|Page 7 of 64:||               |
|Index||640 reviews in total|
In 2074, it is possible to travel in time but also forbidden. However,
when the criminal organizations want to kill someone, they send their
victims to thirty years in the past where well paid hit men called
"loopers" kill them and get rid of their bodies. When the mobsters
decide to call off a contract with any killer they send him back to be
killed by himself and close the loop.
In 2044, in Kansas, Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is one looper addicted in drugs. He learns that the powerful Rainmaker has assumed control of the criminal organizations and is closing all the loops. Soon Joe has to kill the "old" Joe (Bruce Willis) but he is surprised and fails. Joe chases old Joe but the criminal Abe (Jeff Daniels) sends his killers to hunt him down.
Joe meets old Joe that tells him that his beloved wife was killed by the Rainmaker's gang. Old Joe also tells that he has found three possible children that might be the Rainmaker in the future and he will kill them to protect his wife. However they are found by the loopers and Joe flees and stumbles with Sara (Emily Blunt) in her farm. She helps him and soon Joe discovers that her son Cid (Pierce Gagnon) is the Rainmaker and he decides to protect them from the determined old Joe.
"Looper" is one of those fast paced action movies that do not give time for the viewer to think about. There are a great number of plot holes and paradoxes, especially in the relationship between Joe and old Joe, and if the viewer thinks a little, he or she will find many inconsistencies in the story. One question: wouldn't be easier if the mobster kill his victims and send their bodies to be disposed in the past? Despite of that, "Looper" is an entertaining adventure. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "Looper: Assassinos do Futuro" ("Looper: Assassins from the Future")
This film is seriously just bad. At first you're drawn in, the concept threatens to become fascinating; but it simply tumbles into an abysmal joke of a movie that ends with a disgusting cliché. You seriously have to check your brain at the door to even remotely enjoy this film. How it has carried an 8.2 rating here baffles me. Source Code it is not, Inception it is not, Terminator it is not. I really worry about the future of science fiction considering how well this abomination has done. Someone had the gall to call this movie this generations Matrix. Apparently this generation is drastically dumber than mine was! Time travel is a tricky thing to deal with. Taking the approach that since it's complex you're not even going to attempt to form continuity as this film does is NOT the way to deal with that complexity.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
"Time travel has not yet been invented. But thirty years from now, it will have been." I went to an advanced screening of this film last night, upon leaving the cinema I had a feeling that I had not got from a film for quite sometime. The film contains a balance of both intelligence and action, too much of either and the film risks failing, the is a perfect example of a science-fiction thriller movie. Looper is set in the year 2042, Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is one of several mafia-employed assassins known as 'loopers' who are tasked with 'taking out the future's garbage'. The targets are delivered from 30 years in the future to a waiting looper, who puts a bullet in their head, burns the body and collects their earnings. Loopers are well paid, but when the bosses decide it's time to 'close the loop' and they send back your own future self back for assassination, leaving you with only 30 years to live. Later in the film Joe's loop is to be closed, but his older self (Bruce Willis) escapes, which is very bad news, bringing the mafia on the hunt to kill both Joe's. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis both show strong acting performances throughout, you wouldn't of seen Willis this good since probably Die Hard as he full-fills his action man status once again. And even with Gordon-Levitts slightly distracting make-up (in order to make him look like Willis) he is definitely one of movies huge upcoming actors. Along side Joe, in the third act of the film introduces Emily Blunt's character Sara, her character is strong and independent and brings extra emotion and drama to the film. One of Loopers greatest strengths is that you are constantly surprised, being full of twists and turns the movies narrative is very original and leaves you not knowing what could happen next as both of the Joe's battle for different situations. With keeping up with the story and concentrating you are rewarded with a mindfull ending. Released in four days time, Looper is a sci-fi movie that you should definitely see!
This is the first time I am rating a movie with 1 star.
I went to see this movie without any special expectations and was extremely disappointed. I wouldn't say much if the movie had several simple (and expected) logical bug that are common in this kind of movie, ... this movie however is way way below acceptable.
An extremely stupid story, not even remotely plausible, with extremely unnecessary stupid decisions made by the characters, weird movie moments and of course many many logical faults.
This is an insult to our intelligence, I do hope no films like this will be made again.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Why what the hell !!!!after reading all of the other previews did you all see the same film !!!!!!Trust me ! this film is rubbish in fact sifting through rubbish would be more interesting, it really was a very poor, a used condom has more life .It would seem all of the biggest guns in the film world gun shed, were brought out on show in this epic pile of nasty, I would have been more than happy to use one just to shoot the tiny rainmaker just to end it all... Apparently young Joe had to wear a false nose in the film to look like old Joe . Just wish that I had use of the Hollywood prosthetics's team as not to be recognized as I left the cinema !
