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 »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 20 of 65: [Prev][15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [Next]
Index 645 reviews in total 

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

the toddler will create the time machine

Author: jettaaaha3 from Slovakia
1 September 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I really enjoyed the movie and i don't understand why is there so much haters. This movie is about time traveling and (logically) still be questions like "and what will happens if his future self..." I think most of haters didn't realize toddler is the future developer of time machine, to save his mother.

Very good directed and very enjoyable performances of all main protagonist, like Gordon-Levitt, Willis or Blunt, but especially, the toddler, because - in my opinion - he stole the movie.

So, I hope you will enjoy this movie like I do and don't bother with time travel debates, you are not Stephen Hawking or anybody with such intelligence, to be even close to time traveling concept.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Interesting yet lacking...

Author: tharnax from United States
24 August 2014

'Looper' has all of the potential of an awesome sci-fi film: Time-travel and hit men mixed with a splash of gangster politics. The execution of this concept does suffer in some areas, most notably the make-up used to transform Joseph Gordon-Levitt into a young Bruce Willis (The make-up is extraordinarily bad in many shots ,especially in the lip area, many times appearing too red). The poor make-up detracts from Gordon-Levitt's otherwise great performance. 'Loopers' are hit men that execute mob enemies that have been brought back through time, thereby erasing their future existence completely. The time travel concept is used here in a very similar fashion as it was in 'Twelve Monkeys' (1995) which also starred Bruce Willis. Gordon- Levitt plays a young mob hit-man in the year 2044 who is assigned to kill his future self in order to "close his loop". The screenplay is original and exciting however, poor casting choices for many supporting characters brings it down to the level of a mediocre action flick. It's a shame that a great actor like Jeff Daniels is given very little to work with as a two-dimensional mob boss. The standout is Gordon-Levitt himself, he clearly worked hard to capture many of Bruce Willis' subtle idiosyncrasies and mannerisms. Writer-Director Rian Johnson shows promise in this major feature ,but clearly his best work is ahead of him. 'Looper' had the potential to be one of the great new sci-fi films, instead, it leaves you thinking of a dozen ways it could have turned out a heckuva lot better.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Novel ideas and strong themes delivered with precision; good solid sci-fi

Author: Chris Allen from United Kingdom
16 August 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A strong, original plot, superb acting and heavy themes make this action/sci-fi movie an understated classic.

Interlinking motifs like the ticking clocks stitch the film together; the soundtrack is brooding and effective despite its minimalism. Camera shots and angles show little variation, but the clever script and darkened colour palette carry each scene smoothly and quickly. The parallels drawn between Joe and Cid are subtle, but clear on a second watch: the Older Joe's bloodied face, the stroke of hair at Joe's temple, the backstory of an angry child - isolated from his mother - doomed to cause havoc if his path isn't altered by kindness. This contributes powerfully to the idea of karma in the film, as a never- ending circle of events. There are a myriad of references and recurrences, like the arrogant Kid Blue's perpetual injuries and anger within each of the cycles of Joe's life. Joseph Gordon-Levitt seems to represent the arrogance of youth; the cafe scene belays the way he thinks of his life as his own to live as he chooses - despite the evidence of his future self in front of him. Bruce Willis embodies a weary older self, shaken by the death of a woman who cared for him so deeply and driven to change the past in order to save her.

The violence is bloody, but minimal and necessary (disregarding Bruce Willis' final killing spree to tie up the loose plot ends of the Gat Men gang). Excellent performances all round, specifically Emily Blunt (grounded but emotional as Sara), Bruce Willis (a hardened, yet surprisingly tender Older Joe) and Pierce Gagnon (otherworldly and ominous as the mature-beyond-his-years Cid), give the film a depth beyond its action-blockbuster advertising.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

"This time travel crap, just fries your brain like a egg..."

Author: classicsoncall from United States
14 July 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

There are any number of reasons time travel stories can make your head hurt. This film had a Young Joe, an Old Joe and a Dead Joe. Dead Joe was the narrator. See what I mean?

Well I liked the concept of this picture, but to say that there were numerous inconsistencies in the execution would be an understatement. For example, when Abe's (Jeff Daniels) gat men eventually found and finished off Seth (Paul Dano), his on the run future self began losing body parts and became disfigured. But when Young Joe killed himself at the end, Future Joe disappeared. Why the two different treatments for what should have been the same outcome?

I guess you shouldn't force yourself to think about these things too much. If you just accept the flow of the story as it occurs, then it's a fairly entertaining sci-fi/action thriller. Still, if you think there ought to be some credibility built into the premise for a time travel flick, you'll only wind up discombobulated here. Like why would anyone agree to become a looper if your life span in retirement was guaranteed to max out at thirty years?

Here's an interesting thing though. The first time I saw this movie was shortly after I caught an Encore presentation of a film titled "Kid Blue". I tried to figure out if there was any connection to the character in this film, portrayed by Noah Segen, with Dennis Hopper's portrayal in the 1973 Western. The only thing I could come up with was that Dennis Hopper was an outlaw too, but as you might expect, in the future they had bigger guns.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

'Looper' loops up and down making it spectacular and disappointing.

