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 guide
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 20 of 70: [Prev][15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [Next]
Index 693 reviews in total 

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?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Not very good.

Author: virindra from Netherlands
2 December 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I love time travel movies. So I had to watch this one. I did not like looper very much. There is little action. Acting was good. Joseph did his best to look like Bruce Willis and that worked out very well. But because Joseph had a bigger part than Willis, I asked myself why this was not worked out the other way around.

The movie is about Loopers who kill people who are sent to them from the future. Spoiler: they even have to kill their own selves, but the thirty years older version of themselves. And there's where they lost me. Why do they let a looper kill his thirty years older version? That's very stupid. That's asking for trouble. The best way to deal with this, is to let an other looper kill an other looper.

The whole deal about this looper thing is because in the future they don't kill people. So they send people to the past and let the killing be done by these loopers. So why did they kill this Asian girlfriend of Willis? Why didn't they kill Willis as well? This movie has flaws. When you are thinking this movie is about the loopers, we get introduced to this rainmaker and his younger version. What happens to this boy in the future, remains a riddle at the end. The ending is very disappointing. It ends in an anticlimax. There is this silence and the screen gets black. Although it is original, it is not an ending of an action movie. People left the cinema in a sort of distress. Asking themselves, was this really the promising movie that turned out to be disappointing?

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Shallow ..

Author: hussein_hbk from Egypt
25 November 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

this film is not what i expected at all ..mark the following ;

1. in such a city where people kill each others in the streets for one or another reasons,the city is contained by poor people and homeless ,but in the same time killing is very hard cause of the tracing (you can see someone who shots another who took his bag ). very shallow storyline everywhere in the movie ...the story f his wife and his beloved woman,the kid who grows up to be someone no one knows ''rain maker'' ,why are those people getting killed,who runs such operations,police force showed no sign at all from the technology side that they are that advanced so that they can detect bodies .

3.Joseph Gordon-Levitt is not the young Bruce Willis ..he tried to copy him but no ; you can even feels it when the 30 years were just passing by. such an advanced city you don't have any advanced weapons,you have motorcycles that can fly but you can't have pistols that are smarter than those.

5.the plot is weak,boring,you can't find a certain rhythm to it .

I didn't like it and i felt no story line nor attachment to any of the characters in it .

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

What a waste of potential

Author: bron1701-747-365085
6 November 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I was really looking forward to this film, but I was disappointed.

Great actors. Fascinating ideas. Then it loses the plot completely.

It's like Terminator meets X-Men in a jumbled mess.

I'm surprised it's rated so highly.

It was incredibly violent, and therefore I found, unpleasant to watch, and there was nothing to lighten the mood--no wit, no humour, little hope.

I don't think the second storyline should have been introduced at all (the X-Men meets Terminator bit with the Rainmaker). It was a crazy tangent, and both ideas have been done much better in other movies.

It would have been far more interesting if they just stuck to the original Looper premise. There was plenty of potential there, but the film abandoned it instead of exploring it further. I really don't know what they were thinking.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

A senseless and irrational dream

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?

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?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Wow: Bruce Willis shooting kids and defenseless women?

Author: aecrim from Switzerland
15 October 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***


This is not a science-fiction movie as there is not too much science in it. This is a fantasy movie which brushes superficially over time-travel, includes toddlers with super-powers, and has Bruce Willis shooting defenseless kids. I am not kidding! Bruce fu#$ing Willis shooting little kids! And running through the fields with his shotgun intent to kill a young mother with her child! (And this movie is supposed to be watchable by 15 year olds.)

The premise of the movie is weak: the loopers that have to terminate themselves is unconvincing. There is too much gratuitous violence. The antagonist is a cute little boy with anger management problems. The secondary anti-hero, the head of a terrible mafia gang, looks so soft and chubby you have to keep reminding yourself that he is not Santa. But the most painful realization at the end of the movie is that there is no story: Joe, the main character is a selfish criminal that does nothing to redeem himself but two things: 1. in a momentary impulse tries to give half of his silver to his girlfriend (although the relationship is not too well outlined), and 2) his final gesture in which he decides that he wants to sacrifice his life to save the life of a child who, by this sacrifice, might not become a real bad mafia guy, development which we are not sure that will have been avoided by this self-sacrifice, just as we are not sure how bad he will become in the future as the report comes from old Joe, who happens to be a criminal too, so the fact that he dislikes another criminal does not mean that the other one is worse.... So after all it might look like the story is the one of the character that starts being selfish and ends up being a generous sacrificing being. Only that the sacrifice seems more like the impulse of a second, a knee jerk reaction. There was no transition, there was no "growth" of the character from one state to the other.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 20 of 70: [Prev][15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

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