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 6 of 64: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [Next]
Index 632 reviews in total 

15 out of 27 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?

23 out of 43 people found the following review useful:

Sooooo BAD!!!

Author: hugsie124
5 October 2012

Promised so much and delivered so little. I have NEVER walked out of a movie at the cinema, Until now.(I even sat through the whole of 'The Lucky One') The idea of the film is great, i was very excited to give it a watch. But the way it was made and all the holes in the plot was just disgraceful!!!

Also if it was so hard to dispose of dead bodies in the future then how come they shot his wife dead when they came for him?? why didn't they kill him as well and the film would have half as long and half as painful!!


Was the above review useful to you?

52 out of 101 people found the following review useful:

A wonder-filled train wreck

Author: doxxman5 from United States
30 September 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Looper is a hell of a ride, but in the end it unfortunately feels like it. It is the prime example of bad marketing: it talks like it will be a sci-fi action movie. In reality it is more of a slow burning romance story with elements of The Omen and Terminator. The real problem with the movie is that things are not thought out well; no one has "feelings". There is an obligatory sex scene that will make your skin crawl (it also fades out before the sex part). There is a character (Kid Joe or something like that) that has no real use in the story, but is hard to kill and just kinda drifts around, culminating in a new movie high for being a bad shot with a gun! The acting, direction, and cinematography are top notch..but the story is all over the place! Why does the movie shift to the farm? Why don't i feel like the idea of killing children is ever justified? Why is there a big shoot out with Bruce Willis for no reason??? Why does that poor kid have so many scenes of awful screaming? Looper means well and is plenty ambitious, but that makes its failure all the more painful. Rian Johnson should have had someone with experience help him write the script. A bad script really ruins a great idea for a movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 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?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Entertaining but very poor story line.

Author: abuse-this2 from Ohio
1 September 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Plenty of reviews here go into detail on this movie but I thought I'd add my two cents.

Before seeing this movie, I saw the plot summary listed by the Media Center TV listings and thought it a pretty lame idea. Bored I turned it on anyway at one point. The acting, the direction, the entertainment factor are all good, but the base plot line stinks.

Why would you have an mob assassin kill his future self and why would you pay him so much better for that hit than others? He just shot his future self, him. He knows that he is going to be murdered by the people for whom he works. Why would he continue or want to work for them? The premise of murder in the future being too difficult to deal with bodies ... just because you can't hide the body doesn't mean people stop killing each other. Either they get caught more often or the number of disappearances reduces and more unsolved murders are on the books. The Mob could still kill people all sorts of ways.

And why send them back 40 years earlier to be killed? Why not send them to the middle of the Atlantic rather than some cornfield. You wouldn't even need the assassin in the early years. Just drop your victims in the middle of the Pacific. Much cheaper and cleaner.

The handling of future self verses younger self is very poorly handled. Everything that happens to the younger self would be in the memory of the older self such as the identity of the Rainmaker and he would never go after child 1 and 2. The rainmaker is supposed to have a plastic jaw from the gunshot at the closing scene. If is jaw had to be replaced, how is it he is still talking?! With young Joe falling for Sara and Cid, why would he ever continue his life to become old Joe in the first place? And how is it these GAT men of 2044 act as almost a police force and so brazenly? Jesse for example carrying a large caliber hand-gun at his waist in a front holster. And why would 2044 be so much easier a place to dispose of bodies than any other, like a war zone or the black plague? Why even transport the back alive? There are far too many problems with the plot of this movie to warrant any sort of rave praise or recognition, but it is somewhat entertaining.

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:

Fabulous and fantastic and flawed deep down, but enjoyable!

Author: secondtake from United States
15 February 2014

Looper (2012)

A futurist romp with time travel, double and triple identities, and hot rod punk culture where everything is more like a beat up 1980 than a real 2044. The whole scene, though, and the plot, is fun, dramatic, compelling.

And confusing, for sure. I think it does mostly makes rational sense (there are some things that will never make sense with time travel, so don't think too hard) and it will help a viewer to know that the whole movie is set in 2044 (as far as I could tell—not including brief flashbacks for backstory).

