User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1012 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Oct 12, 2012
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The trailer for Looper had my attention, but the film did not. The first act of the film starts out very promising...set in 2030something a dark future underworld of crime where Loopers are paid to "assassinate" dudes sent back from 30 years into the future where time travel exists. Blah blah. I'm not going to spend ages writing this, because this film already owes me 2 hours of my life back. I wish everyone would stop raving on about JGL's prosthetics that are supposed to make him look more like Bruce Willis. They don't. The action is contrived, unsuspenseful, stupid and scarce. The 2nd act is boring...I could give to craps about anything that happened to any of these characters but Im forced to listen to the rubbish dialogue while this film tries to figure out what it wants to be and never does. Unimaginatively filmed, annoying subplots, too many boring characters, a child actor who is annoying and far from menacing (like he is meant to be), plot devices that are poorly used...themes that are not sufficiently explored because they are in the wrong genre of film to allow time for this to happen and actions without consequences. My biggest annoyance was how he betrayed his "best" friend in the first act and gets all sad and then this is never mentioned again. Don't waste your time on this mess of a film. Expand
  2. Oct 11, 2012
    What happened to cinema, Looper is a terrible film, reasons are 1. shaky cam 2. baby being shot 3. poor writing 4. not believable. Joespeh gordon levitt really gave a poor performance as well as the others. The best scenein the film was the credits, everything was so off. It was unwacthble, do not see this, my nan approved this message.
  3. Oct 11, 2012
    Attempt at cerebral sci-fi let down by endless plot holes and a feather-headed lack of logic... First the good
  4. Oct 10, 2012
    Seeing the trailer I thought:
    - great idea
    - great actors
    - must see
    After seeing the movie:
    - a great idea is not enough without a proper storyline
    - great actors with poor story and dialogue, poor direction and poor make-up (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are worth nothing
    - why on Earth did I fell for the trailer????
  5. Oct 9, 2012
    This was not a very good movie. I've already wasted too much of my time on it, so I won't write a lengthy review, but suffice it to say that SebDangerfield hit it on the head, it's a movie without an identity. Alternating between genre's and pace at the same time is a very BAD idea, it's one thing to intermix a thriller with a drama, but not if one scene of fast paced (and confusing) action is followed by several scenes of boring dialogue that do not satisfactorily explain many questions raised by the 'action,' or adequately explore the world around them. This could have been an interesting 'Blade Runner' style Sci-Fi Drama, however it fails in that regard, and as a Bruce Willis Action movie. First movie I've seen at or above 75 on Metacritic (user since 2006, this is being charitable, I probably could have gone with a 70 or even 65) that I've thoroughly disliked, I tried to convince myself after the film that it wasn't that bad, but that is a lie. Wasted talent, incredibly overrated. Expand
  6. Oct 7, 2012
    What bothers me about this movie isn't that it's stupid. It's that so many stupid people are calling it "smart". Right, so the Mob has time-machine technology. But instead of using it to, say, send them back football scores or manipulate the stock market, they use it to get rid of bodies. Right, that makes ALL KINDS of sense. Oh, and instead of just using the time machine (which would obviously have to also be a "space" machine, since the planet is constantly moving) to dump the bodies into the ocean, or a volcano, or outer space, they hire people in our time to kill them. *sigh* If you think this movie is "smart" or "clever" or any of the other terms currently being used to describe it, it's because you yourself are an idiot. Expand
  7. Oct 6, 2012
    I am writing this review 30 minutes after I saw this movie. This movie started ok, it had a few plot holes but otherwise the first third the movie went smooth. Then it was destroyed. The rest was a mix of mass confusion that didnt add up at all. It had magic 10 year olds, and became rediculous. None of the characters were connecting with me. The entire movie I was thinking, "I dont even care what happens to these people". The movie was funny at times, but only due to the ridiculous scenes. This movie couldve been more like Inception or The Matrix, but instead of being thought-provoking, it was a bad action movie. Definitely skip this. Expand
  8. Oct 6, 2012
    I liked this movie way better back when it was called the Terminator. Seriously? A movie about a time traveler coming back in time to assassinate a child who will change the future? Gee whiz, where have I heard that before. And then a movie where the protagonist goes back in time to watch himself get killed? Does that sound familiar? It should because Bruce Willis already did that one in Twelve Monkeys too. Bruce Willis blatantly tells the audience "Hey, don't think to hard on this time travel stuff or your head will explode." What he really means is "The writers of this movie are too lazy to worry about filling in all the plot holes, so just accept it and we can move on." The action scenes seem to be added in to distract you from the terrible acting and boring dialog that drags on for the second hour of the movie. Bruce Willis' character seems to only exist for comedic effect.
