IMDb > Looper (2012) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Looper
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
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
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Looper More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 8 of 64: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [Next]
Index 631 reviews in total 

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

One of the most watchable and enjoyable blockbusters I've seen recently...

9/10
Author: cleary-joshua from United Kingdom
27 August 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The second time travel related movie in two days (see 'Primer'), and I have to be honest, I preferred this one a fair bit more. Yes, it's a lot longer and has a bigger budget, but these weren't the things that made me prefer it. They contributed, but honestly I thought the story was better and that it managed a similar amount of cleverness with much less confusion. It's really well crafted, and one of the most watchable and enjoyable blockbusters I've seen recently.

'Looper' tells the story of Joe, who works as a hit-man in the year 2044, killing off people who are sent back from 2074 in order to remove them cleanly from the future. The first 40 minutes of the film are mostly exposition, and we don't get to the main event (the arrival of Bruce Willis) for a while, but it's still really interesting as we learn how our world is different to theirs. We see lots of poverty, new drugs, the arrival of telekinesis, and it's clear that the film is trying to be both close a reality in some parts, and distant in others. There are no flying cars or anything as extreme as that. The arrival of Bruce Willis is done with an incredibly clever segment, where we see the process through which he first lives those 30 years between Young Joe and Old Joe. It's essentially a display of everything that separates the two characters, as it has happened for one, but is still to come for the other.

Questions are raised that we don't usually get in a time travel film. Does Old Joe know exactly what Young Joe is about to do, because things could change instantly? I really enjoyed the sending of messages from young versions to old through the skin, and thought it worked well as a grizzly method of communication. The rest of the film is very watchable, if slightly slower than the action packed first hour. If I have one problem with the film, it's that it's too long when Joe is staying with Sara, and their eventual night of romance feels very gratuitous.

The climax of the film is very exciting, and lots of great action scenes happen along the way. Bruce Willis does prove that he can still do what he used to do best, and delivers his best performance in years. It's really fun, very smart, and the decision that Joe makes in the final minutes makes for a very satisfying ending.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

"Face your future, fight your past" - this film is amazing!

10/10
Author: Papa-Poo-Poo-Pee-Pee-Shire from United Kingdom
26 August 2013

I was not expecting any of this, this was a totally different movie than I was expecting. But that's a good thing, Looper has amazing Special Effects, amazing story, amazing acting and also makes you think.

This movie is about Joe, a Looper who kills people sentenced to death through time travel. Of course during this, he notices his future self (Bruce Willis) come through, yet he doesn't know this. This film is about hunting him and killing him, as Old Joe is trying to kill the Rainmaker to save his wife from the men who killed her.

It's a very deep story, with amazing action scenes. I didn't know it was Joseph Gordon-Levitt until I saw the poster, and that shows the make-up department did a damn good job on his face.

Looper is a nice action film, with J.J Abrams style effects with a fantastic side story in it.

10/10

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Good 'MINDLESS' action movie

5/10
Author: jacksherak from United Kingdom
29 January 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I was recommended this movie without discussion so when I was browsing for something to watch and stumbled across this I figured was worth a punt, knowing nothing at all about it other than it involved time travel.

Just to note, I am always sceptical about films or franchises that use time travel. Sometimes its just an easy way to explain the unexplainable or, in the case of Terminator, milk a dead cow.

Anyho the plot of this film is utterly absurd, I have seen some reviews on here that use the word clever and in all cases must strongly disagree! I was constantly asking myself questions. So many questions, contradictions, etc, etc... Awful Awful Awful, I mean I've seen some real horrible uses of time travel and this is amongst the worst.

I give it 5 thou cos if you turn your mind off its a good action flick with a stunning Emily Blunt in it.