You'll wonder about whether Bruce Willis really looks like an older Joseph Gordon-Levitt (even with a prosthetic nose). This matters quite a bit—in fact the movie needs a level of credibility all around. The weakest point, I suppose, thinking back on how it feels a day later, is that it was all fun and wild and dramatic and if you left it out there just for the thrill and the mind-bending, you'd be happy. But the rules of reality and time travel were really so loose, almost gratuitous, you had to take each huge twist as just the liberty of the director/writer Rian Johnson.

And this left me a little disengaged. I mean, I was fully watching trying to keep up with it, so there was that kind of engagement. But in terms of the characters and their real dilemmas of how to stay alive (or not), I was forced to just go with the flow. The story was "told" to me.

It's worth saying that there are echoes of Terminator here—the idea of going back in time to change the future, and even the idea of finding a future leader as a child. This movie is less futuristic—more on that in a sec—and more romanticized. Where Terminator pushed the idea of the robot to an unlikely level that we could at least envision, this movie tips into telekinesis at key moments, and it's a huge stretch—pure fantasy fiction. Not my personal thing.

As for the way the future is depicted? "Looper" might not seem low budget with such an ambitious plot and famous cast. But it cut every corner possible to make us work very hard to believe this hyper future was really just sustained by a bunch of old American cars and trucks with tubes attached to their fuel tanks. That's the best they could do? Terminator went into a very high tech militarized future, which was fair enough, but what about "Minority Report" or "Blade Runner" or "Brazil" as a whole range of options that actually felt like the future?

Maybe these things don't matter as much to you. And maybe you don't mind a plot with lots of logical holes. Either way, go for this one. It's actually "great" on many levels. I really liked it!

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Surprisingly awful

Author: PhilipVier from Netherlands
9 September 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

When I first heard of Looper it sounded very promising. It had Bruce Willis, the story seemed interesting, and the critics liked it. After watching it I can honestly say I have never been so disappointed with a film. I was expecting something good based on the cast and the IMDb ratings. But what I got was one of the worst films I have ever seen.

After watching this for a couple of minutes I became annoyed by three things. The first thing was that the directing and editing were utterly terrible. Most of the time it looked like the director was trying to be stylish, instead of actually making a good film. Then I was shocked to find out Paul Dano was in it. I've got nothing against Dano as a person, but I absolutely hate him as an actor. He has little to no acting ability and zero charisma. The third thing was that the story was chaotic and vague. But soon even more things started to annoy me.

As the film progressed it became much worse. It soon became clear that the acting varied from mediocre to over the top nonsense. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is extremely bland and does nothing to create a relatable character. Bruce Willis tries to make something out of it, but fails. They could have just hired a random bald man instead of him. Jeff Daniels is decent, but horribly miscast, I mean he's not a convincing mob boss. But last and most certainly least is Emily Blunt. Some people say she's a good actress, but in this film her acting is beyond terrible. Her first line, when she confronts Levitt in the field is like something you would hear in a Steven Seagal film. The only good thing about the acting was that Paul Dano had a small part and died quickly.

Another problem is that there are a ton of plot holes and inconsistencies. I mean the criminals in the future are able to kidnap a man from his home, kill his wife, burn the house down, supposedly get away with it, but they can't get rid of bodies. Also, why are the telekinetic powers of most people so weak, but the power of the Rainmaker so strong? It doesn't make sense. There are also some paradoxes with the time travel, but they didn't bother me so much.

After less than an hour, I was just waiting for this to end. It had nothing in it that I liked and nearly everything about it was terrible. The directing is some of the worst I have ever seen. And overall the film is just forgettable, which is probably a good thing. Near the end it was like watching a poor man's Terminator. I had never expected Bruce Willis to be in one of the worst films I have ever seen, but Looper is really terrible and deserves absolutely no credit.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 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?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Tried Hard To Stay Awake

Author: Ladybbird
12 January 2013

This was one of the most boring movie's I've ever watched No real storyline that you could follow without losing interest. It was very disjointed and confusing, jumping back and forth without any real sequence. Im surprised that Bruce Willis put his name to it, but then he has not had many offers lately. The directing and editing was not up to par and as a previous op posted, no good sequence between past and present. I kept watching in the hope it would improve. It didn't. In fact it got worse. I wish I could find something good to say about it, but I cant. After 35mins I gave up, as I was falling asleep with boredom. Save your money,,,,,,, it really was that bad.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 6 of 64: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [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