    Skip this one, go rent Terminator and Twelve Monkeys and watch the movies this one tries so hard to be.
  9. Oct 5, 2012
    To even begin watching Looper one has to discount the glaring plot hole which should make the film redundant. Then once you have gotten over this, you must suspend your disbelief once again and just accept the ride (less a rollercoaster, more a long boring motorway in a spluttering old volkswagen golf) without questioning further the plot as the director has quite cleverly written the film in such a way that any bizarrities that might pop up throughout can be never fully explained; only through vague guesses can one try to make sense of whats happening. The film itself is paced so unevenly that it made me uncomfortable, sometimes moving so fast as it aims to confuse, at other times crawling at a pace that makes snails look like time travellers. The world that is created is as one-dimensional as the characters. The director has a chance to delve deeper into the decaying society of the future, yet we know practically nothing; all we are given is about 30 seconds worth of lazy city shots and some extreme poverty, which is enough to get one interested but is inexplicably never expanded on. JGL is the stereotypical young reckless man, Bruce the stereotypical older and wiser man. What we are to learn from this is unclear and is about as deep as the main characters get (except at the end when for some reason one character has a change of personality over the space of a day or so). Blunt and JGL are not terrible actors in any way shape or form, and neither is Bruce Willis for that matter, however the direction results in some fairly hammy and uncomfortable acting and some scenes are plain unwatchable without seeing them in a humorous light.

    All in all, this is a sci-fi film without a coherent sci-fi plot, a drama without character development, a thriller without the thrills and suspense and an action film without much action (apart from one scene which, again needs suspending disbelief to watch, where Bruce seems to think he is Die Hard, or even more likely the Expendables.)
  10. Oct 2, 2012
    I dont like this movie. its too much like bladerunner and is not original at all. It was the biggest waste of 9 dollars and two hours of my life. No one should see this movie.
  11. Oct 1, 2012
    Don't waste a minute of your time or a nickel of your money on this silly lightweight schoolboy shoot 'em up. I cannot imagine how low the bar must be for reviewers who manage to find some kind of 'artistic value' in this train wreck of a poorly plotted movie. The worst thing about this truly terrible film may be that it takes itself so seriously...not one light moment, not one original scene, not one fresh line of dialog. BEWARE!!! Expand
  12. Oct 1, 2012
    I'm confused and a little shocked at the reviews. I heard a rave review on NPR and so my husband and I went to see it. We both found it boring and a mix of too many not very interesting things. It never really made up it's mind what it wanted to be. I should have watched the trailer first. My advice would be to skip it. Emily Blunt and the kid were the only redeemable features for us.
  13. Sep 30, 2012
    Good idea, lousy execution. Needed a couple of more rewrites. If you think you're getting an exciting action movie, you're not. A depressing bloody film. Why is it that Hollywood always has the future depicted as dirty, depressing and crime-ridden? The interesting concept makes it a fair DVD rental. Save the big movie theatre bucks for something else.
