the process through which he first lives those 30 years between Young Joe and Old Joe. It's essentially a display of everything that separates the two characters, as it has happened for one, but is still to come for the other.

Questions are raised that we don't usually get in a time travel film. Does Old Joe know exactly what Young Joe is about to do, because things could change instantly? I really enjoyed the sending of messages from young versions to old through the skin, and thought it worked well as a grizzly method of communication. The rest of the film is very watchable, if slightly slower than the action packed first hour. If I have one problem with the film, it's that it's too long when Joe is staying with Sara, and their eventual night of romance feels very gratuitous.

The climax of the film is very exciting, and lots of great action scenes happen along the way. Bruce Willis does prove that he can still do what he used to do best, and delivers his best performance in years. It's really fun, very smart, and the decision that Joe makes in the final minutes makes for a very satisfying ending.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

"Face your future, fight your past" - this film is amazing!

Author: Papa-Poo-Poo-Pee-Pee-Shire from United Kingdom
26 August 2013

I was not expecting any of this, this was a totally different movie than I was expecting. But that's a good thing, Looper has amazing Special Effects, amazing story, amazing acting and also makes you think.

This movie is about Joe, a Looper who kills people sentenced to death through time travel. Of course during this, he notices his future self (Bruce Willis) come through, yet he doesn't know this. This film is about hunting him and killing him, as Old Joe is trying to kill the Rainmaker to save his wife from the men who killed her.

It's a very deep story, with amazing action scenes. I didn't know it was Joseph Gordon-Levitt until I saw the poster, and that shows the make-up department did a damn good job on his face.

Looper is a nice action film, with J.J Abrams style effects with a fantastic side story in it.


Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

I didn't like it, but you probably will.

Author: M H from United Kingdom
17 June 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I think I will be in the minority when I say that I really did not enjoy this film.

Set in the near future the plot centres around Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) a hired killer called a 'Looper'. 30 years further into the future time travel has been invented and the only use for it (due to it being quickly hidden away) is for the Mafia to send people back in time to be dispatched, because it is incredibly difficult to kill someone in the future due to 'tracking'. That's it, that's your explanation for the setup of the whole film.

This is all set out in the opening sequence of the movie and from then on the director's appreciation of science and any dealings with time travel or the associated paradoxes is laughable.

In the reviews I write I try to give my impression and avoid spoiling the viewing experience by explaining every detail of the film and I'm not going to set out why this film fails on so many points because a lot of people seem to like it. I really want to but this will turn into an essay and life is far too short.

Bruce Willis is good throughout as the older Joe, he essential plays to his strengths, says little and kicks arse. Emily Blunt is a tenuous love interest and neither has much impact or credibility in her role, which as the film develops you learn is pivotal to events in the future. Gordon-Levitt is just about bearable, but his performance is not up to the standards of either The Dark Knight Rises or Inception.

One aspect of the film that intrigued me revolved around the make-up used to make Levitt look like Willis, it took me a while to realise that is was actually Levitt we were looking at.

I found this quite distracting as not only did Levitt look a bit odd, the likeness between him and Willis wasn't perfect (look at the ears!). This didn't help with transporting you into the story that, even with the ridiculous premise, could have entertained as an action flick.

This failed for me on several levels, the science, the plot, the strange retro styling that was trying to ape Blade Runner, the really silly ending that just disappoints and numerous other things that would just be spoilers. At just under 2 hours long this was an unpleasant and thoroughly lacklustre viewing experience, which came as quite a surprise due the hype surrounding the movie.

I didn't like it, but you probably will.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

overly complicated

Author: MLDinTN from TN
6 May 2013

This is one of those sci-fi movies in which the plot just gets to complicated and there are too many loop holes. Bruce Willis is looking really old and Joeseph Gordon Levitt is becoming a lead actor. I think he is really entertaining in movies. JGL is Joe, a guy known as a looper. He kills guys that are sent back from the future by the mob. Closing a looper is when the older looper is sent back to be executed by his younger self. This happens to Joe, but the older joe gets away. So he needs to kill his older self before the mob kills him, why, I'm not exactly sure. The older Joe is looking to kill the evil Rainmaker as a child. So, he has 3 kids that may be the rainmaker. And the younger Joe picks the right house to begin with. So, you see how complicated this gets. So in the end the younger Joe must come up with a plan to stop the Rainmaker from doing his evil things in the future.

FINAL VERDICT: I didn't care for it because the plot just got too out there.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

A confused and generic action film

Author: tapio_hietamaki from Helsinki, Finland
1 March 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Looper has a couple of promising and intriguing scenes but stumbles on its lack of originality and emotion. Its characters are not very sympathetic and don't really have any good dialog, with the possible exception of Emily Blunt's self-sufficient but lonely heroine. Oddly enough, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis play the same character, which translates to a JGL in make-up playing John McClane.

The implications of time travel make possible some disturbing things early in the film as the concept is introduced, but the science stuff is abandoned in favor of a traditional gunman confrontation storyline. There is also an unsettling kid with mighty psychic powers, a trope seen in many earlier films.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Good 'MINDLESS' action movie

Author: jacksherak from United Kingdom
29 January 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I was recommended this movie without discussion so when I was browsing for something to watch and stumbled across this I figured was worth a punt, knowing nothing at all about it other than it involved time travel.

Just to note, I am always sceptical about films or franchises that use time travel. Sometimes its just an easy way to explain the unexplainable or, in the case of Terminator, milk a dead cow.

