User Score
7.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1084 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. 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
  2. Feb 18, 2013
    10
    Looper is just simply one of my favorite movies ever. Excellent acting, writing...the works. The little things in the movie make it great. Looking for an original screenplay sci-fi? Look no further than Looper.
  3. Feb 18, 2013
    7
    This is slightly unfair, as a film itself I would give it 8 maybe, but I must give it 7 due to the consensus, the consensus is this was an amazing film, it wasn't, it was solid but wasn't awe inspiring, it was also this decades Matrix, and it wasn't, it was nowhere near Matrix, I had to be true to myself, I'd rent it before buying it
    And Emily Blunt fans, She acts well, but she is the
    This is slightly unfair, as a film itself I would give it 8 maybe, but I must give it 7 due to the consensus, the consensus is this was an amazing film, it wasn't, it was solid but wasn't awe inspiring, it was also this decades Matrix, and it wasn't, it was nowhere near Matrix, I had to be true to myself, I'd rent it before buying it
    And Emily Blunt fans, She acts well, but she is the most pointless character ever
    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. Sep 30, 2012
    7
    I had great expectations for this film, not least because it showcases Joseph Gordon-Levitt who is rapidly becoming a hallmark for quality (
  10. Oct 3, 2012
    8
    Looper was quite an enjoyable movie. The story seemed pretty original, though a little slow in the middle. I thought the performances of Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Emily Blunt were excellent and whoever did the make up on Joseph's face did a great job making him look quite close to a younger Bruce Willis. I think Looper was a very good blend of a mob story and sci-fi all rolled up into aLooper was quite an enjoyable movie. The story seemed pretty original, though a little slow in the middle. I thought the performances of Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Emily Blunt were excellent and whoever did the make up on Joseph's face did a great job making him look quite close to a younger Bruce Willis. I think Looper was a very good blend of a mob story and sci-fi all rolled up into a nice cozy burrito. P.S. If you want a future car just attach some solar panels and wires to the outside of your car and you will be driving a car from 2044. Expand
  11. Oct 12, 2012
    8
    Rarely you would find a science fiction movie these days not relying on CGI and action to draw audiences, this movie does not require both, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis pack a great performance, best science fiction movie I have watched in recent times.
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Oct 16, 2012
    5
    Truth to be told, I don't get why everyone thinks Looper is so great. Joseph Gordon Levitt's makeup to try to look like Bruce Willis is awful and makes him look like a wax figure and that's the smallest of Looper's problems. The premise is good but never fully explored. In the end, it just falls into the cliches of sci-fi, like the fake kid who talks like an adult. The boy who performsTruth to be told, I don't get why everyone thinks Looper is so great. Joseph Gordon Levitt's makeup to try to look like Bruce Willis is awful and makes him look like a wax figure and that's the smallest of Looper's problems. The premise is good but never fully explored. In the end, it just falls into the cliches of sci-fi, like the fake kid who talks like an adult. The boy who performs that character promises to become the new Nicholas Cage with his over-the-top acting. Emily Blunt is great as usual, but her character's relationship with Joseph Gordon Levitt's was terribly contrived. The villains are cardboard characters which you know are bad guys because they wear black clothes and are dumber than an Adam Sandler character. Joseph Gordon Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt and the few action there is are what made Looper a barely passable movie. Expand
  15. 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
  16. Oct 3, 2012
    5
    This is one of those scifi flix with a cool concept that falls flat in execution. Joseph Gordon-Levitt kills people who are sent back from the future to be executed. Complication arise when his older self (played by Bruce Willis) is sent back to be offed. This takes place in one of those futuristic worlds where much is rundown and little is neat and modern. It starts off well with someThis is one of those scifi flix with a cool concept that falls flat in execution. Joseph Gordon-Levitt kills people who are sent back from the future to be executed. Complication arise when his older self (played by Bruce Willis) is sent back to be offed. This takes place in one of those futuristic worlds where much is rundown and little is neat and modern. It starts off well with some solid action and interesting dialogue, but bog down to a standstill with too much talk and not enough action. There are a few worthwhile moments, but the best performance goes to the kid. Expand
  17. 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.
  18. Oct 6, 2012
    5
    This movie is very hard to score out of 10, as the first half was as brilliant as the second half was disappointing, so I've opted for a 5.

    In my opinion, it would have been far more satisfying without the inclusion of the "Rainmaker" subplot, which bogged it down and stretched the limits of credibility to breaking point.
