User Score
7.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1020 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. Mar 13, 2014
    0
    This film is the definition of terrible! It has more plot holes than I can count, this films time travelling rules are about as backwards as its storyline, it had random telekinetic abilities stuck in that had no influence on the story at all. And the ending made the whole film pointless since it apparently shouldn't have happened.
  2. Dec 2, 2013
    4
    "Looper" was fine as mindless entertainment but if you think too much all the holes show up. Considering all the positive reviews I was very disappointed. The ending alone was tough to swallow and left me feeling "had". Futuristic movies can stretch the imagination as long as the story lines make sense within itself. "Looper" just makes no sense. An 8 for Garret Dillahunt of whom I"Looper" was fine as mindless entertainment but if you think too much all the holes show up. Considering all the positive reviews I was very disappointed. The ending alone was tough to swallow and left me feeling "had". Futuristic movies can stretch the imagination as long as the story lines make sense within itself. "Looper" just makes no sense. An 8 for Garret Dillahunt of whom I have been a fan since "Deadwood". Other than that just an okay movie. Expand
  3. Aug 3, 2013
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. THERE IS A SPOILER IN HERE! I FEEL, THOUGH, THAT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ADDRESS IT!What garbage! The previews were very vague and now I see why. If the previews showed that Willis's character was going around shooting up children then I'd say it would get no views at all. Getting through the first 15 minutes was a chore, then the nude girls started showing up. Time to fast forward a scene or two. Then it starts to get interesting as Willis and Levitt meet up in current time. Well, more interesting than it was. Then Willis's character starts to kill children (with what all is going on today who thought it was a good idea to glamorize this idea???). That would have warranted an instant shut of, but it left me so dark that I had to fast forward to the end to get some closure to the movie, where I saw another child get shot in the face. Even though the movie ends with a little closure concerning the situation it wasn't enough, and afterward I had to watch a comedy just to shake the bad energy. The plot was crap, barely coherent in any way, and if you're paying attention even in the slightest you'll pick up on a major hole that should ruin the whole movie anyway. Absolutely a ZERO in every way. Willis and Levitt should be more careful of the movie roles they chose. Sometimes your character choice leaves a bad impression on your fans. My verdict: craptacular, absolutely avoid this move. Expand
  4. Jul 28, 2013
    2
    this movie is held together barely by duct tape logic. The producers really cashed in on people who just want a total escape into absurdity really so many holes the cast should've felled to their deaths but somehow they managed to live. Great entertainment loved this movie i really liked campy time travel logic i really loved going down the rabbit hole.
  5. May 10, 2013
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. A daft script that just isn't interesting. Worst treatment of time travel paradoxes: change a man in the present and that same man from the future changes to his own surprise. Seriously, the Futurama episode where Fry is his own grandfather is practically PKD compared to this tripe. Telekinesis mentioned in the first five minutes, to be used as a Deus Ex Machina in the ending, all in between is filled with awkwardly paced boring filler. The ending feels like bland proselytizing. Incredibly disappointing. Expand
  6. Mar 11, 2013
    2
    I know I'm in the minority here, but I HATE this movie! After watching it I was actually angry. I felt like the writers and the director had just smacked me. This movie really did show ALLOT of promise as it built itself up rather nicely, establishing a "kind-of" realistic near future. But then they introduce the whole time travel element. At first it was a creative new use for it. But theI know I'm in the minority here, but I HATE this movie! After watching it I was actually angry. I felt like the writers and the director had just smacked me. This movie really did show ALLOT of promise as it built itself up rather nicely, establishing a "kind-of" realistic near future. But then they introduce the whole time travel element. At first it was a creative new use for it. But the longer they developed it, the more it the logic surrounding it fell apart. Basically they have created a form of time travel that completely ignores its own rules to the point that you would have to be a a half brained idiot to not see it. Basically the movie is saying: Shut up, stop thinking and enjoy the movie. Overall: This had the chance to be a really good movie, but any ingenuity was raped out of it by lazy writers and a director with no direction. Expand
