User Score
7.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1089 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

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. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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. Expand
  5. Oct 5, 2012
    3
    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 filmTo 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.)
    Expand
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. Sep 30, 2012
    4
    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.
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Oct 6, 2012
    4
    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 evenI 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
  12. Oct 1, 2012
    2
    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. Oct 9, 2012
    3
    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)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
  14. 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
  15. Oct 12, 2012
    1
    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
  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. Sep 28, 2012
    3
    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 poorly...it'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.
    Expand
  19. Jan 3, 2013
    0
    This review contains spoilers. 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. Collapse
  20. 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
  21. Oct 6, 2012
    0
    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 oneI 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.
    Expand
  22. Oct 10, 2012
    2
    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????
  23. Sep 29, 2012
    0
    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.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
  24. Oct 1, 2012
    1
    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 originalDon'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
  25. Sep 30, 2012
    1
    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
    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
  26. Oct 2, 2012
    0
    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.
  27. 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.
  28. Oct 11, 2012
    3
    Attempt at cerebral sci-fi let down by endless plot holes and a feather-headed lack of logic... First the good
  29. Sep 28, 2012
    0
    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 aIf 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
  30. Oct 11, 2012
    0
    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.
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.