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I wanted to stop watching "Looper" about a half-hour in. I stuck it out
for another half hour, then went and surfed the net, listening with
half an ear while my wife continued to watch. (She didn't like it
I could say many negative things about "Looper"--the premise was clunky and absurd; the pace lethargic; the plot unfocused--but what made me stop watching was that I simply did not care what happened. Both young Joe and old Joe were brutal assassins which hardly made them sympathetic characters. The stakes didn't seem important--they had to stop the villainous Rainmaker from wiping out the crime lords of the future and killing off the assassins. Making the future safe for crime isn't exactly an inspiring goal. Granted, old Joe wanted to save his wife as well, but she had hardly screen time so I didn't really care about her either.
In summary: Didn't hate the villain, didn't love the hero, didn't care about the outcome.
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.
I had high expectations of Looper, but ended up disappointed in the
final product. The story falls flat and gets caught in its own
repetitive loop, which drags it down the tubes.
Joseph G-Levitt lives in the past, does drugs, and is a looper whose job is to kill people sent back from the future by mobsters. Apparently the bad guys cannot just kill someone in the future, so they grab them, send them back in time, illegally, and the looper kills them for silver. This guy is a loser who just goes around killing people with no soul or purpose or respect or really anything at all. He just does what he's told to do, sleepwalking through life, and getting paid for. His only marginal friend is not really a friend. He shows his social side by studying French, a useless throw-in that served no apparent purpose.
How many times do we need to see this guy shoot somebody with his special gun? I didn't count the numbers, but enough already!! We get the point - he kills people. Kind of reminds me of 8 Mile, when the first few F-bombs have an impact, then you just get numb from overuse. Obviously, the plot didn't have enough depth, so the director used this tactic as a filler that added no value.
Enter Bruce Willis, Levitt's older version from 30 years in the future. OK you think, now it's going to get interesting. Not really. Willis and Levitt had no real chemistry. Casting mistake here. You learn some stuff about Willis in the future, and you learn he's trying to preserve his future by controlling his past. OK, yep, we saw this in Terminator 1, 2, 3. Nothing new here.
There are chase scenes, and killings, and an interesting Diner scene, but really, the story drags. I started using fast forward so I could get somewhere where something would happen. The final scene takes place on this farm which I think lasts a good 30 minutes, and brings in Emily Blunt. She does an OK acting job, but her role again lacks depth of character, so there's not much to work with. The ending, oh wow, what a surprise...not. Figure it out yourself, you don't have to be too imaginative.
Boring plot, disappointing chemistry, ad nauseum killing, standard b-grade acting. I cannot recommend this film, despite the advertising you see. It's just a poor film all around. I recommend instead Source Code which plays on a time travel theme, without the killing, and a superb storyline with superior acting. Skip Looper - it stinks.
The idea, to make a movie that is more romantic than the Twelve Monkeys
and more philosophical than the Butterfly Effect is a nice try, but it
The time travel stories' basic problem is the paradox, what happens, if someone changes the past, and if it is even possible. In this one the concept is different than the usual, and the more it is shown, the more mistakes come out. The story is also nonsense, the characters are not real, skipping the reasonable choices. The writer didn't show the script to anyone before filming?
It disappoints me, that kneading some ideas, action, drama with time traveling can be called a sci-fi.
LOOPER is the latest Hollywood movie to tackle the thorny topic of time
travel. This one's a little bit like the Van Damme vehicle TIMECOP,
although it strives to be less cheesy and more realistic thanks to the
presence of former indie director Rian Johnson, who also made the high
school murder mystery BRICK with Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Gordon-Levitt
plays an assassin who executes criminals sent back from the future for
spurious reasons, although inevitably he soon finds his life spiralling
out of control when things take an unexpected twist.
I really wanted to like this film. It feels fresh and appealing in many ways, and visually it's a triumph. Gordon-Levitt's performance is fine, although that prosthetic make-up is distracting, and it's fair to say that Bruce Willis is pretty good too, as this is probably the best performance he's given in a while. The action sequences, when they come, are efficiently handled.
So what gives, then? Well, the truth is that LOOPER isn't quite as entertaining as it thinks it is. For once, the story doesn't really work under close scrutiny. All of the other time travel movies I've seen have made a point of not allowing the characters to encounter themselves in another time period, as this would cause a paradox. In this one, Willis and Gordon-Levitt share cups of coffee together, and it never quite gels.
In addition, the pacing is off, with long, boring and tension-free interludes spent sitting around in a farmhouse with the miscast Emily Blunt. Yet another twist involves characters who are telekinetic, which is all a little too much; wasn't the time travel plot enough? Although it's not bad for what it is, LOOPER doesn't hold a candle to the ultra-efficient low budget Spanish time travel movie, TIMECRIMES.
|Page 7 of 64:||               |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||Newsgroup reviews||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|