  7. Feb 25, 2013
    0
    This story was written by someone who does not comprehend even the basics of time travel problems and paradoxes. It is a mystery why this chaos received so high grades. The plot in short: mafia from the future sends their assassination targets into the present to be disposed of; in the present there are killers, so called loopers (organized by a sadist from the future) who await theirThis story was written by someone who does not comprehend even the basics of time travel problems and paradoxes. It is a mystery why this chaos received so high grades. The plot in short: mafia from the future sends their assassination targets into the present to be disposed of; in the present there are killers, so called loopers (organized by a sadist from the future) who await their targets and kill them. Before or later, the looper receives a mission to kill his future self. Some of them fail to do so. And then the chase begins. First of all, the premise is pretty stupid, to use such advanced technology for such mundane goal. In the movie they have explained, that in the future it is impossible to get rid of someone without being tracked. It is, as it seems, far easier to build a time machine then to avoid tracking technology from a collapsed society. Then we have a pretty horrifying (and illogical) scene of punishment for a failed looper. His present self is mutilated and his future self loses his limbs one by one. This is wrong, all his wounds have been inflicted in the past so they would appear all at once in the future. And it is unresolved if his present self has been killed or will they keep him alive for the next few decades without his limbs, until he is sent into the present. Then we have our „hero", Joe who escapes his captors in the future, escapes his present looper-self and begins his search for a mysterious future mafia boss, the elusive „Rainmaker", who in the future has killed his wife. Then begins a „Terminator-rip-off". Terminator-Joe from the future does not have exact information about Rainmaker, only his date of birth and he manages to narrow his search to only three kids he will have to kill. He eliminates two targets and of course, his past self protects the real Rainmaker, the fact that it HAS TO BE KNOWN to his future self even before his trip to the past, because it is past, no matter when the audience has find out this. Then the Terminator-Joe eliminates his entire (ex-)gang and there is a showdown between him, his present-self and the Rainmaker-Kid. The situation is resolved when the present Joe kills himself and the Terminator-Joe disappears. Which would set in motion time traveling paradox: Terminator Joe does not exist so he cant be sent into the past and all his actions would be reversed. But no, all his actions in the movie remain. The Rainmaker-kid survives and he will grow up not to be mafia boss but exemplary member of future society. The end. Oh, and this Rainmaker-kid has a Carrie-like telekinetic abilities, which has nothing to do with a plot and is complete superficial. As for the pacing of the movie, it is horrible. We begin with a bang (literary), then a movie comes to a halt and we have an hour or so pure boredom (or character „development"). Then we have a final shoot out. All in all a very bad experience, caused by a fanboy-hype. If you want to see Bruce Willis travel through time, watch „12 Monkeys", a far superior movie in every sense. Expand
  8. BKM
    Feb 20, 2013
    3
    Kudos to Rian Johnson for a creative and tricky screenplay, but the problem with Looper is that's all there is to the movie. The pacing is agonizingly slow, the performances are uninspired and there is little for viewers to grasp onto in order to connect with the film. There are lots of ideas but nothing to really think about. Perhaps a different director would have yielded moreKudos to Rian Johnson for a creative and tricky screenplay, but the problem with Looper is that's all there is to the movie. The pacing is agonizingly slow, the performances are uninspired and there is little for viewers to grasp onto in order to connect with the film. There are lots of ideas but nothing to really think about. Perhaps a different director would have yielded more satisfying results. Expand
  9. Feb 17, 2013
    4
