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 4 of 66: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]
Index 652 reviews in total 

10 out of 14 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?

12 out of 18 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?

13 out of 20 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:

one of the crappiest films ever....due a raspberry award or 10 !!

Author: peter chambers from london
16 November 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

where to begin?< the biggest problem was that it was made in the first place. i have to admit tho that it started kinda OK but soon lost the plot, and the mother and boy ( the villains if you ask me )??? wtf id have shot them where they stood but a very useless younger self couldn't do it ( couldn't do anything as far as i was concerned ) it wasn't to his older self ( willis ) turned up that anything meaningful happened...that little boy is as evil as I've seen in any movie and needed taking out if only to get his annoying face of the screen but then young joe had to screw things up by shooting himself therefor deleting his future self when the little turd was gonna kop it...only plus is that younger joes self was dead, then onto emily blunt!! was there any point to her role?? she didn't turn up to halfway in and in all honesty i thought diner brought more to the film then she did....but the biggest gripe for me was seeing the bit of wood and her damien omen child walk away from it all...with the gold grrrrrrrrr. have lost nearly 2 hrs of my life watching that turkey and if i could in 30 yrs time id travel back in time and stop myself from watching it...whatever it took

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 28 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?

23 out of 40 people found the following review useful:

This is a very lazy film

Author: Bradley Templeton from Bournemouth
5 October 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The premise of this film actually had me interested and I was kinda intrigued by a comparison I saw on the side of a bus from a critic calling this the 'Matrix of 2012' or somesuch...High praise indeed I thought! Well...actually, this film pretty well sucked. It isn't thought through too well at all. You can forgive one or two plot holes and odd paradoxes in films about time travel but there are just far too many here and they are all far too obvious.

That aside, the story is just plain dull and doesn't hold any real gravitas. If you like sci fi, you will be disgusted at this film. If you like mob films, you will be disappointed with it. If you enjoy action flicks, there is nothing here for you unless you enjoy your action served with a large slice of ridiculous and a side of dull.

The pacing is horribly disjointed and you will actually become very bored during 'character development time' from around 20 minutes onwards until the last 10 minutes when actually it is quite interesting for all of around 2 minutes - that is, until you realise the film isn't going to deliver on anything it spent the last hour and 10 minutes setting up. The ending is stale, obvious and dull which is the exact three words I would use to describe this trash to anyone who asks me! How this film gets 8+ on IMDb is beyond me. It barely deserves the 2 I gave it...

Was the above review useful to you?

42 out of 78 people found the following review useful:

terrible movie

Author: Eric Hamilton
1 October 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I painfully sat through this hot mess to the end. How is it getting all the acclaim it has received? It's full of holes, JGL's makeup leaves him a wig and a dress away from a drag queen. Emily Blunt's accent is so forced and obvious.

I really like all the actors that play in this film, in other films of course. I really hope they got paid well because this movie is total crap. All the other negative reviews here pretty much some up what is wrong with this movie. Time Travel was suppose to be the star of this movie. Without it the movie can't be rewritten to make any kind of sense whatsoever. However the writers completely failed to be educated enough to even come close to making sense.

It would have made more sense for current Joe to shot his hand of to stop future Joe rather than kill himself. Still a paradox but at least it wouldn't have been so blatant a paradox.

If the rainmaker doesn't care about is committing mass murder in the future why is he bothering to send the loopers back to "Close their loops" he has access to the information just go back himself and clean house with his telekinetic self.

I am not pondering the movie because I found it mentally engaging I am pondering the failure of the studio that hired people so stupid that they would green light this garbage.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Made me become insane and violent.... And worse again...

Author: redwoods from France
28 January 2014

I came to the only possible conclusion watching this piece of "art": The director and scriptwriter (and certainly some people of the production team) must be the first ones to be sent to a DISTANT future when time travel is eventually discovered, so they NEVER get a chance to bother us again in our time frame with the "product" of their mind.

What an AWFUL experience watching this movie was. I just don't want to spend ANY effort trying to explain the reasons why, it'll be for the generations to come to destroy and make sure every trace of this ill conceived, badly executed, meaningless fable disappear without leaving any trace (a la Keyser Söze if you know what I mean...)

Seriously this movie deserves a negative note. If you want to watch a good time travel movie without the nightmarish mix of "The Shining" + "Terminator" + "12 Monkeys Army" + "Equilibrium" + "Heroes" + whatever they find to put into their cheap mix : just go and watch "Primer", a true mind boggling experience about time travel, made with a few thousands bucks, and which at least tries to be as accurate as possible, while being properly scripted, acted and directed.