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. Oct 1, 2012
    7
    I love Sci Fi, and like all the actors in this film, so I was looking forward to seeing it. It was a mixed bag for me. The film kept me interested, but turned out to be more about the telekinetic kid than anything else. The child, played by Pierce Gagnon, is one of the best child performances I've ever seen in a film. He is absolutely mesmerizing. Unfortunately, the film ended upI love Sci Fi, and like all the actors in this film, so I was looking forward to seeing it. It was a mixed bag for me. The film kept me interested, but turned out to be more about the telekinetic kid than anything else. The child, played by Pierce Gagnon, is one of the best child performances I've ever seen in a film. He is absolutely mesmerizing. Unfortunately, the film ended up feeling more like a "demon seed" scary film rather than an intriguing Sci Fi film. I did not care for the whole telekinesis angle which seemed tacked on, and there is a sex scene in the film which was ridiculous and unnecessary. There was also inconsistencies which made no sense. The younger looper always shot and killed the future loopers the instance they appeared, and for some unexplained reason when the older version of himself appeared he hesitated before shooting. There was also some very slow moments throughout the film. Not a bad film, but it won't be a Blu Ray purchase. Expand
  22. Sep 30, 2012
    7
    This movie could have been so much more, but unfortunately shot itself in the foot around the time after the farm house was first seen. Around 30 - 40 minutes of nothingness... but relationship building and character development.. this is not what I want to see in a Sci-Fi Thriller/ Action movie... Having said that, along with a few other irritating nuances.. I must say, stunning visuals,This movie could have been so much more, but unfortunately shot itself in the foot around the time after the farm house was first seen. Around 30 - 40 minutes of nothingness... but relationship building and character development.. this is not what I want to see in a Sci-Fi Thriller/ Action movie... Having said that, along with a few other irritating nuances.. I must say, stunning visuals, great acting, wonderful script.. it's a shame they let the structure go so horribly wrong. Expand
  23. Sep 30, 2012
    7
    The movie was ok. The only problem i had is Bruce is left handed and Joseph Gordon-Levitt is right handed. Did anyone else notice that. If i had to grade the movie i would give it a C plus
  24. 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
  25. Dec 9, 2012
    10
    What an original and masterful sci fi film, the kind We've been waiting for for ages, maybe since Twelve Monkeys. Great to see Willis on form here and nailing the action genre again. From the second you start watching it you're thinking 'timeless classic.' Stick this one in the sci fi cannon without a doubt, open the gates and real her in. Prometheus is nothing compared to this.What an original and masterful sci fi film, the kind We've been waiting for for ages, maybe since Twelve Monkeys. Great to see Willis on form here and nailing the action genre again. From the second you start watching it you're thinking 'timeless classic.' Stick this one in the sci fi cannon without a doubt, open the gates and real her in. Prometheus is nothing compared to this. Brilliantly woven plot, great pacing, always exciting. Might be a while before we get another treat like this Expand
  26. 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.
  27. Oct 1, 2012
    7
    Looper was good. It wasn't great, but it was good. It was really heading in the right direction except that inconsistencies with how "future" works was silly. Some of the characters are pretty annoying, too. You aren't ever actually sure what characters you are supposed to "like" and "dislike". That can be good sometimes, but by how the characters were developed and built, it fails. TheLooper was good. It wasn't great, but it was good. It was really heading in the right direction except that inconsistencies with how "future" works was silly. Some of the characters are pretty annoying, too. You aren't ever actually sure what characters you are supposed to "like" and "dislike". That can be good sometimes, but by how the characters were developed and built, it fails. The movie had good ideas and concepts, it just wasn't pieced together that well. It's a pretty good movie if you only look on the 'outside'. If you want it to be logical and well done science fiction, then perhaps this isn't the greatest of movies. What separates a movie like this from Moon is that it Moon is perfectly structured and has very little to nitpick at. I suggest seeing it, but don't have super high expectations. It is only a B or C level sci-fi movie. But there are boobs Expand
  28. Oct 7, 2012
    7
    The verdict is out. It appears if you are a troubled male enduring a violent life style, a woman from your past, or future, is likely responsible. If you want proof, look no further than this film. All major characters are deeply affected by females. Whether it's a mother, a wife, or a hooker, they all determine the destiny of the world.
    I won't give it away, but do pay attention to the
    The verdict is out. It appears if you are a troubled male enduring a violent life style, a woman from your past, or future, is likely responsible. If you want proof, look no further than this film. All major characters are deeply affected by females. Whether it's a mother, a wife, or a hooker, they all determine the destiny of the world.
    I won't give it away, but do pay attention to the various female driven pointers, from small to large. It's all there. Ladies are the oil that runs the machinery of the world.
    This was no doubt an entertaining film. The story kept me interested. Particularly because the promotional trailers did something abnormal by today's standards: they didn't give away the whole thing. I didn't expect it to follow the path that it does. Two thumbs up right there.
    It's worth mention what a fastantic job they did making Joseph Gordon-Levitt look like a younger version of Bruce Willis. Frightening.
    The one bit that often gets to me when it comes to science fiction is how you can smell the compromisse in the futuristic look. Specially when it comes to technology. Our future selves are geniuses in one aspect, like, say, time travel, but when it comes to other details of the world, like architecture or simple street signs, we dumbed down... And of course, the story does take place in the "past" version of this future. Can you hear a studio guy say: 'we gotta shoot this thing cheaper!'... Well, you can't have it All. So it does feel a bit more like an HBO production than big theatre fare, but I still had a fantastic time. Enjoy.
    Expand
  29. Nov 20, 2012
    8
    If you're looking for something thrilling yet thought provoking, go no further, Looper has arrived. Rian Johnson's Looper is a bold, wholly original genre film that delves into the fabric of time travel like you hardly get see these days. The high concept story line of a man's future-self on the loose after failing to 'get rid of him' is only the tip of the iceberg. Whats left is aIf you're looking for something thrilling yet thought provoking, go no further, Looper has arrived. Rian Johnson's Looper is a bold, wholly original genre film that delves into the fabric of time travel like you hardly get see these days. The high concept story line of a man's future-self on the loose after failing to 'get rid of him' is only the tip of the iceberg. Whats left is a dizzying tale of crime, time alteration and most interestingly, parenthood, that twists and turns the audience like an intelligent thriller should. The deceptive direction may not satisfy all, but it kept the intrigue on high.The principal cast was very good, and it's also good to see Bruce Willis on form this year. Filmed with much style and edited with clockwork precision; I highly recommend this to movie-goers. Expand
  30. Oct 1, 2012
    10
    I loved this movie. It has an original take on a dirty future that does not require old blade runner sets remade. It handles the time travel stuff perfect. Not to mention it has Bruce Willis and a some machine guns, what is not to like.
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.