    The story in Looper revolves around a gangster that takes out marked men for a criminal organisation. The twist is that the criminals are 30 years into the future where they apparently aren't allowed to kill people so they send the people that are to be slain back into the past. The movie breaks the no-killing-in-the-future-rule several times and the viewer is left wondering, like in soThe story in Looper revolves around a gangster that takes out marked men for a criminal organisation. The twist is that the criminals are 30 years into the future where they apparently aren't allowed to kill people so they send the people that are to be slain back into the past. The movie breaks the no-killing-in-the-future-rule several times and the viewer is left wondering, like in so many other instances, why the heck the writers overlooked yet another hole in the plot that is so glaringly obvious that it'll sit on your mind for the entire duration of the movie. The most explanation that you get is that you shouldn't try to understand any of it, making it nothing more than an action movie full of convenient Deus Ex machina and not the brilliant science fiction the plebs and so called "critics' are trying to make you believe it is. Bruce Willis fans (Old Joe) will be disappointed by his lacklustre performance, possibly because of a script he couldn't really work with. That and they cast him as a child-killer which I felt was slightly revolting. A completely miscast Garret Dillahunt (Jesse) enters and quickly departs the movie in a most unbecoming way for an actor who is capable of much more. The sets are anachronistic and the vision the set makers had for a 2040's and 2070's America is completely unbelievable and an insult to any seasoned sci-fi viewer. Single-action revolvers, REALLY? Yor: The Hunter from the Future had more believable set props than that. Despite the movie's many incosistencies, plot-holes and cinematized gangster-style executions that are played at a rapid pace at the beginning of the movie this movie is watchable by anyone looking for a cheesy Hollywood sci-fi flick. Just don't go in thinking this is some kind of pièce de résistance of sci-fi viewing; you'll be sorely disappointed if you do. Expand
  10. Feb 7, 2013
    0
    if garfield was sent back in time to past garfield to kill future garfield i bet they would have both eaten lasagna but that did not happen 0/100000 DONT BOTHER WATCHING
  11. Feb 3, 2013
    3
    Good movie, horrible unnecessary ending so many other possibilities that should have been explored. This movie has it's own time travel rules. I really don't know what else to say.
  12. Jan 26, 2013
    2
    Looper is a movie that has an interesting story to some degree but from the mindless action scenes to the and incoherent editing, Looper fails miserably like Bruce Willis's acting.
  13. Jan 18, 2013
    3
    In 2 words, this film is so-so. It wants to be a Hi Res concetpt sci-fi film, but the plot doesn't hold out for that, and the splatter violence and appalling and unnecessary language give away the fact that there isn't enough in the story or the characters to keep it going. If you've paid oyur money and bought your popcorn, it will tick over, but you'll forget it within minutes if youIn 2 words, this film is so-so. It wants to be a Hi Res concetpt sci-fi film, but the plot doesn't hold out for that, and the splatter violence and appalling and unnecessary language give away the fact that there isn't enough in the story or the characters to keep it going. If you've paid oyur money and bought your popcorn, it will tick over, but you'll forget it within minutes if you have any semblance of intelligence. And if you have any sensitbility, you will actively WANT to forget it. It's just poor and nasty, at its heart. Expand
  14. upi
    Jan 13, 2013
    3
    Action thrillers generally require the willing suspension of disbelief. You have to *want* to believe that it is possible to shoot people while running, survive explosions "just outside the fireball", jump through windows with barely a scratch, etc. These are established patterns of the genre, and we, as an audience, have come to accept them (even though none of these are very likely). TheAction thrillers generally require the willing suspension of disbelief. You have to *want* to believe that it is possible to shoot people while running, survive explosions "just outside the fireball", jump through windows with barely a scratch, etc. These are established patterns of the genre, and we, as an audience, have come to accept them (even though none of these are very likely). The point I am trying to make is that when you go to an action movie, you are willing to overlook a bunch of glaringly impossible stuff, and will be actively trying to accept the plot "as-is" without looking too close. this is why it is to jarring when a movie is so full of internal inconsistencies and the sheer number plot holes make the script look like swiss cheese. These people are professionals, and they can apparently turn any weird idea into a marketable film, which makes me question even more why they had to go with this B-plot that made the otherwise seamless visuals simply not entertain anymore. I'm not even going into the onedimensional characters that can be completely described in one short sentence each. This is an action flic after all, we have come to accept that. Haven't we? Expand
  15. Jan 6, 2013
    2
    The problem with this movie is, that it tries to be taken as a serious piece of work. But fails, becasue of the many loop holes in the plot. On the positve side, the cast did a great job. But that wasnt enough, to save this movie.
