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 »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 20 of 68: [Prev][15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [Next]
Index 675 reviews in total 

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Bad, full of flaws, violent

1/10
Author: asleepfromday
13 May 2013

Many flaws in the storyline. Extremely violent with no real meaning to that. Movies like this one destroy everything Philip K Dick has achieved for Science Fiction. Don't watch it if you don't want to waste your time. Actions of many characters are either not understandable or simply stupid. e.h. why do loopers flee from their young alter ego instead of cooperating with it. the worst point is the violence - if you want to see people shot, tortured, mutilated, this movie is right for you. subjects like telekinesis are added like ingredients to a failed salad dressing - without any idea behind it. very shameful altogether. a plot like this shoud not be produced these days.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Incoherent nonsense

3/10
Author: Campbell Brown
10 February 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The many reviews praising Looper as "intelligent" misled me to expect one of those very rare things in Hollywood: a consistent, coherent time-travel film. But in fact this movie makes little more sense than Back to the Future. While I can forgive time-travel nonsense in frivolous films like Back to the Future, it is excusable in a film like Looper with pretensions of seriousness. The basic premise, about looping and "closing your loop", is quite clever and got my hopes up. But the plot soon descends into stupidity -- the explanation of memories given by Bruce Willis's character is especially dumb.

Film-makers should be forced to read some philosophy of time travel (e.g. the excellent work of David Lewis), and to demonstrate they have understood it, before they are let near a time travel story.

For a consistent time travel film (starring Bruce Willis), I recommend 12 Monkeys -- so much better than this loopy rubbish.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

dreadful! disappointing! boring!

2/10
Author: msbobbin from United Kingdom
8 February 2013

Confusing and unconvincing storyline, that never really gets started,just kind of limps along and never builds a sense empathy between the audience and the characters. This is probably because there's no meaningful background established to the key players - who were they and how did they end up in this situation isn't focused upon. The movie also has sections of unnecessary repetition, when they simply could have fast forwarded in time to 30 years later. The actions scenes are restrained in terms of visual impact, while there's little or no humor and no opportunity for the actors to shine.No captivating or special moments or even scenes where there was a glimmer of something more inspiring, intriguing or interesting.

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?

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Easily one of the worst films I've ever seen.

1/10
Author: Nico Viergever from Netherlands
8 September 2013

I was looking forward to this film. It looked like an interesting story. A cast with Bruce Willis, Jeff Daniels and some other good actors. A high rating here on IMDb. Very, very soon I lost interest. And because I kept watching I became irritated. Very irritated.

What can I say? Stories about time travel always have paradoxes. But it seems that whoever wrote Looper did not even try to work with these paradoxes; completely ignored them, maybe did not even realize the paradoxes in the story. Then on a lower level, the script is unbalanced. Jumps from one scene to the next, from one character to the next. Characters that are very shallow.

The director sometimes seemed to be a wannabe David Lynch. Some shots and scenes are typically in the Lynch style but when they work in a strange way in the Lynch films, they do not work for impersonators. Also in the direction and the cut there is a large amount of style over content. Typically for modern directors there is that awful "shaky cam", which luckily was not used in this film. But there was quite some dark filming where you can't see what is going on at all. Also a lot of unnecessary "scenery" shots. Fashionable but useless and irritating. Also for some weird reason there were many shots in the dark where a bit of light was changed by a filter or something into a blue line. Why? Form over content, a pretentious attempt to create "art" I assume.

Judging by the IMDb rating there are many people gullible enough to fall for this nonsense. Or are the ratings manipulated?

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Looper A Real Blooper 0*

1/10
Author: edwagreen from United States
13 May 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Dreadful film dealing with mobsters sending their victims back in time to be done away with.

Bruce Willis is one such victim, with his oriental wife taking a fatal bullet in the stomach. How he wants her back to life, that's the reason for his actions in this absolutely miserable film.

His younger side meets a woman at a farmhouse whose child is the Rainmaker. The latter shall change things around immensely, providing that he grows up.

How did Jeff Daniels ever sign on to such a stinker of a film? He is the head of the gang, ruthless, full of hair and just plain quite eerie to look at.

The film is violent at every turn. Willis attempts to kill all 3 young boys as he suspects that one of them is Rainmaker.

Simply awful. Must avoid film for people of all ages.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 8 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?


Page 20 of 68: [Prev][15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [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