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 5 of 69: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [Next]
Index 689 reviews in total 

9 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

Looper: Great Idea, Horrible Outcome

Author: McDoldy from United States
16 October 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The first 30-45 minutes of the film were fantastic. The pace was great, the action and set up was entertaining. Not only are we presented with a lot of story that raises questions about this future world, but we're also fed a reasonable amount of eye candy to keep the movie grounded in a seemingly digestible reality. Everything up to this point was making this movie great, exciting and leaving you excited for the next act. However...

The remaining part of the film robbed the audience... First off, the scenery drastically changes and is barely revisited (from cityscape to rural farm lands,) leaving many plot holes and many questions unanswered.

Why are there so many vagrants? Why does it seem like there is no functioning government? Is the mob running this city?

These are merely a handful of questions that are never answered. It's as if they were neglected and cast off in hopes of fooling the audience. I wasn't asking for the entire movie to be about exploring these topics, however I think that these were a few of the more important questions that played an integral part of this movie.

Additionally, I think that the story of the Rainmaker is almost laughable. It's force fed to us. There is no intrigue, there is no mystery. There is a line drawn from point A to point B. Where is the creativity? Again I want to mention that the thought and idea of this movie was very original but failed to deliver. There were so many other options available to solve this issue of the Rainmaker, but the director sold out and took the typical UN-ORIGINAL Hollywood path. Disappointing. In summary I feel like this was a movie marketed to draw large crowds, keep them in their seat for a third of the movie before seemingly trapping the audience, forcing them to endure a disappointing and lackluster performance. Acting great, story horrible.

Save the money on this movie, rent it. It's a movie that's worth seeing. On RedBox or NetFlix.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

A disappointing cinema experience.

Author: aryafsharm from Iran
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?

11 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

My god, what is wrong with you people? Mediocre

Author: mcreiner from United States
26 November 2012

How many relatives does Bruce Willis have out there? Or if that isn't it, what is the explanation for the popularity of this noisy waste of effort? Man. This movie had no story after the initial premise, so they threw in a kid and a pretty mom and a washed up movie star. And I noticed the cheap effect another reviewer mentioned of cranking up the volume when someone knocks on a door or makes any other sudden sound. A shabby aural technique in a futile attempt to inject excitement and cover the lack of real drama.

There is no tension in this movie, though the kung fu speed editing helps disguise the fact for half an hour into the film. The day this tacky beast opened the movies died a little.

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 30 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?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Good Movie but makes no sense at all

Author: Edgar Iván H from Guadalajara
15 January 2013

The movie lacks of sense, I don't understand why people is calling this a clever plot!!?? I think writers should take some basic physic lessons, this movie lacks completely of sense of a time-line. There are two different plots and the plot is weak, the acting performance is good, and the film is well realized but please the story not make any sense at all, is just a bad story about time travel mixed with some action and super powers.

If you think a little bit the movie shouldn't even exist hahaha, because the broke all the physics law and is not logical at all.

Please writers next time study a little more about common sense.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Without a doubt one of the most stupid films I've ever seen.

Author: viperine from Denmark
11 January 2013

It was really, really awful, and I can't for the life of me understand why it's so highly rated. Nothing made sense. Nothing was thought through. Plot holes everywhere, story couldn't make up its mind about what it wanted to be, the future world was incredibly poorly realised and practically not even visible apart from insignificant, out-of-place elements such as hoverbikes and tiny, transparent cellphones.

The worst of it all, however, is the complete idiocy of how time travel worked. Apparently in the future you can't dispose of bodies, so you have to send them back 30 years (yeah, 30 - not back before the beginning of human civilization or anything, which would have been easier) to be killed and disposed of by someone there. Why send them back alive instead of killing them there and just sending the body back? We aren't told, so we're forced to suspend even more of our disbelief and assume you can't KILL anyone in the future, despite that not being what we're told. But then why are people in the future threatening each other with guns? What are they going to do if the target doesn't comply? Not to mention that later in the film they DO in fact shoot someone in the future, completely ruining the already terrible plot device that you can't kill there.