  16. Jan 5, 2013
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The movie gets a 4 effort but that's about it. My main problem with movies like this, is time travel is in all respects impossible. The mind boggling physics of it make it such a sticky subject that only really good movies who attempt it, seldom get it right. Most only on the grounds that the movie is making fun of time travel, Back to the Future comes to mind. The only serious movie that comes to mind that tackles it well, is 12 Monkeys. In that movie the "circle of events" are left to unfold like an infinite loop, old bruce willis is unable to stop the spread of plague, while young bruce willis watches unaware; ad infinitum. But in this movie the plot hole keeps me from really caring about the movie at all, according to the films logic. Here is my best shot at explaining it. In the future, 2074 time travel is created. Also in the future everyone is "tagged" so it's impossible to hide a body that has been murdered. So in order for criminals to hide bodies they seize control of time travel. They do this in order to send people 30 years, to be murdered. Even though " Old Joe's" (Bruce Willis) wife is killed in the future. I wonder what they will do with that body? Now, the thugs who murder these people who are sent back are called loopers (Jason GL), they wait in designated locations to kill those wanted by the "evil higher ups" and dispose of the bodies. That is until they themselves are to be terminated. The loopers are given a bunch of gold and this lets them know they just killed there future self and that is their last kill. The problem arises in the fact that knowing this would inevitably change the future. Knowing that in thirty years you will be taken away to be sent back to the future to be killed by yourself would make any self surviving human prepare for the day when they are to be taken or get out the looper business altogether. The central theme of this movie is that there is mysterious rainmaker who is terminating all the loopers in the future. This person ends up being a kid that old joe tries to kill in order to save himself. But the rainmakers reason for terminating all loopers is because his mother/guardian is killed by old joe. This cannot happened is young joe either kills old joe or kills himself. The logic goes that if young joe kills himself, old joe disappears giving no motivation for the rainmaker to become the rainmaker. Which ends the movie from the beginning. Where the logic breakdowns is that if young joe kills himself, their is no old joe to run amok. Therefore old joe is killed in the beginning alternate scene that explains how old joe, gets old and runs amok's already seen himself get killed. He never has a chance to run amok because in this time line he killed himself. Basically the movie makers wanted to make a circle, square. By giving the movie a happy ending it ruins logic the world is based around. Thus don't waste your time trying to watch this movie, it will make you try to understand time travel, which for me has been a waste of time. Points for every-other aspect of the movie. Expand
  17. Jan 5, 2013
    2
    I joined Metacritic, as a public service, to review this movie and hopefully prevent someone else like me, who generally relies on the consensus of professional critics, from making the mistake of watching this tripe. THIS IS NOT A GOOD FILM, IN THE LEAST. Compounding the film's incoherent, inconsistent treatment of time travel -- the writer explicitly telegraphs, during one of the scenes,I joined Metacritic, as a public service, to review this movie and hopefully prevent someone else like me, who generally relies on the consensus of professional critics, from making the mistake of watching this tripe. THIS IS NOT A GOOD FILM, IN THE LEAST. Compounding the film's incoherent, inconsistent treatment of time travel -- the writer explicitly telegraphs, during one of the scenes, that the viewer need not attempt to make any sense of it -- are myriad additional (glaring) plot holes and unanswered questions. The "development" (such as it is) of JGL's "character" (such as it is) is utterly, maddeningly unbelievable. (The only way even to begin to make sense of him is as a walking mommy complex.) The penultimate action sequence is simultaneously so out-of-place and fantastic that it beggars contemplation, much less belief. And those are just the movie's three most fundamental defects; there are many, many more. It seems to me that the writer, when developing the screenplay, first conceived of the "clever" ending (which is actually clever only insofar as one is profoundly stoned) and then sloppily constructed a storyline to get there. I am honestly *befuddled* by the strong critical reception of this movie, *befuddled*. See also the reviews by Oxcart, JonnyRaves, mess888, and (especially) SebDangerfield. Do not waste your time or money on this one. Expand