Worth a watch if you ain't got nowt else to watch but don't expect a thinker.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Annoyingly Trustworthy Monkey

Author: tedg (tedg@FilmsFolded.com) from Virginia Beach
8 April 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Time is all we must encounter; all else is urges. Narrative is built on this simple principle, usually with time forcing the cadence and agents with fate embodying the urges. So when time enters the story as a citizen, we have the opportunity for seriously disruptive experiences.

You have to judge these things by a tougher scale than — well, than almost anything else, save when art and urge itself become agents.

I had to fight to bring this film into my home, and it sat for months hoping to be used.

In time travel stories, the narration can skip backwards and forwards. The many worlds can create histories that make every narration untrustworthy even if they are locally true. The prevailing theory (used by writers, anyway) would have events in the future affecting those in the past just as much as the intuitively more reasonable changes in the past influencing the future. Causality becomes folded. It is a blessing for a writer who understands.

But not so here. The story is told from one time frame that loops back. Every view you see is trusted. The end is unexpectedly straightforward. Things do not become retroactively untrue. Lives are not undone, though the Bruce Willis character tries. It is as if the writer was tempted to take us on a wild ride, but ended up writing in events that prevent it.

This means that we don't have the luxury of plastic causality, and some of the explanations here just don't add up. The complex scheme of sending people back to be killed is explained by saying that tracing humans in the future is thorough, so corpses are hard to get rid of. This makes even less sense as we see some action in the future. The tantalizing existence of the coordinator from the future is treated as if it were not tantalizing, but ordinary.

It hurts that the character we hope will stir the pot is played by Bruce Willis, clearly chosen because of his role in 'Twelve Monkeys,' where (if you did not know the original film) he really did mess with our heads.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Easily one of the worst films I've ever seen.

1/10
Author: Nico Viergever from Netherlands
8 September 2013

I was looking forward to this film. It looked like an interesting story. A cast with Bruce Willis, Jeff Daniels and some other good actors. A high rating here on IMDb. Very, very soon I lost interest. And because I kept watching I became irritated. Very irritated.

What can I say? Stories about time travel always have paradoxes. But it seems that whoever wrote Looper did not even try to work with these paradoxes; completely ignored them, maybe did not even realize the paradoxes in the story. Then on a lower level, the script is unbalanced. Jumps from one scene to the next, from one character to the next. Characters that are very shallow.

The director sometimes seemed to be a wannabe David Lynch. Some shots and scenes are typically in the Lynch style but when they work in a strange way in the Lynch films, they do not work for impersonators. Also in the direction and the cut there is a large amount of style over content. Typically for modern directors there is that awful "shaky cam", which luckily was not used in this film. But there was quite some dark filming where you can't see what is going on at all. Also a lot of unnecessary "scenery" shots. Fashionable but useless and irritating. Also for some weird reason there were many shots in the dark where a bit of light was changed by a filter or something into a blue line. Why? Form over content, a pretentious attempt to create "art" I assume.

Judging by the IMDb rating there are many people gullible enough to fall for this nonsense. Or are the ratings manipulated?

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Looper A Real Blooper 0*

1/10
Author: edwagreen from United States
13 May 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Dreadful film dealing with mobsters sending their victims back in time to be done away with.

Bruce Willis is one such victim, with his oriental wife taking a fatal bullet in the stomach. How he wants her back to life, that's the reason for his actions in this absolutely miserable film.

His younger side meets a woman at a farmhouse whose child is the Rainmaker. The latter shall change things around immensely, providing that he grows up.

How did Jeff Daniels ever sign on to such a stinker of a film? He is the head of the gang, ruthless, full of hair and just plain quite eerie to look at.

The film is violent at every turn. Willis attempts to kill all 3 young boys as he suspects that one of them is Rainmaker.

Simply awful. Must avoid film for people of all ages.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Excellent 40mins in a 2hr movie

7/10
Author: martin-311-679945 from New Zealand
2 December 2012

It's not giving anything away to say that Looper involves time travel.

The first 40 minutes of this movie are excellent with a convoluted story-line that makes you think whilst enjoying the swirling action.