One last comment about this complete waste of time and energy, where on Earth did they find this horrible angry kid! My God he could as well be the "Rainmaker" for real, he'll be cursed for the rest of his life acting in this movie!!

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

A disappointing cinema experience.

Author: aryafsharm from Turkey
25 November 2012

Looper presented itself as a promising movie before coming out without generating too much hype. I realize now that maybe that was the whole trick.

All I knew was, Joseph Gordon-Lewitt turned down a role in Tarantino's upcoming feature 'Django Unchained' to play the younger version of Bruce Willis in this action-packed time- travel flick that has them facing each other. It's an interesting premise and at times, it leaves the audience to decide for themselves who the protagonist and antagonist is, though they're both the same person. It also deserves credit for its unprecedented take on Time-travel, which poses an interesting question: What would happen if you had to face your future-self? But that's where the cool ideas run out and the movie gradually abandons its premise altogether, branching off in several equally un-suspenseful sub-plots, none integral to the story.

It's hard to discuss the plot without giving too much away. The events take place in the 2070s but you wouldn't know it if you weren't told so, as it doesn't look so different from 2012. The movie tries to account for that by explaining that America has fell into bankruptcy, yet it seems far-fetched that while Time-Travel is supposedly a mere couple of decades away, the cars still look the same as they did 50 years ago. It comes off as lazy and quickly puts you off. Meanwhile, the budget was apparently spent on building a diner set from scratch for our stars to shoot holes through, in what you later realize was the climax of the whole movie. After that, begins a slow and uneventful chapter, one that says goodbye to most of the cast and shifts focus from Time-travel, to romance. 30 long minutes and several clichés later, we arrive at final face-off, but it never comes. The movie takes a detour from answering any of the few questions that you may have had, and offers nothing in their place. There are no twists, no shocking revelations or any suspense. I can't say I saw the ending coming, but I can't say I was blown away by it either.

To cut a long rant short, this movies offers so little you haven't been offered before, and fails to deliver on any of it. Its multiple sub-plots contribute nothing to the story and rob the movie of what little pace it starts with. It even seems pointless not to spoil anything, since I wouldn't recommend you waste time with it anyway.

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

Lots of hype - very disappointing!

Author: spradley-3 from United States
10 October 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

We were really looking forward to this movie - most of Bruce Willis' movies are fun, exciting and tongue-in-cheek humor scattered throughout to make for great re-watching. There have not been many good sci-fi movies about time-travel and after reading the glowing reviews here (on IMDb), I even dragged my husband to this movie. He enjoys Bruce Willis movies but not scifi. This movie is at least 60 minutes too long. Bruce's role is well-played. His 'past' self is also well acted. It's all the stuff between that is an unbelievable, awkward time-travel/scifi story. For those of you who liked the 'Terminator' plot where it starts in the future, with Kyle looking at a picture of Sarah Conner that's taken in the past, at the end of the movie - closing the 'time' travel circle - Looper does nothing even close. Changing the future by altering the past is the typical time-travel story, done well in many movies, and unfortunately - done very badly in others. Looper is in the middle. While the stories being told in the past and future are interesting and well-acted/directed, the story linking the past-future is an 'eye roll' moment. In 'Looper', Bruce is not a good person, though he becomes one through the love of a woman. That should be the first clue to - oh brother - not one of those! So he tries to convince his 'past' self to change without figuring out what really needs to be changed to alter the future. It's so hokey in some parts that it's embarrassing. Like watching Bruce in 'Color of Night' or 'Hudson Hawk' - it's like - geez. Nothing about how the world is in the future is described except that a very bad guy is in charge and that's what needs to be changed in the past. Things keep happening at this diner in the middle of nowhere with no customers, black-and-white - and all the bad guys continue to meet up there. The people in the cities are living in the usual dark, cramped and lots of crime - future. How does this woman get a huge house, with electricity, out in the middle of a corn field - that theoretically - she is maintaining by herself? And why is she out there? None of that is explained. Maybe these are all metaphors - which are lost on me - I go to see an action movie not to try to figure out why the director shot a scene in black-and-white or why Bruce is running through a corn maze that's actually dead in the past. So - be fore-warned. This is not a 'Die Hard', not a 'Terminator', nor even 'Vanilla Sky'. It's OK if you go in not expecting much. It's got really hokey moments ala 'Knowing' and 'War of the Worlds remake'. And it's too long so you'll keep looking at your watching wondering how much longer can this movie drag on ...

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 4 of 66: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [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