Anyho the plot of this film is utterly absurd, I have seen some reviews on here that use the word clever and in all cases must strongly disagree! I was constantly asking myself questions. So many questions, contradictions, etc, etc... Awful Awful Awful, I mean I've seen some real horrible uses of time travel and this is amongst the worst.

I give it 5 thou cos if you turn your mind off its a good action flick with a stunning Emily Blunt in it.

Worth a watch if you ain't got nowt else to watch but don't expect a thinker.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Has its moments but mostly it is ideas without cohesion, flow or spark

Author: bob the moo from United Kingdom
6 January 2013

Looper was compared (by some, but not many) to The Matrix and Inception in terms of it being a smart film supposedly based on ideas and, to a point I suppose it is. The plot sees hit men recruited in the near future to kill and dispose of people the mob want out of the way; the twist being that these hit men exist many years before the hits need doing and the mob are sending the victims back to be killed and disposed of because in their future getting rid of bodies is apparently very difficult. These hit men are very well paid but, at some point they will do a final contract – their futures selves – at which point they are well paid off and allowed to life out the rest of their lives until the point where they become that person who is sent back to be killed. When Joe is sent back to be killed by himself though, he has other plans, sparking a race to change the future and the present.

It sounds like it could have been a smart film but unfortunately the delivery from concept to filming is lacking. In terms of the ideas it is important not to think too hard about them or else the wheels will immediately fall off – even the idea that mob would have a time machine but not be using it for many other better ideas is one, but there are many others. The story unfolds with messy coincidence and a real lack of cohesion with many ideas and tones banging up against each other in a way that doesn't work – the film never seems to settle into a rhythm or flow and it is quite hard to watch as it is so uneven. I was surprised by how little spark there was to it as well – the filming style seems to be deliberately slow and moody, but the material doesn't support this approach, meaning that the unintended consequence is that the story seems lethargic and quite dull. It still has its moments but mostly it bored me.

The characters and actors don't help. I understand why they wanted Gordon-Levitt to look as much like Willis as possible, but, as impressive as the transformation is, it is endlessly distracting – and considering how much more disbelief I was being asked to suspend by the rest of the film, I don't think it would have been a massive stretch to accept him as he is. The transformation into Willis also hurts Gordon-Levitt's performance as it is so much impersonation that he loses the character; it is excellent in terms of impersonation of mannerisms, tone and the like but there is no character here. Willis doesn't present one either and is so-so. Blunt is more interesting and at least has more to do than Perabo, although the latter will be more memorable to some viewers.

Looper has some good ideas in here but they are presented without much cohesion, flow or spark. The tone of the film is all over the place and it never really got me engaged as it should have done and the manner of the ending suggests they had that as their first idea and sort of pieced it backwards from there. It is a very average film at best.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Takes an old idea and moves in an unexpected direction with it.

Author: dusksky from Canada
3 January 2013

Time travel. It has fascinated people for years. What if we were able to control the future through the past. Lots of movies, books, TV shows, etc. have been made about it. And here's the thing.

It doesn't exist.

And because it doesn't exist, we don't actually fully understand how it works. We all have our theories, but nobody could actually tell you the exact outcome of going back in time and killing baby Hitler. This is important, because I've heard a lot of people saying that their are plot holes because "Time travel doesn't work that way." Sure it doesn't. We have no idea how time travel works. And so, movies like this are made, presenting ideas in an artistic format. The characters themselves fully acknowledge that they, people who are living in a time when time travel exists, don't fully understand it.

Any movie that dares to tackle time travel will run into a few plot holes. The real sign of how good a movie is is how much the plot holes detract from the viewing experience. In this case.... I'd say none.

Now that I've tackled a problem, to the review:

A futuristic assassin (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), Joe, who kills people sent back in time from when time travel exists one day encounters his future self. As one of his targets. His future self (Bruce Willis) manages to escape and the man hunt begins. What's more, in the future, a powerful person called "the Rainmaker" is in total control and actually killed future Joe's wife. Because of this, future Joe sets off to kill the Rainmaker, who is still only a child at this point. Younger Joe gets a hold of one of the possible addresses and stakes out a farm house, occupied by a tough young woman, Sara (Emily Blunt), and her son, Cid (Pierce Gagnon), one of the potential Rainmakers.

Obviously, this film takes on some of the Terminator films' vibes. But even though parts of the plot seem familiar, (killing someone who in the future will become evil, future and past meeting, etc.) the movie takes a very different route. Instead of being predictable, the characters and set-up create a maze of possible plot-lines, follows one, and leaves the audience to guess at different outcomes.

The absolute best part of this film is the characters. The effort put into writing them, making them all plausible and sympathetic, is wonderful. All of the main characters are fleshed out and feel very real. They follow arcs and grow and change. The acting, which of course is what brings the characters to life, is flawless, even from the young Pierce Gagnon. Child actors can be tricky, but he manages to play a character who is innocent, yet dangerous (a difficult part for anyone) with full believability and intensity. Emily Blunt gives a particularly interesting performance, playing both a tough, strong care-giver and a frightened and alone person. And Bruce Willis (an old favourite) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (younger, but with a similarly impressive career both in front and behind him) play off each other as the same person with two very different mind-sets in a truly delightful way.

I've heard some complaints that the movie isn't the one the trailers showed. I, for one, liked this. Trailers have a bit of a blind spot of giving away everything. They tell the whole story within a few moments and make seeing the movie boring. If all the plot twists are in the trailer, then why bother seeing the film? Trailers are there to entice you. And Looper's trailer did.

This film is original, interesting, and dynamic. But don't take my word for it.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 18 of 68: [Prev][13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

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