Author: dom-lerose-8
15 June 2014

One of the main problems when rating a film is if the film contains a mixture of good and bad content. Filmmaker Rian Johnson creates an interesting action film starring rising star Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Joe. Joe is a Looper. A Looper is an assassin who eliminate people from the future. How it works is criminals get the need to put a hit on someone and send them into the past to meet assassins called Looper's to do the dirty work. "Looper" is set in 2074 that has an amazing setting. It has awesome transportation, beautiful women, unique guns, time travel and people who all live well. Joe is surprised one day when the mob wants to put a hit on him when he meets his future self (Bruce Willis) that he is hired to kill on the scene of his job. The mob basically wants to eliminate him from the future. "Looper" contains a really unique and original story that has good scenes of action. In some scenes the action gets really silly and weird and just doesn't work. The first 30 minutes are amazing, however the middle of the film is really odd and doesn't go in the right direction. Rian Johnson chooses Joe to head to a farm to hide from the mob, where he meets Sara (Emily Blunt) and her kid. Not a single actor besides Joseph Gordon-Levitt give good performances which causes the film to loose its drama. The main problem with 'Looper' is that it is a prime example of a film with wasted talent. It could have been amazing, and proves that it has some strong content, but doesn't do anything else strong. It loops around in a zig- zag in terms of how good it is, but overall is decent.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Even with its centrally themed time paradox, Looper is an original and enjoyable science fiction film that relies on logic to dictate the narrative.

Author: Lloyd Bayer from United Arab Emirates
30 May 2014

If you thought Inception went overboard (pun unintended) with the whole dream within a dream within a dream, don't read any further. But like Inception and Memento before it, Looper is an intricately woven yarn that is very much a thinking man's movie; at least for the most part. Luckily, unlike the aforementioned films, writer-director Rian Johnson doesn't let it get to a point where we smell our own cerebral cortex cooking. Just when you raise a hand to scratch your head, the other hand snaps a finger in triumphant euphoria, as if solving a puzzle only moments before abandoning it.

The setup has Joseph Gordon-Levitt playing Joe, a mafia assassin in the year 2044. His narration tells us that although time travel is yet to be invented, it exists thirty years in the future. However, its use is condemned by the government but adopted by criminal organizations as a means of "closing the loop". This means ending an employee's tenure by sending him to the present, where a younger "Looper" waits in an abandoned field with just a loaded shotgun. Loopers are paid handsomely, typically silver bars for each kill. When a Looper receives gold bars it is a cause for immediate celebration, but also means they have thirty years to live as they have just killed their future self thus closing the loop in the future. On one such contract, Joe is faced with killing his future self (Bruce Willis) but hesitates to pull the trigger. This much is known from pre-release trailers. What follows is a diabolical fight for survival where both Joes, though each unrelenting, must find and eliminate "The Rainmaker", a person destined to become an ironfisted criminal mastermind responsible for closing all the loops.

This is a science-fiction movie that relies heavily on logic, but not necessarily the kind found in The Matrix. It's as simple as basic computer programming, where the outcome of an action depends on a pre-determined set of rules. IF you do this, THEN that will happen; as a paradox, the premise in this film is very similar to the 'Butterfly Effect'— a metaphysical theory where cause and effect play a fundamental role in a nonlinear state of progression. Simply put, Johnson's forte is in telling a story where the end justifies the means. Given the centrally themed time paradox, it becomes all the more profound that however obscure the future may seem, it is the present that determines the outcome of that future. This grain of thought powers the final act where both Joes, each with opposing agendas, work towards preventing a cataclysmic chain of events. As such, a vital plot development is omitted from the trailers, owing to which, some viewers may find that the film begins and ends without cohesion. Without spoiling much I can say that a sub-plot involving genetic mutation takes center stage towards the end.

Although I have referred to other movies of similar ilk, I am happy to report that Looper is conceptually original — all the more so when every other recent movie is a sequel or a remake or a remake of a remake. Add to this a solid performance from Gordon-Levitt who has appeared in more interesting films this year than Tom Cruise. As a younger Bruce Willis, it might take a while to get used to his facial prosthetics, but I am willing to wager that Gordon-Levitt watched quite a few of the former's movies to get the swagger right, complete with Willis' iconic smirk and grunt. Willis himself is back in form with a much needed departure from some half-made films he has chosen to merely appear in over the last couple of years. Together they form a great team and amusingly play the same person. A special mention goes to Emily Blunt, who although has more screen time than necessary, makes a refreshing change as a straight-talking, shotgun-wielding Southerner with very little trace of her native British accent. Her character brings in a questionable romantic element, but is also linked to a vital plot development. Finally, kudos to Johnson for a good attempt at skillfully presenting a sci-fi film that also has a film noir look and feel despite its futuristic setting. There are moments when you wish Johnson's script could have used Christopher Nolan's finesse, but that would be asking for too much. À la dual-wielding guns ablaze, Bruce Willis also gets his clichéd moments, but let's just say we would rather see Willis with a gun than a magic wand.

