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 5 of 68: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [Next]
Index 675 reviews in total 

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?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

'Time travel is messy' – as is this poor excuse for a movie

Author: roystephen-81252 from United Kingdom
8 March 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Another 'universally acclaimed' dud. Contrary to what critics claimed, Looper is neither intelligently written, nor competently executed, and the blame falls entirely on Rian Johnson, being both the writer and the director of this mess.

The movie doesn't have a clear focus, shifting halfway from being about the hero having to kill his own future self to being a mild Omen-type horror featuring a little boy with frightening telekinetic abilities. The pacing is slow and uneven, the cinematography (offering plenty of particularly badly executed, saturated blue lens flare effects) is ugly, and the poor establishing of time-frame, environment and characters, paired with the sloppy editing, makes certain scene changes hard to follow. Even the casting choices are odd. (Frankly, I don't see any similarities between Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis. I feel sorry for the former as he had to wear prosthetics to make him resemble Willis more, yet the result is utterly unconvincing.) The film wastes precious time trying to round out Kid Blue's totally pointless character, while glossing over Old Joe's much more important wife, Suzie or Abe. In fact, what we do get to know about Abe is conveyed through the laziest filmmaking device possible, Joe's hurried voice-over monologue.

Why Rian Johnson was given the opportunity to write and direct Star Wars Episode VIII is a mystery to me. His style is completely different, and in Looper he failed to come up with a coherent script. The only thing he proved is he can't even handle an action sequence involving only three characters (see the poorly edited final confrontation between Kid Blue and Joe 1&2 – where did the Kid disappear?). The answer must lie in the lazy approach of the material. 'Time travel is messy', says Old Joe, as if that solves the problem of the incoherent plot. Just like 'That's not how the Force works!' in the dismally bad The Force Awakens. OK, I do understand. Lazy writing, odd casting, poor characterisation and world-building, choppy editing, lens flares – check, check, check. Johnson might be a 'worthy' successor to Abrams.

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?

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?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Vastly Overrated

Author: David Arnold from United States
10 December 2014

Looper is a movie that deals with time-travel, and is mainly about a group of people called "Loopers", who are basically modern-day assassin's working for the mob. Everything is going well for one particular Looper (Joe) until something happens when one of his targets gets away, but that isn't the only problem because this particular target is Joe's future self.

Now, story-wise this movie is pretty decent. It's a really good idea, but to be honest, it actually gets pretty confusing a lot of the time. I know that movies dealing with time travel CAN get confusing, but Looper just jumps around far too much, and if you're not paying attention to it right from the start you will get lost very easily, very quickly.

The performances, however, are good, and Jeff Daniels actually plays a pretty decent mob boss. On paper you wouldn't have thought that he could have pulled off the part of playing a bad guy, but he does a surprisingly decent job of it. Bruce Willis is probably the best in the movie and if it wasn't for him, the movie may well have been worse.

Looper, unfortunately, was just far too boring for me. It was 30 minutes of decent action & viewing but the other 1½ hours was pretty much just sheer boredom, waiting for it to pick up again. If it kept up a good pace with the story ticking over it would have been much better. I know that movies - especially ones like this - need wee "breaks" in them so you can catch your breath so to speak, but there were just far too many times where you thought "finally, it's picking up" for it to only just slow right down to a crawl again.

Overall Looper is worth a watch - just - but in all honesty don't expect anything brilliant.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Volume Control Please

Author: jasonhall78727 from United States
10 May 2013

voices of the actors are so super quite that viewers need to turn the volume up in order to know what is going on, the volume is 100 times more for everything else. I wish I could get into this movie but I'm spending all my time with my hand on the volume control that it sucks. Next these guys don't look at all alike the guy that's is playing the younger version of Bruce. ugg sorry need to turn the volume down again because they have finished some talking and now the sound score is kicking it into full gear... now I need to turn it back up, I can't hear what they are saying. It wouldn't be so bad if the majority of the movie wasn't being narrated.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Not great, or maybe my memory is just fuzzy.

Author: Arshad Pahad from Johannesburg, South Africa
7 April 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Right so time travel is used by criminals who have you (the Looper), in this case the Levitt chap with terrible makeup, yes the Botox look was not doing it for me, assassinate people from the future who are not around in the present. At some point you get fired and end up assassinating yourself.

Bald Bruce Willis (Levitt's older version) comes to the present time to meet out some justice on an evil guy from the future, and by the very end of the movie, it would appear that Bruce, through his actions, will cause the very events to occur which ultimately lead to one irritating kid becoming an evil murderer, ruler of the underworld, and member of human resources which fires (kills) Loopers.

If Bruce never actually caused the kid to become the leader of the human resources department in the future as he was a drugged out, philandering, all round schmuck with a gun, how would his actions in the present cause those events to happen, and by Levitt killing himself how does that stop anything? And did Levitt really have to shoot himself? He could have made the conscious decision not to kill the kid's mother, which would have changed Bruce seeing as his actions ultimately had repercussions for his future self.....

A two hour waste of my life, and that fake face of Levitt's, the fake face, and then are Bruce and Levitt even the same height? BAAAAAD MOVIE. BAAAAD MOVIE. Put the remote down.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 5 of 68: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [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