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 9 of 66: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [Next]
Index 652 reviews in total 

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

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

3/10
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

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:

Fabulous and fantastic and flawed deep down, but enjoyable!

7/10
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:

needless killing of children for shock value

1/10
Author: daryl-moffat from United Kingdom
6 September 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Killing children in movies for the shock value like this is unforgivable. In this movie it actually adds nothing to the plot or to the movie as a whole. Its simply Bruce Willis shooting an innocent child. I really liked the concept of the movie and at points it was clever but it is completely ruined by such a shock value stunt. Im actually quite surprised that this film in the uk is only a 15 because of this. My additional comments on this movie is that the young bruce willis character played by Joseph gordon levitt is just not believable which is disappointing as he was excellent in the movie brick which was also directed by rian johnson and is a really great film. It was by watching brick that made me want to see more of this directors work but now i am completely put off.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Bad, full of flaws, violent

1/10
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?

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?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Incoherent nonsense

3/10
Author: Campbell Brown
10 February 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The many reviews praising Looper as "intelligent" misled me to expect one of those very rare things in Hollywood: a consistent, coherent time-travel film. But in fact this movie makes little more sense than Back to the Future. While I can forgive time-travel nonsense in frivolous films like Back to the Future, it is excusable in a film like Looper with pretensions of seriousness. The basic premise, about looping and "closing your loop", is quite clever and got my hopes up. But the plot soon descends into stupidity -- the explanation of memories given by Bruce Willis's character is especially dumb.

Film-makers should be forced to read some philosophy of time travel (e.g. the excellent work of David Lewis), and to demonstrate they have understood it, before they are let near a time travel story.

For a consistent time travel film (starring Bruce Willis), I recommend 12 Monkeys -- so much better than this loopy rubbish.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

dreadful! disappointing! boring!

2/10
Author: msbobbin from United Kingdom
8 February 2013

Confusing and unconvincing storyline, that never really gets started,just kind of limps along and never builds a sense empathy between the audience and the characters. This is probably because there's no meaningful background established to the key players - who were they and how did they end up in this situation isn't focused upon. The movie also has sections of unnecessary repetition, when they simply could have fast forwarded in time to 30 years later. The actions scenes are restrained in terms of visual impact, while there's little or no humor and no opportunity for the actors to shine.No captivating or special moments or even scenes where there was a glimmer of something more inspiring, intriguing or interesting.

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?


Page 9 of 66: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [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