  14. Sep 30, 2012
    I have three words. SAVE YOUR MONEY! I am a big Bruce Willis fan and if that is why you are going to see this it is a big let down, 10 min was probably all he was in the movie. This movie was so slow it was hard not to fall asleep. My husband did 3 times, I kept waiting for the good stuff to start. Then I realized the good parts were all shown in the trailers. We were very disappointed to say the least. I would not even call this a good renter. We even checked the reviews and both views said go. Now I wonder if they wandered into the wrong theater. Bruce. You are a much better actor. How about a sequel to Reds? Expand
  15. Sep 29, 2012
    I went to see this strictly based on the critic reviews. I am basically all done with reading any sort of critic reviews. The same people who invest in the movie production are the same people who own the media outlets that write the reviews. This movie sucks. I wouldn't recommend this movie if it was free on the Lifetime movie network. Hollywood is a joke, American film is a joke. Absolutely pathetic. Expand
  16. Sep 29, 2012
    No one was looking forward to this movie more than me. I love science fiction, Bruce Willis and especially time travel. So let me get to the nitty gritty. There is no time travel to see nor any glimpse of futuristic life. So get that out of the way immediately. Secondly, the writing for this script is as lame as anything you will ever see. The plot hole is so obvious that you could drive a Mack truck thru it. This is blood and gore shoot em movie in which you feel nothing for any character. Th ending is predicatble. Just awful. Expand
  17. Sep 28, 2012
    If you are a fan of high bodycount, ultra violent action movies and hopelessly dystopian visions of the future, and you don't care about silly little things like theme, or even a coherent message that teaches us something, ANYTHING about the human condition, look away. Stop reading right now. I warned you. Don't you dare thumb me down. This review is for people like me, people who like a little bit of hope and optimism in their movies, and are tired of cold blooded killers and ruthless criminals ("with a heart!", I can hear them saying) occupying the lead spots in supposedly intelligent, critically acclaimed (a term I have learned to take with a hefty grain of salt) movies. So, what makes this movie so bad? First of all, it doesn't have an original bone in its emaciated, cliche ridden body. If you've seen Blade Runner, or Twelve Monkeys, or even the awful remake of the awful adaption of the awful comic strip 2000 A.D., or hell, basically any movie made in the last seventy five years, you've seen Looper. People will think it's original because it's based around a mildly inventive, highly questionable gimmick- time traveling hitmen assassinating themselves- but in reality, it's blatantly, shamelessly derivative. There's even a scene where Jeff Daniel's character (Tom? Joe? Bill? Jesus? I can't even remember the guy's name) points out the movie's own fatal flaw, in which he chides JGL's drab, uninspired Hollywood wardrobe. Masterful bit of foreshadowing right there. Or perhaps a subtle jab at itself? Either way, I should have left the theater right then and there. Let's start a checklist. Why? It's fun and I'm lazy: Bleak vision of the future? Check. Exorbitantly powerful criminal empire? Check. Widespread poverty? Check. Totally ineffective/powerless government/police force? Check. Unbelievable, scientifically implausible technological advancements? Check. Low I.Q. henchmen with terrible aim, wielding nonsensical weapons (the ridiculous long barreled revolvers reminded me of the joke pistol the Joker uses in Tim Burton's "Batman"). Check. Drug addicted, shamelessly materialistic, callously indifferent populace? Check, check, and check. Beautiful, gentle Asian prostitute who saves the older Joe from a life of crime? Check. Faceless villain? Check. Complete lack of any likeable characters? Check. Convenient, contrived ending? Check. Sound familiar? Alright, enough checks. I'm tired, and all of this is skirting the real issue. "Looper" is the kind of garbage I'd expect out of a film school amateur, a kid who has yet to learn the single most important thing about storytelling: soul. As in, this movie has none. "Looper" left a bad taste in my mouth, and if you're anything like me, you'll be just as disgusted. Avoid at all costs. Expand
  18. Sep 28, 2012
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Looper has a fantastic start but soon collapses under a weak combination of different storylines and a somewhat random plot element that has too much contrast with the Rian Johnson's "realistic approach".
    I was enjoying the film profusely in the beginning - and then Johnson brought up "telekinesis". Yes, being able to move things with your mind. Up until that point, "Looper" has been depicted as a semirealistic movie that focuses on the gangster influenced youth. Bringing telekinesis in for about ten seconds, Johnson then abruptly drops it until it appears in a major plot point. The problem: telekinesis simply has too weak of a context to be actually taken seriously at this point in the movie, making it just seem like a cheap gimmick.