Why is everyone using civil war era firearms prone to jamming, when there are plenty of high tech weapons around in both eras? Must be some sort of honour or fashion thing among the loopers, right? Nope, Old Joe has no problem grabbing a couple of P90's at one point, which he of course drops after a few seconds of use, to go back to his trusty six shooter that already failed him once.

Oh, and without spoiling the story: If someone is coming to kill you and those you love, and you know that person can't track you but just knows where you are now, what do you do? If you answered "leave that place", you are smarter than any of the characters in this film.

|Slight spoiler|: The entire premise of the film is that character X is evil and must be stopped, because X is killing off the loopers. But the loopers are murderers - yet not a single person wonders if X may be doing a good thing by getting rid of them. No, we're supposed to accept it as obvious that someone getting rid of hired killers is evil.

These are just what I can remember off the top of my head, but not ten minutes went by during the film where my palm didn't come into contact with my forehead over some stupid, pointless or completely self-refuting brain fart. I've never seen anything pretending to be intelligent fail so hard at it.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

Very bad movie. please give it a miss

Author: abhishekjekte
16 October 2012

The worst movie I've ever seen...And definitely not a action and certainly not a thriller....The plot is very weak. Not worth wasting your money on watching this movie. In my opinion burn the negative of this movie. Awful Movie.A real disappointment. And the concept of time travel was badly conceived. This movie is more of a romantic movie than the story of a man facing his future self. Didn't expect this from Bruce Willis. And the telekinesis thing was bullsh*t. And the movie moves pretty slow. I mean it takes about 30 mins to reveal what the plot is all about. And the worst thing is the lack of action. There is non hand to hand combat which was really disappointing. And there is just a 2 minute scene of Willis shooting people which ended as soon as it started. All in all the movie is so bad that you'd rather sleep at home all day. (And BTW this is my 1st preview so its not very professional.) But had to write this to stop y'all from wasting your money and valuable time.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

An idea went terribly wrong!

Author: Manjul Jani from Mumbai
29 November 2012

So went for this flick coz I found the trailer interesting. I really like sci-fi genre and the last movie in this genre I saw was 'In Time', which was very entertaining. Looper was not that much fun.

I felt the director's execution was not up to the mark. Firstly the movie has no action scenes if you expect so. The 2nd half of the screenplay is very slow, gloomy and totally idiotic. The movie actually has 2 plots, 1)time travel and 2) the dangers of toddlers with uncontrollable telekinesis. Unfortunately, neither of these plots are well executed and so it ruins the whole movie.

The climax defies all logics and the time travel has big a goof up and you end up thinking, how can the director can be so stupid! The lead cast was OK in the whole act. The whole premise of the film is never explained satisfactorily. Looper is a dismal train wreck of ideas with great potential. I will not recommend Looper.

Was the above review useful to you?

16 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

Common sense did not prevail

Author: henroid from Australia
28 October 2012

This review contains SPOILERS, none of which come even remotely close to the spoilers embedded in this garbled nightmare of a plot.

Anyone who considers themselves mildly vexed by plots which are thin, or where characters/people act irrationally, it's unlikely you'll enjoy this movie as it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The salt in the wound is it is actually boring and has minimal action, scarcely any actually.

The pretext for the movie is so ludicrous, that you have to actively tell your brain to shut up whilst watching the movie. Why do the mafia use their exclusive access to time travel to assassinate people? They could alter the future in any way they wanted. Surely even they are not so hopped up on goofballs that they didn't realise this potential. Who on earth would send a future self back to be killed by their past self? They had quite a few loopers, don't send them back to 'close their own loop' it's flippin retarded on so many levels. IT MAKES NO SENSE, no one would ever do this, let alone the mob.

What ON EARTH was that ending all about. Possibly the stupidest thing I've ever seen.

1. The Rainmaker became a ruthless gangster because his mother was murdered when he was growing up. 2. His mother was murdered because he became a ruthless gangster, and sent his men to kill Bruce Willis, causing his wife to die and him to go and kill the rainmakers mum. C- At what point was the Rainmaker's mum killed by Bruce Willis? She never would have been, and therefore none of this would have happened.