  18. Jan 4, 2013
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. You either hate this movie or you are retarded. This movie has made you expect something good but it screwed you. The time traveling makes no sense at all. When in the end the main character shot himself his older version should disappear IMMEDIATELY not thinking and have a bad disappear effect. The fact that the kid was introduced at the beginning of the end and his powers were only introduced at the end with no explanation at all, makes me thing what the hell the writers were thinking. To include time travel in a movie is not new (see back to the future) but at least in that movie they explained how it was "possible" as you should in science-fiction. This movie did NOT! This was just a major disappointment and you will start to hate the kid and at the end he lives. Expand
  19. Jan 3, 2013
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Basically unwatchable. I really do not understand why Joseph Gordon-Levitt is being heralded as the new Hollywood superstar. There is absolutely nothing that makes you want to see him, in any role. He is short, ugly, has absolutely no charisma, and is as boring as hell. Well, hell is probably a lot more interesting. Bruce Willis at least attempts to spice this movie up, but even he cannot do it. When trained killers miss him time and again, at point blank range, the entire premise becomes nothing but utterly ridiculous. Expand
  20. Dec 26, 2012
    3
    The worst movie i saw this year by a long margin, not only its full of the usual nonsense about time traveling but also the whole story is a mess. I watched the movie accepting its own schizophrenic paradigms but even doing so all the remaining plot doesn't make sense, the main character is just a lunatic cliche that doesn't even know himself and act randomly without any logic, all theThe worst movie i saw this year by a long margin, not only its full of the usual nonsense about time traveling but also the whole story is a mess. I watched the movie accepting its own schizophrenic paradigms but even doing so all the remaining plot doesn't make sense, the main character is just a lunatic cliche that doesn't even know himself and act randomly without any logic, all the events, i repeat, even accepting the time traveling part that is very inconsistent on its own, are scattered without any logic leading to an end where he does the dumbest choice of the whole movie, really only for 10 years old kids or something, avoid it. Expand
  21. Dec 22, 2012
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The title is a Mars bar and just like junk food this film delivers that useless energy. In its fantasy came a world that could never even be explained, logically or even with any degree of attempt. Maybe in 1930's there is an era of which this film is modeled from definitely in no foreseeable future. This aside the plot is littered with gaping holes. Paradoxes were given as much thought as some illiterate explaining the theory of relativity and resulting in suicide. Quite literally those braincells where already popped from it's crackheads abusive direction. Poor at everything, what SCI-FI I ask, it really didn't even try to be scientific. Bums with guns, and silver equals gold. Expand
  22. Dec 10, 2012
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Mildly entertaining premise that wasn't executed well. The movie's ending was terrible.

    The main character just happens to end up on the very farm as the kid he is looking for after running from the diner? He didn't even know what that information on the note was until the farm owner explained it to him.

    The story seemed to grow more and more inconsistent after the farm culminating with this hardened killer sacrificing himself for some kid he barely knew.
    Expand
  23. Nov 9, 2012
    3
    Slightly Interesting story - a bit confused at times mixing too much diverse sci-fi into the same story. Good acting and direction. HORRIBLE violence -- its way to excessive and gory at times and un-necessarily so. It makes Tarentino look like a sissy. And that's not easy to do, neither is it a good thing to achieve.
  24. Nov 7, 2012
    4
    Well... What to say... I think they really tried to make an intelligent movie but they kind of fail. That's too bad because the idea wasn't bad but too many things are out of place. The actors, they're not bad but not really good either, none of them is really engaging.
    I'd say go see this movie if you don't think too much and you are a bit bored because still the action scenes are not that bad.
