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 3 of 67: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 666 reviews in total 

20 out of 32 people found the following review useful:

What might have been.

Author: almdemo from Ireland
8 October 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Very disappointing film,not even The wonderful Emily Blunt or JGL could save this film.

On paper it looked a great film but very little character development and a mish mash of films ( including 12 monkeys, The Omen and Terminator) reduced what could have been an excellent film to barely watchable.

No characters in the film show much emotion and it really is time travel by numbers with a token love story thrown in.

How this Film got so much praise is a mystery to me with Willis beating up everyone in sight cringe worthy like JGL face and fake nose.

Time travel,the future,the whole nut and bolts of the story are just skimmed over as an afterthought.

Overall very disappointing.

Was the above review useful to you?

23 out of 38 people found the following review useful:

Bored to Tears

Author: talentedripples from United Kingdom
19 October 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

If I was bored to tears why is this getting two stars, I hear you ask? There are two simple explanations really: the acting of Emily Blunt, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis, all of whom were typically good and believable as their characters; and making Joseph Gordon-Levitt look not only ill half the time but plausible as Bruce Willis's younger self - they did more than simply give Joseph contacts to wear (his eyes are typically a dark brown).

The movie starts off slow, with the hint of a promise of improving. Unfortunately it doesn't. The peaks of interest in Looper are small, too few and far between. First of all the tag line: 'Time travel hasn't been invented yet, but thirty years from now, it will have been' is badly worded and used too much for comfort.

There is too little happening for too long. All we do is see Joe kill a few too many in a corn field. Boring.

The story continues on slowly. One of the interesting points was the time travel, actually, when they chop up young Seth so they can lure in the old one. It was rather horrible to watch pieces of Old Seth vanish before his eyes until his legs literally fell off. It was rather accurate. If your younger self doesn't possess something, then you don't either. The paradox comes in that you don't have prosthetics for you lost limbs: you wouldn't. You're in the same time as your younger self which creates a paradox.

Then there's the pathetic yelling and fighting between both Joes.

By this point I was playing a game on my phone.

And the story edges onwards slowly, to the point where nobody cares anymore. Neither old Joe or young Joe are particularly likable which is probably the point. Old Joe changed but not that much - he's still the childish selfish man he was when he was young, just toned down. And young Joe is entirely jealous, selfish, childish, doesn't know how to be responsible and has like... no emotions. His only redeeming point comes at the end of this long journey.

It turns out Sid is a demonchild 'rainmaker' whose presence in the story appears to be the only justification for the time travel. Why rainmaker appeared in the first place is never explained, only with the thin explanation that maybe the rainmaker became a big bad man because something happened to his mother. Joe's sacrifice at the end was touching.

The various themes of fighting for survival, and how far are you willing to go to survive, as well as what will you do to exact your vengeance, various moral issues etc. However none of them worked.

Was the above review useful to you?

47 out of 86 people found the following review useful:

Mediocre at best (Spoilers)

Author: indiedavid from cincinnati, ohio
30 September 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I hate to be a cynic but I have a hard time believing that the 8.5/10 rating on IMDb is genuine. As for originality, I guess the film could be described as a unique combination of other story lines but definitely nothing innovative. It moved quite slow at times and there are also some serious contradictions and plot holes. In the future, homeless people fill the streets and the US resembles a third world country, yet all of the high rise building are brand new and futuristic. The cars use solar panels to power internal combustion engines which would never be a possibility. In the end, the main character commits suicide, causing his future self to disappear. If he had killed himself at his younger age, the older self wouldn't have existed. There are also some unbelievable coincidences that keep the story moving. I am sure the filmmaker would have some complex explanation but I base my realities on known science and if they have an alternative science, it should have been introduced.

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

Could have been better

Author: Paul Griffiths from Wrexham, North Wales, United Kingdom
8 October 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I went to see this film on Saturday night, and didn't know what quite to expect. The film starts off with a narrative from Joseph (as he plays the main character alongside Bruce), and explains what he does for living as he waits to kill this guy from the future. The story then goes on to detail what a Looper is and how when they come to the end of their usefulness the mob send back their older selves and the younger version to kill himself. So far so good. Just before Bruce (older version of Joseph) gets sent back, it shows you what the mob does to people who let their older selves escape ie they don't kill them. This is the start of the movie not making any sense. They capture the younger version and begin to remove his limbs, the older version starts to see his limbs disappear (this is quite disturbing and stuck with me a little). One question, if the younger version has had his limbs removed, how the hell did the older version run in the first place. Surely, when he appeared in the first place he wouldn't have any limbs. Without telling you the rest of the story, the film pretty much goes on like this all the way through. It's like they had a script that made sense and somewhere along the line it has been altered so much that now it mite as well be used for toilet paper. I will be keeping an eye out for this director and be sure not to watch any more films by him. Oh yeah, if you do watch it, the end of the film makes no sense at all, I could have put up with minor time paradox mistakes, but the end of the film just makes me wish I hadn't watched it. Hope this helps.

Was the above review useful to you?