And then the lead characters come together in a diner.

From here out the movie drops a couple of levels and becomes a generic action movie where one person is trying to get another person whilst another wants to stop him, along with the usual array of involved parties (mothers, mobsters, etc). I thought the mother figure might just as well have been called Sarah Connor.

It's also one of those movies where you have to fill in some plot holes yourself.

The acting is mostly flat and I didn't find any character that I could care for.

So for me, the second two-thirds was a disappointment given how well the movie started.

But if you are happy with a generic action movie, you could do a lot worse.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Entertaining but wrong

6/10
Author: karlsaville from Pooh Corner
26 November 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It's a fun film no question - very entertaining. But unfortunately it's wrong, which is a pity because if you think about it too hard it pretty much spoils it. Even before you get to characters who have magic superpowers.

See the whole premise of the film and the basis for the ending is that Young Joe is Old Joe's past self. It's critical that this is so because Young Joe kills himself to erase Old Joe. This will only happen if Young Joe is Old Joe's past self.

Unfortunately Young Joe cannot be Old Joe's past self because Old Joe killed his looper (going on to live in Shanghai, spend all his saved silver and live his 30 year contracted lifespan before the gangsters came to close his loop). Old Joe killed his looper.

But Young Joe didn't kill his looper. His looper is Old Joe, and Young Joe is currently attempting to get rid of Old Joe so he can get back in with the mob and get his silver, and his life, back. Young Joe didn't kill his looper

So Young Joe is not Old Joe's past self. So when Young Joe kills himself it will have no effect on Old Joe whatsoever.

Wrong!

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

tries to be clever, and almost, but not quite, succeeds.

6/10
Author: anders martini from Sweden
5 November 2012

When Im reading reviews of films on IMDb, I consider anything above 7.0 as "Probably worth a watch". Im giving this one a 6, since it's almost, but not quite, worth a watch.

Im gonna take a chance here and without marking it as a spoiler tell you that this film has some time-travel in it of some sort. You will see this about 3 minutes into the film, so I hope reading it here wont ruin the movie for anyone...

The concept of this film that so mane speak so highly about, is a kind of chasing the tail of fate, in time-travel-loops. it's a play with one of the many paradoxes encountered when playing with time-traveling. This movie handles the chosen paradox in much the same way "Butterfly effect" did. sure, they changed the character, the setting, the way of traveling back in time, but in the end, Looper handles the same paradox, the same "cause-and-effect" mindset, that is served to you by the Butterfly effect. I'll agree that this film does it somewhat better than Butterfly effect did, but people have been calling this original, new and revolutionary? not by a long shot! And, as is always the case when you play around with time-travel in a movie, there are a few contradictions, that at least to me, was quite annoying. I'll admit that given that this is a time-travel story, there are quite a few contradictions, and avoiding them would involve either making it way to complex for a popular market, or taking away that would-be heart-breaking end. the latter, in my opinion, would have served it well. The end of this flick is, and I mean it when I say it, very typical Hollywood, and not in any way hard to predict.(unless the whole time-travel paradox has you confused out of your mind the whole time, which tends to happen) at least the acting was decent. action is not half-bad either. not entirely mindless, but not particularly smart either.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Embarrassingly ill conceived

5/10
Author: consciousgeometry from Vienna, Austria
20 November 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

As it is often the case, this movie's badness itself didn't really stun me to any serious degree- rather did the praises and loads of positive reviews it received.

In my eyes, as can be easily deduced from the rating I gave it, the film wasn't anything critics promised. Rather than being clever and intelligent about the time travel premise, the writer/director didn't seem to deem it necessary in any way, to waste one thought about what is relatively plausible and what utter idiocy.

I will assume that the reader has already seen the movie and therefore take for granted that she or he has the plot still in mind. I also won't give a comprehensive list of plot flaws, as many other users have done, i.e.: pointing out the fact that it's plainly unbelievable that time- travel should be used by some criminals to dispose of bodies . Such "little" flaws maybe could have been acceptable, or even gone unnoticed, if the central element of the story wasn't a giant singularity of writer-stupidity.

