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 20 of 68: [Prev][15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [Next]
Index 671 reviews in total 

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

I am stuck in this loop!

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#


Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Great movie, except for one big flaw...

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

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.

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*

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.

Author: MATTHEW TANNER ( 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?

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

a couple of original ideas otherwise pretty cliché

Author: Iskren Iskren
4 November 2012

I had high expectations on the movie being a big fan of sci-fi genre. It started pretty well setting expectations high, then follows a series of mediocre actor's play, copy-paste from other movies - Terminator/Signs style and such (missing the originality). The movie lacks charm and feels like multiple pieces put together - dialogs feel to be taken from elsewhere (other movies), character's act in a extremely foreseeable way, like you know what they are going to say or do. There are movies with lower quality of play and direction so this one i would put as mediocre. I personally wondered whether to stop it and watch something else couple of times. If you have no special demand for quality, fun and original movie that would bring you pleasure from watching - you can try to watch this one.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Enjoyable. Clever

Author: (bob-rutzel-1) from United States
1 January 2013

In the future, it is 2074 and Time Travel has been invented, but is also illegal. The MOB (the Mob will always be around) uses it anyway to send someone they want whacked back 30-years where a Looper, an assassin who closes the loop and shoots him and disposes of the body. Young Joe (Gorden-Levitt) is a Looper and because Time Travel is as complicated as it is, a now Older Joe (same guy) (Bruce Willis) comes back from 2074. Now Young Joe sees himself as Older Joe and he needs to whack Older Joe. What to do? What to do? But, Older Joe escapes and has an agenda and that is to find and kill the Rainmaker, who will abolish Loopers.

This was quite enjoyable. Here is the best way to view Time Travel and enjoy the show. Remember when you dreamed, everything in the dream made sense? In a conscious state, of course, these things would not, could not make sense. But treat Time Travel as a dream where everything makes sense and you will be fine. Anyway, I hope the explanation above gives you a good reference for what you are about to see.

The entire cast performed well. The stunts and CGI were outstanding. Notables included Emily Blunt as the single mother, Paul Dano as a Gatman (okay a Looper), and Jeff Daniels as Abe, Young Joe's boss. A special shout-out is made for Jeff Daniels, with or without the beard, as he is good as bad guy, someone part of the Mob or a questionable politician. Take your pick.

One more shout-out and that is for Cid (Pierce Gagnon), the child of Sara (Emily Blunt) who acted well beyond his years. Kudos.

All in all very clever and quite enjoyable. (8/10)

Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: Yes, show girls passing backstage. Drug use: Yes. Language: Yes. But not overdone.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Here we go with the 10/10 again!

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.


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

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?

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