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 8 of 65: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [Next]
Index 648 reviews in total 

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Not bad, but not as good as it thinks it is

Author: Leofwine_draca from United Kingdom
7 May 2014

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Creepy eyes, bad prosthetic nose constantly reminds you this is a movie and not reality

Author: schf from United Kingdom
11 September 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A young murderer called Joe lives a life of pre arranged shootings and wild drug parties,until one of his suddenly materialising victims turns out to be an older version of himself. How we know this is because that's how the film has been advertised not because of any thing like a resemblance . Which bring us to the heart of my problem with the movie,Joseph gordon levitt has been made up (badly)with a rubber nose and contact lenses to try and resemble a young bruce willis .They really ,truly failed. Every single time I looked at the weird eyes of JGL it broke the reality of the film for me. Creepy, bright and totally out of place. oh dear I'm sure it was good other wise even if almost everyone in the cinema guessed the ending long before the punch. Shame i couldn't enjoy it felt like it was constantly holding up a sign saying Sack the make up department

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Terrible from the get go

Author: Marc Colten from United States
13 July 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I'll confess to being very judgmental about films and TV shows. If, in the first minutes, you see that the entire premise is absurd, I'm against the whole thing. From the minute you are told that people in the future send their contracts back 40 years to be killed by over-paid people who themselves are later killed, by themselves - the entire movie goes off the rails. Once you ask yourself why they don't send them back 10,000 years, or to the middle of the ocean - you're done.

All the rest, the TK, the Terminator rip-off, the "One" rip-off of The Matrix and others - well, it's just crap piled on crap. The time travel concepts are ridiculous. Okay, so a guy is sent back and then his current self is mutilated, which appear instantly on the older guy. So how did he spend all those years without his limbs to be sent back intact? No, I call no way. Same with the ending. So young Joe kills himself, which erases old Joe from the time line. So all the criminals he killed and the loopers are okay now? How is the kid still wounded?

Just really lousy.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

have we lowered our standards this much?

Author: Cravos Vermelhos from Portugal
16 June 2014

After watching this film we have to assume that in the near future, neither women or non-white men will have any part in society (apart from the obvious clichés for motherhood and exotic dancers for females).

It only had 3 female characters important for the plot. One is the focus of Willis' affections, and did not have any lines. She is portrayed like the perfect woman, the one that cleans and leads the male character into the moral and correct path. The other is an exotic-dancer that appears either naked, half-naked or with a child in her arms (again, either exotic dancer or motherhood clichés). Her only lines are to show how insensible she is to Gordon-Levitt's feelings, creating a situation where you are lead to compare the moral goodness of G-L's character, with the insensitive and futile character of the disposable female. Finally, the other female character is the mother of the young kid Willis' character was looking for. In her first shot she is shown as a very strong independent woman, defending her farm and child. So far so good, until she trips over a rock and fells. Everything goes down hill from this moment on, and she shows herself to be dependent of G-L's attention and protection. The perfect damsel in distress we are all so used to. Needless to say, it fails miserably the Bechdel test (again, tested regarding women or non-white males).

Concerning the plot, and because they did not enter the "time travelling" explanations too further on, I can't state any obvious fails. Unless if you want to talk about the fact that being this film about time traveling and not talking about it the whole time is an obvious fail.

Bruce Willis does what he does best, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt tries to imitate Willis (being him the young Willis), acting in a way that you wouldn't understand if it was an awkward homage or just making fun of Willis.

The make up is very bad, and it is not worst because of the lack of facial expressions in G-L acting (again, the homage vs making fun of Willis' presence on screen).

It is very disappointing to see a story that could have made a great film being so poorly executed. It amazes me the fact that people on average actually gave it a considerable high value. I can only assume that this is what we expect from Hollywood, and our expectations have lowered this much.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

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

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!

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.


Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

I didn't like it, but you probably will.

Author: M H from United Kingdom
17 June 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I think I will be in the minority when I say that I really did not enjoy this film.

Set in the near future the plot centres around Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) a hired killer called a 'Looper'. 30 years further into the future time travel has been invented and the only use for it (due to it being quickly hidden away) is for the Mafia to send people back in time to be dispatched, because it is incredibly difficult to kill someone in the future due to 'tracking'. That's it, that's your explanation for the setup of the whole film.

This is all set out in the opening sequence of the movie and from then on the director's appreciation of science and any dealings with time travel or the associated paradoxes is laughable.

In the reviews I write I try to give my impression and avoid spoiling the viewing experience by explaining every detail of the film and I'm not going to set out why this film fails on so many points because a lot of people seem to like it. I really want to but this will turn into an essay and life is far too short.

Bruce Willis is good throughout as the older Joe, he essential plays to his strengths, says little and kicks arse. Emily Blunt is a tenuous love interest and neither has much impact or credibility in her role, which as the film develops you learn is pivotal to events in the future. Gordon-Levitt is just about bearable, but his performance is not up to the standards of either The Dark Knight Rises or Inception.

One aspect of the film that intrigued me revolved around the make-up used to make Levitt look like Willis, it took me a while to realise that is was actually Levitt we were looking at.

I found this quite distracting as not only did Levitt look a bit odd, the likeness between him and Willis wasn't perfect (look at the ears!). This didn't help with transporting you into the story that, even with the ridiculous premise, could have entertained as an action flick.

This failed for me on several levels, the science, the plot, the strange retro styling that was trying to ape Blade Runner, the really silly ending that just disappoints and numerous other things that would just be spoilers. At just under 2 hours long this was an unpleasant and thoroughly lacklustre viewing experience, which came as quite a surprise due the hype surrounding the movie.

I didn't like it, but you probably will.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Good 'MINDLESS' action movie

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:

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 5 people found the following review useful:

Bad, full of flaws, violent

Author: asleepfromday
13 May 2013

Many flaws in the storyline. Extremely violent with no real meaning to that. Movies like this one destroy everything Philip K Dick has achieved for Science Fiction. Don't watch it if you don't want to waste your time. Actions of many characters are either not understandable or simply stupid. e.h. why do loopers flee from their young alter ego instead of cooperating with it. the worst point is the violence - if you want to see people shot, tortured, mutilated, this movie is right for you. subjects like telekinesis are added like ingredients to a failed salad dressing - without any idea behind it. very shameful altogether. a plot like this shoud not be produced these days.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 8 of 65: [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