64 out of 121 people found the following review useful:

Mad Max Beyond Terrible

Author: vctesse from United States
1 October 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

First of all, forget the plot. There isn't any, just a bunch of half baked, overdone, derivative ideas flung at the screen in the laziest piece of film writing I've ever seen. Visually the picture steals from Mad Max, Blade Runner, Witness, the Matrix, Carrie and another half dozen, better movies. But the most unforgivable thing it does is de-charm Joseph Gordon Levitt. One would not have thought this possible. Also in resurrecting the tiresome, bullet headed Bruce Willis, it reminded me of why I've always hated that guy. (His scenes with the Chinese broad were particularly excruciating.) All in all, a horrible mess that doesn't even have the guts to follow through on its set-ups.

Was the above review useful to you?

71 out of 135 people found the following review useful:

Very Decent, very clever

Author: Jason Godin from Canada
16 October 2012

No Spoilers will be shown, the story is basically the public knowledge shown on the trailers.

The story is about this man named Joe who is played by both Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis. Basically his job is a looper. In the Year 2074 civilization has created time travel however it is highly illegal to use it. It is then controlled by the highest criminal mafia in the world. In the future they cannot kill a person, so instead they send them back 30 years and the looper will kill them. When the young Joe saw the Old Joe standing there, he hesitated and the plot clashed.

The story was very confusing at first, but the movie does a good job to explain to us as it goes along. To be honest at first I thought this was going to be bad, the story took some time to build up, and the plot just didn't seem to have any structure. Once the movie did pick up, boy did it pick up. It became intense as the hunter became the hunted.

The story had emotion, action, we laughed and cried. Many places where things appeared to be stupid ended actually be part of the story and working out. There are though, a lot of silly moments in the story that to my opinion could have been left out and the story would have been just as good. The acting was very good. Also kinda shows how much Bruce Willis is getting old, but can still pack a punch. I give this movie an 8.5/10!

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

"Science fiction" for dummies

Author: thunderhead from United States
6 January 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Having seen the overwhelmingly positive reviews of this film, i mistakenly believed it would at least be a passable science fiction/action movie. Sadly, the so called "science" portion of this movie is so absurdly handled i was compelled to vent about it.

If you are entertained by Bruce Willis movies of the past few years, this may seem a step up in quality.But the how the hell could that happen moments are so frequent that i found it to be insufferable.

The tons of plot-holes are maddening and quite frankly, an insult to the intelligence of a fifth-grader.Yet, the issues of how you can come back in time if you have been dead for 30 years, seem to be entirely forgivable be those who champion this pathetic excuse for sci-fi.If you ignore feasibility it is fantasy. Saying "that is the reality of this movie" does not erase the absolute absurdity of it.

This is not Science fiction. It is a bad comic book movie without the people in spandex. And that is an insult to comic book movies.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

So bad, don't know where to start from

Author: Luca from Italy
15 November 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Time travel movies are always messy because of all the paradoxes involved, which are most of the time little or poorly explained. In this case nada... The action takes place in a future, the context of which is not explained at all. Usual decay, tecnologically recycled cars and stuff all over (except for a ridiculous motorbike), and time travel, which does not yet exist, but will shortly, and would be used only by organized crime to send back people to be killed in the past (????????). Wont comment this part (which is pretty difficult considering its the whole theme of the movie, but its really so idiotic I better just leave it to that).

On top of that, there are some genetically "evolved" individuals that have telekinetic powers. Why? Who knows, but they exist and apparently peacefully coexist with the rest of the population.

So the plot manages to put together these two elements without any kind of explanation. I call it plot, but would need to apologies. As in the end I cant really see one. It seems more of a pretext to give Bruce Willis a job and make some money out of an audience for which the producers probably have very little respect for.

I give it a 2/10 as the "product" itself is watchable. But wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

House of cards

Author: mumia-1 from Hungary
26 December 2012

I really had a hard time getting through the first half of this movie. I tried to tell my brain not to think, but I just couldn't go "dumb enough". I almost felt like having to bite down on a stick it was so painful.

I mean the movie goes against everything we know about the laws of time and physics. Which in itself wouldn't be a problem (who can tell if what science knows now is completely right?) The problem is that even with the rewriting of the laws of time they still couldn't create a plot that would hold true.

But the biggest mistake they made is that they only tell you at about 45 minutes in that you have to forget everything about time and space to get your head around this movie. Had I known that I might have had less difficulty getting through the beginning.

If you as a movie writer dare rewrite the laws of nature, you'd better make damn sure that your story is plausible in your fictional universe.

Sadly that is not the case here. There are so many huge plot holes I lost count. The only reason I'm not going to write any examples is because they would contain spoilers.

But after getting through the first hour of the movie it starts to become fairly enjoyable even though the ending again contradicts their own theory. But if you manage to watch it till the end, you won't care about that.

Was the above review useful to you?

22 out of 38 people found the following review useful:


Author: trans_mauro from Brazil
15 November 2012

Pseudo-intellectual film for the non-thinking masses...

As unattainable as time travel itself are films about time travel....

Usually, they are full of inconsistencies, plot holes and whatever. The climax scene at the end of the film is a good example of how people do not know how to end a film and then come up with some "smart twist" which of course destroyed the whole logic of the story...

It has been a while since I watched a decent science fiction, Looper is another mess, similar to Prometheus.

But at least Prometheus had some eye candy, some nice special effects, Looper has a dry sugar cane field...

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 3 of 67: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [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