  25. Nov 4, 2012
    2
    Looper is one of those films that desperately wants to be taken seriously. It tries to capture audience interest and respect in several ways -- action, inter-character and character development, even the cerebral "nature of cause and effect" conundrum. Unfortunately, it screws everything up and makes a royal mess. Its characters are, by and large, shallow to the point ofLooper is one of those films that desperately wants to be taken seriously. It tries to capture audience interest and respect in several ways -- action, inter-character and character development, even the cerebral "nature of cause and effect" conundrum. Unfortunately, it screws everything up and makes a royal mess. Its characters are, by and large, shallow to the point of one-dimensionality, generally merely character stereotypes rather than even photocopied archetypes. The primary anti-hero protagonist/antagonist (yep, it's that convoluted) probably undergoes the most development, but that's due in part to the fact that he's being played by two separate actors. By and large, the performances are wooden and unconvincing, the writing stilted to the point of being hack dialogue, and the plot so full of holes that trying to sort it all out would take much more time than this film is worth. (Consider this a note to all would-be time travel story writers: whether you decide on a deterministic or non-deterministic model of causality doesn't matter as long as you are consistent. Looper? Total flop on that.) Joseph Gordon-Levitt does a reasonably good job with what the script gives him (which isn't much), and Emily Blunt turns in a rather good performance, in part because she's the only believable character in the whole mangled mess. To be totally and brutally honest, if billing on this movie were by quality of performance, Blunt should be going first; hers is the best portrayal in the film. By the same logic, Bruce Willis' unconvincing, flat, and downright uninterested performance should earn him a credit just below the lighting intern. Frankly, Willis phoned in this performance; even with the pathetic writing, he could have done much better. Jeff Daniels turns in a decent portrayal of a boss from the future sent back to run herd on the miscreants that populate the turkey of a plot. Scriptwriting was horrendous, particularly in the area of plot. The entire film was over-the-top violence and brutality. Really, with the aforementioned exceptions to the generally poor performances, the only other people in this production that deserve a true pat on the back are those responsible for generating the setting and scenery. They, at least, did a fine job in creating a dystopian, energy-starved, socially collapsed world in which to set this train wreck of a film. (It's an unfortunate thing when the setting is outshining most of the cast in quality of performance.) Given the blasting I've given this film, it's easy to wonder why I'm giving it a 2 instead of a 0. Three reasons: Gordon-Levitt, Blunt, and the scene setting crew. Everything else? Junk. Had I known now what I was getting into, I would not have gone to the theater for this. I would've waited until it hit cable...and then watched something else. Collapse
  26. Nov 4, 2012
    2
    Looper sucked in so many ways that it's actually difficult count them all. Unlike most of the other haters, I would be willing to overlook the ridiculous plot and the inconsistencies (of which there are many), if the movie was generally well executed and entertaining. But it's not. The movie is amateurishly directed, poorly edited, and unevenly paced. 80% of the action scenes lack theLooper sucked in so many ways that it's actually difficult count them all. Unlike most of the other haters, I would be willing to overlook the ridiculous plot and the inconsistencies (of which there are many), if the movie was generally well executed and entertaining. But it's not. The movie is amateurishly directed, poorly edited, and unevenly paced. 80% of the action scenes lack the slightest amount of tension and fall completely flat. There is not one single well-developed character in the entire film, so there's no reason to care when anything happens to any of them. The script is disjointed and back-fills plot lines to explain things after they happen. The last two-thirds of the movie is very boring, and is chock full of clumsy, melodramatic, and just plain corny dialogue (especially between the Emily Blunt character and her "son"). Some of these dramatic scenes are so long and awkward that when I saw it, people in the theater were actually laughing uncomfortably, unsure of how to react. Then on top of everything else, Looper is a highly derivative mish-mash of other, much better, sci-fi movies, but doesn't even do a competent rip off job (see Inception ripping off the Matrix). Instead, what the viewer gets treated to is a series of dumbed-down scenes and plot points from movies like 12 Monkeys, The Matrix, Blade Runner, The Fifth Element, Strange Days, and a host of others. In the end, Looper is a smelly turd of a Movie. The only possible explanation I can offer as to why people liking this movie is that maybe we've been starved of a truly great sci-fi movie for so long, that almost anything will do at this point. Or maybe people are just idiots. Or both. Expand
  27. Oct 24, 2012
    0
    Apparently the method of time travel movies is to show the same scene over and over again to see if the outcome can be changed. The effect is numbing. J. Gordon Leavitt is talented, but he is gotten up to look like Keanu Reeves and acts accordingly. Bruce Willis has only his smirk left. I lasted a bit less than an hour.