In order to see this, we have to consider some vitals segments of the course of the plot. The passage I have in mind isn't really shown linearly and continuously in the film- maybe the director tried to draw the viewer's attention away from the completely illogical structure of the narrative:

At first, we see our protagonist Joe (1) standing in the field, that is his murderous workplace, waiting for a victim to appear. Then, of course, Joe (2) from the future arrives (without the standard victim's apparel: his head is exposed), overwhelms his younger ego and escapes. The younger guy wakes up some time later and heads to his apartment, where he fights some goons and in the process gets thrown off the balcony. After that, there's the above alluded to inexplicable break in the narrative, which I at first interpreted as a stylistic device.

The screen blackens. Later we see young Joe- standing in his field again, exactly as before. Again, Joe-from-the-future appears- but this time only to get shot down helplessly by his younger self (he has his face covered, in this scenario). We see young Joe (Levitt) getting transformed into old Joe (Bruce), who after 30 years is sent back to be killed.

This old Joe (Bruce) manages to break the loop and escape his younger self. The plot then continues at the point where the screen faded to black before.

So what happened here? The "old Joe" (Willis) managed to avoid his execution, therefore "breaking the loop". But this "old Joe" (Willis), in his youth, managed to kill his older self. Actually the only way it was possible for the "old Joe" to become the "old Joe" he is, was to kill his (then) older self, when he was still young. Therefore by "escaping" the execution through his younger-self, he (Willis) already completely annihilates himself.

To generalize this explanation: The older Joe depicted by Willis, after having escaped, necessarily must now have a different past than the young Joe depicted by Levitt. Because when the now old Joe, was still a young Joe, his respective old Joe, did not survive. So the Joes, that are the movies protagonists, cannot be identical. (Nothing that interacts with a temporally displaced version of itself can be the very same thing it interacts with) There is a section of their lives (namely: the execution on the field) that is temporally the same, but not structurally. The causal link between young and old Joe is completely ruptured at this point.

And this, my friends, is an utter outrage: The premise of much of the movie is an error in thought. There is no way, young and old Joe could coexist.

The ending later, again, is a cheap bluff: Young Joe "realizes" that a temporal-causal loop will always lead to the uprising of the rainmaker and his murderous spree in the future (this of course is nonsense- there is no real loop present in the film, as I went at lengths explaining above; it's more of a causally incoherent, fragmented spiral…or something). Because he wants to prevent the telekinesis child from becoming the Rainmaker, he kills himself, so that his older Willis-self won't be able to kill the child's mother, as this would lead to the child becoming a sociopathic sorcerer.

As young Joe thus dies by his own hand, old Joe obviously immediately disappears. Apart from that nothing else happens. Mother and child (not so) merrily cruise away.

But let's remind ourselves: Young Joe is only in that field, because he had to confront the old Joe. But the old Joe's existence, as it happens, is already, and always has been, terminated because of his younger versions suicide. So the younger version never having been confronted with angry old Joe never had any reason to walk into a field and kill himself there. So how then could mother and child have gotten into this field, let alone, how could they have even seen the older Joe (who never existed)? etc.

Does this sound familiar? Yes: It's actually a slightly different version of the grandfather paradox. Instead of murdering his own grandfather and therefore cancelling his own existence instantly and trough all time, making the murder itself impossible, young Joe is compelled to kill himself, by the arrival of his older self, which could have never existed because he killed himself still a young man. The old Joe is necessary for the young Joes decision to kill himself. But this exact action makes its own cause impossible.

Interestingly, this is what Roger Ebert has to say about the ending: "This film leads to a startling conclusion that wipes out the story's paradoxes so neatly it's as if it never happened." Well said sir, well said.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 8 of 64: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [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