    There was also a huge issue in the way the characters were portrayed. At first, I really admired the way Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon Levitt tackled the whole "one being, future vs present" issue: one of them is a naive hothead, while the other is a slightly sadistic but mature old man. Both have great traits that enable us to sympathize with both of them, and the whole first third or so of the movie really plays this development out. And then, Johnson introduces the stupid kid, Sid. Why is Sarah not his mom? Why does that even matter? Why is he so annoying? Why is he such an obnoxious child? Johnson wants us to sympathize with this superkid, yet he makes him as annoying as possible. He also adds an extraneous tension with his mom, Sarah. Apparently she's not his real mom...or is she? Why does it matter, why does Sid have to hate his mother? Willis already suggests that he saw his mom die, so why can't that mom be Sarah and not her sister?
    Johnson then wants the audience to feel for Sid by giving him...super telekinetic powers. Yes, a little brat who treats his pretty awesome guardian like crap also causes **** to fly around when he gets mad. Is this Looper or "It's a Good Life"? Instead of the highly anticipated, and heavily emphasized game of cat vs mouse between Willis and Levitt, we get two separate simultaneous story lines that show Willis being cool and Levitt learning to open his heart to women and children. I understand the need to keep plot details to a minimum in trailers, but jesus christ what a misleading bunch of teasers. I wouldn't even mind if the unshown twist was well done and clever; instead we get the same old "kid and mom warm up a killer's heart".
    There are plenty of other issues. Every single **** Sid freak out scene is just done so's supposed to be serious and emotional, not some guy floating in mid air dancing. Also, Johnson makes us sympathize with Jesse the hired gun: he **** puts his gun down when he sees Sid fall, and then he gets ripped apart by telekinesis? How are we supposed to **** sympathize with that super brat?
    I really wanted to like Looper, and I still do. Rian Johnson made a fantastic movie with Brick, and Joseph Gordon Levitt is one of THE best actors today. And who could forget Bruce Willis - one of the most overly typecast and underrated actors of movie history. Unfortunately, there are simply too many flaws with both character development, plot devices, and just plain old "not supposed to be funny but **** hilarious scenes" (Jesse flying and looking like an idiot before getting ripped apart). Unrelated nudity, too many characters...Looper was a great big letdown.
  19. Sep 28, 2012
    Disappointing. Great opening, great ending... yet half way through it turns into a boring talk festival for 50 minutes until the action starts up again. I feel sorry for the actors because the action stalls and you stop seeing the characters on the screen but actors reciting their lines. I couldn't figure out why so many film critics love this movie unless the script idea reminds them of what they would have written in school. It is a great idea but the execution seems like something out of a studio committee. The cinematography and editing is straight out of the 80s. I can not recommend it even though the trailer is fanstatic. Expand

Universal acclaim - based on 44 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 42 out of 44
  2. Negative: 0 out of 44
  1. Reviewed by: Anthony Lane
    Oct 1, 2012
    For all its mayhem, runs like a mad and slightly sad machine, whirring with hints of folly and regret, and the ending, remarkably, makes elegant sense to a degree that eludes most science fictions. How to describe it, without giving anything away? Scrambled, but rare. [1 Oct. 2012, p.84]
  2. Reviewed by: Dana Stevens
    Sep 28, 2012
    Looper felt to me like a maddening near-miss: It posits an impossible but fascinating-to-imagine relationship...and then throws away nearly all the dramatic potential that relationship offers. If someone remakes Looper as the movie it could have been in, say, 30 years, will someone from the future please FedEx it back to me?
  3. Reviewed by: Andrew O'Hehir
    Sep 28, 2012
    I'm not ready to proclaim Looper a sci-fi masterpiece just yet; let's let it sit awhile. But it's a lean, mean, smart, violent picture with a bit of Stanley Kubrick edge, fueled by the terrific Gordon-Levitt.