Premise 1- Rainmakers mum dies causes Premise 2- Bruce Willis kills her- therefore it is impossible.

It's not interesting, it's stupid. It's not action packed, it's boring. It's not particularly well acted (Bruce Willis and his wife laughable) It bastardises the fascinating concept of time travel into nothing, an irrelevant factor used when it's convenient to give cheap thrills.

Such a load of tripe. Dreadful.


Was the above review useful to you?

53 out of 103 people found the following review useful:

Looper is a thrill ride that has a nice blend of thrilling action and matters of the heart.

Author: whirlwind06 from United States
7 October 2012

Time travel sci-fi movies are inherently intriguing to me, so when I first saw the trailer with THIS cast, I knew I wanted to see it.

As in the trailer, Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Joe, a specialized assassin, in an outfit called the Loopers. He lives in the year 2042 but the mob he works for lives 30 years ahead where time travel would've been invented. When his employer from the future wants to get rid of someone, they zap that person back 30 years where someone like Joe would be waiting with a big gun in hand, ready to blow them up to oblivion. The only rule is: never let your target escape... even if your target is you. The job seems easy enough, I mean, the targets are blindfolded, so it's not like they could really escape. That is, until one did, and that target happens to be his older self, in the form of Bruce Willis.

Now, before the action begins in full throttle, Director Rian Johnson sets up the story by introducing the Looper doing their jobs and how these junkies hit-men spend their lives in a dystopian future (is there any other kind in the movies??). "Loopers are well paid, they lead a good life..." Joe said in his narration, but what he means by 'good' doesn't mean a happy one and it's clear that Joe is disillusioned with his life.

Let me just say the less you know about the plot the better as I went in pretty much 'blind,' other than seeing the trailer weeks ago, and it's fun to see the story unravel in ways I didn't really expect. There's really a lot to chew on here, as do most time-travel movies, and I have to admit it was a bit mind-boggling to digest it all as I'm watching it, but now that I've processed the movie more, Johnson actually told the story well enough without an overly drawn-out exposition.

The strengths are in the performances, especially Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who seems to only get better and better as he grows to be a force to be reckoned with in Hollywood. Seems like every time I see him, even in minor roles like in 'Inception' or 'The Dark Knight Rises,' he never fails to impress. I've got to admit though, his prosthetic make-up to make him look like Bruce Willis is distracting at times, but once I get into the story, I got used to it. In fact, in some scenes Gordon-Levitt's mannerism and expressions really do remind me of Willis! Now, I've always been a fan of Bruce. He's a bad ass guy with a heart and I feel that he sold me on the emotional moments as well as on the action front, in which he channels his iconic John McClane in the 'Die Hard' franchise. In fact, I kept waiting for him to yell 'Yiippiikayee' during some of the shootout scenes! I'm also impressed with Emily Blunt and child actor Pierce Gagnon who plays her little boy. Both played two key roles that serve as the emotional center of the story. Their paths crossed with both the younger and older Joe in a way that not only affect their own lives but the lives of Joe's fellow Loopers. Their scenes with Gordon-Levitt are well-played, though it could perhaps be tightened a bit as it does feel dragging at times. Jeff Daniels and Paul Dano also lend memorable supporting performances, Daniels is sort of a comic relief as Joe's manager who happens to be sent by the mob from the future.

It's refreshing to see a movie based on an original script, not an adaptation nor a remake. Despite all the time travel elements, the film also doesn't feel too science-fiction-y. I'm also glad Johnson doesn't pile on one action set pieces after another, instead there are a lot of quiet moments to establish character development that help you get immersed in Joe's journey.

Final Thoughts: Looper is a thrill ride that has a nice blend of thrilling action and matters of the heart. There are brutal action and some totally-unnecessary nudity here, but fortunately not so much so that derails my overall appreciation for it. At the core of this movie lies a heartfelt love story between a man and a woman, and also between a mother and his son. Highly recommended.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 5 of 69: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [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