This is a recommended movie. You can either watch it now or risk watching it later — by this I mean your future self could be annoyed with your present self for not watching it sooner.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

A solid and entertaining SF

Author: Peter Pluymers ( from Kortessem, Belgium
7 May 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Once again a solid and entertaining SciFi.

This movie was thrilling because of two things:

- The feature of time traveling has already been used several times, but the fact that people are sent from the future and then being eliminated by a "Looper" is unique (Maybe I'm grossly making a mistake but I've never encountered this in another movie). The Looper is sent on retirement after his alter ego returns from the future loaded with gold. Tricky but ingenious.

- The acting of Pierce Gagnon as Cid is extremely sublime and at times surprising, knowing that he's still such a little fellow. Those eyes that look up at the young Joe while asking if he killed people already. And that frenzy look at the end when confronted with BW. And such acting by a little kid. Superb.

The rest of the film was quite entertaining. Not very original, of course, and already used in other movies, namely changing the future by making drastic changes in the present. Whether there are errors in it or not, it always leads to banal and philosophical debates where nobody knows what the outcome will be. To me time travelling is and will always be impossible. That's why it's called SF.

The setting and scenery was alternately. It looked brilliant with a Blade Runner-like feeling and sometimes it looked awful like the cars with those pasted solar-cells and a pipe (I think they found it in a cheap Radioshack store) to the fuel tank. The Star Wars-like flying motorcycles were beautifully designed.

Willis performed like an average actor and once again I felt like they used him to give this movie a particular standing. Gordon-Levitt pleasantly surprised me and fitted perfectly in his role from the beginning. He reminded me several times of Gigolo Joe from AI with his plastic appearance.

Conclusion : "Looper" is a mix of TwelveMonkees, Terminator and Firestarter.

More reviews at

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Did they cast Willis because he has experience time travelling?

Author: Lomedin
8 October 2013

Excuse my little title joke, I just find funny how certain people seem to have different roles with an apparently non-skill based point. Don't get me wrong, he does a good job here, it's just simply curiosity. Like Reaves an cyberpunk roles, for example (does he have a cyberpunk look or something?).

Anyway, I found this movie entertaining enough. It has some obvious flaws (some of them what-the-hell level), although it tries to make sense as much as possible (even when, compared to this movie, Back to the Future's time travel plot and physics seem to have been written by Stephen Hawkings).

If we ignore those little things, Looper becomes a very enjoyable movie, with a nice mix of scifi and supernatural (let's call the "TK" that). The future has been presented is an overall credible way, and it has things in it that deviate a bit from the norm, which makes the movie look a bit refreshing in that aspect. We'll also find more typical futuristic gadgets (like the flying bikes), which are a nice touch and give the film some sort of classic scifi feeling without making it look outdated.

Even though a couple of things throughout the film can be a bit predictable, I was positively surprised when more twists than expected showed up, and was glad to be wrong about certain predictions I had in my mind.

Alas, not a bad movie for both scifi fans and people who want to watch an average thriller.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

An Annoying Plot Shift Ruins a Could've-Been 10/10 Movie

Author: HandHStudios from United States
17 September 2013

Looper starts out great. The plot is fresh and original, the acting is pretty good, Joseph Gordon Levitt looks a hell of a lot like an actual young Bruce Willis, and the movie goes from there, with JGL trying to chase his "future self" through the present. This movie is complex, but once you hit Nirvana with the idea, like Inception, you will understand everything.

As Levitt chases his future self through the world, he stumbles across a farmhouse, and there lies Emily Blunt. From that point in the movie --a little under halfway-- the plot shifts, and is all about Blunt's son. (I won't spoil what happens anymore).I hated this plot shift as the focus of the movie veered off the side of the road of getting to the intended finale. other than this, the movie isn't half bad.

HandHStudios Rating: 7.2/10

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

In The Loop

Author: robinski34 from United Kingdom
6 September 2013

Enjoyable SF effort from emerging auteur Rian Johnson, writer and director of the excellent 'Brick' and the very good (but not excellent) 'Brothers Bloom', 'Looper' is a challenging time-travel yarn, which finds Joseph Gordon-Levitt trying to unpick the tangled plot strands that run through what is a stylish future thriller. The make-up work to alter JGL and make him more Willis-like is remarkably good, and there's a functional matter-of-factness about the technology of the future that makes it easy to accept, a believable near(ish)-future, and the whole thing looks wonderful thanks to DP Steve Yedlin. But 'Looper' is not without issues. Being told more than once not to think about the implications of time travel felt patronising, even when it is the very excellent Jeff Daniels doing the telling - and Mr. J. could have done a lot worse than take a leaf out of the book of the superlative 'Primer' (find it, watch it) and Shane Carruth in that regard. It all goes a bit 'Witness' in the third act, but there is sufficient chemistry between Emily Blunt and JGL that the tension is maintained, and the climax is impactful and highly satisfying. What higher recommendation can there be for Mr. Johnson's abilities than the fact that he has delivered three episodes of the seminal 'Breaking Bad'? We should be awaiting his next project with bated breath.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 20 of 65: [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 Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Parents Guide Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history