  28. Oct 15, 2012
    3
    I thought this was a pretty bad movie overall. Everything is derivative of stuff you've seen before, and even if this is deliberate, the riffing on familiar themes and plot points isn't clever enough to hold your interest.

    And the overall concept sounds cool initially, but makes no sense. If they wanted to make no sense, the whole movie shouldn't have taken itself so seriously and
    I thought this was a pretty bad movie overall. Everything is derivative of stuff you've seen before, and even if this is deliberate, the riffing on familiar themes and plot points isn't clever enough to hold your interest.

    And the overall concept sounds cool initially, but makes no sense. If they wanted to make no sense, the whole movie shouldn't have taken itself so seriously and been more cartoonish. As it is, there's really no reason to have the loopers in the first place--why didn't the bad guys of the future just send their victims into some volcano of the past?
    Expand
  29. Oct 12, 2012
    3
    Looper is the most overrated film I've seen since Inception. (I thought Nolan's Batman trilogy and Memento were great, by the way). Not much happens in Looper, and what does follows from the stupid premise (never explained) that bodies produced by hit-style executions in a future 30 years hence cannot be buried "then." Under the circumstances, the ruthlessness, persistence and sheerLooper is the most overrated film I've seen since Inception. (I thought Nolan's Batman trilogy and Memento were great, by the way). Not much happens in Looper, and what does follows from the stupid premise (never explained) that bodies produced by hit-style executions in a future 30 years hence cannot be buried "then." Under the circumstances, the ruthlessness, persistence and sheer number of bad guys seems unnecessary and poorly motivated. As for the action, it's is just a lot of gratuitous shoot-and-miss, chase 'em-around-some-more, try to shoot-'em-again emptiness. The fact that Looper has been rated so highly by both critics and audiences suggests that, in the era of the suburban multiplex, viewers who honed their critical faculties in the 50s and 60s have been leached from the vetting process. I'm no snob and like "good junk," but Looper is just bad junk. Expand
  30. Oct 12, 2012
    2
    There are two aspects of Looper that cause it to be stifling: It tries too hard to be stylish and too hard to be deep. The production values are there, with the actors well cast - though, when it comes down to it Bruce Willis is cast as a character that is essentially himself in every single Die Hard, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt is cast as (and takes on the attempts at acting like) a youngerThere are two aspects of Looper that cause it to be stifling: It tries too hard to be stylish and too hard to be deep. The production values are there, with the actors well cast - though, when it comes down to it Bruce Willis is cast as a character that is essentially himself in every single Die Hard, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt is cast as (and takes on the attempts at acting like) a younger Bruce Willis.

    Here is where an interesting facet comes into play: The most basic -simplified, if you will- premise is that one person meets themselves in the future. With the help of some keen makeup and prosthetic, Gordon-Levitt was able to be given the jaw, cheekbones, and forehead of Bruce Willis. In addition, speaking in a raspy and sort of brooding tone, the film is able to pull off a decent narration.

    However, it just tries too hard to be "cool"; too hard to be "noir."

    The director, Rian Johnson, attempts to be the next Christopher Nolan by mimicking the deep provocations of Inception but fails due to the fact that the presentation is terrible. One moment he throws a concept at the audience and before one can really figure out any profundities or even specific relations to a plot, the scene following is an elementary action scene or something that is easy to conceive, partially due to similarities with action films hitherto.

    Perhaps with another viewing, aside from gawking at visuals, the viewer would be able to construe of something that is probably not there and, the undeniably corny plot "twists" thrown in make this film more than just a waste of money but also a waste of time. Inception was deep with the only real downside being that of the latter portion of it being drawn out - Looper tries with all of its might to be Inception, but can evaluated from its ending which is, in the larger scope of cinema, a cop out.
    Expand
Metascore
84

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
    90
    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
    50
    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
    90
    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.