User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1012 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Feb 6, 2013
    Starts out great. The opening felt similar to how I saw Blade Runner but somewhere in the middle it drags and what happens doesn't really matter until the revelation. I respect Rian Johnson for pulling off a great atmosphere but I just thought there were a lot of room for improvement in terms of pacing. Overall it is a good movie that shows a lot of potential for discussions. Maybe I just wanted to see more sci-fi. Expand
  2. Feb 5, 2013
    Overall, awesome movie. This is some of the best acting by Joseph Gordon-Levitt I have ever seen. It has one of the best plots. This film is not what you would expect. This has become my second favorite time travel film of all time, next to Back to the Future Part II
  3. Feb 5, 2013
    This could have been so much better, and that's the biggest disappointment. The idea (given we've had the likes of The Terminator series and Minority Report beforehand) is fine, but at no stage do you ever get to the point of CARING about the characters enough to want them not to get killed.... I cannot fathom why so many critics rate this film so highly- it's bubblegum for a new generation, content to suspend any form of reality for a couple of hours and 'veg out'.

    Save wasting your life watching this and rent 'Bourne Legacy' instead- at least you'll see a movie that leaves you feeling happy that you watched it at the end- the same cannot be said of 'Looper'- it left me feeling empty.
  4. Feb 3, 2013
    surprising and unusual, a new way to enjoy the futuristic genre, besides another unforgettable performance of young Levitt and the good creativity of Rian Johnson
  5. Feb 3, 2013
    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.
  6. Jan 27, 2013
    Looper is a really good movie! Great special effects and a great story. The best thing about Looper is that it perfectly mixes story and action making it a must see! I'd highly recommend it to anyone so long as they don't have an extreme hate of the Sci-fi genre!
  7. Jan 26, 2013
    i enjoyed it, enternaning and bruce is a little diferent in this one, well there are some crazy effects and even my girlfriend likeed it. i find myself at a loss of words so that means i cant remember too much about it
  8. Jan 26, 2013
    There are some plot holes and some times you just have yourself scratching you're head because it's not exactly clear how the time travelling works. But everything else of the movie is good and very enjoyable
  9. Jan 26, 2013
    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.
  10. Jan 20, 2013
    Looper is my favorite movie of the year. I got the blu ray the day it was released and watched it immediately. I find the self inclosed story (with no need for sequels or prequels) to be very refreshing in a genre populated by franchises. While I avoided the movie in theaters for some time, after hearing about how good it actually was I went to see it and was blow away. Part of this is most likely because my expectations were not great. The idea of the mob using time travel didn't seem plausible. I think a bigger organization than the mob would be required to harness and use a power as awesome as time travel. How about a government conspiracy with CIA agents instead of criminals? Regardless of that fatal flaw the world created by writer director Rian Johnson is flawless. He brought a skeptical viewer (myself) to an adoring viewer in less than 10 minutes. Expand
  11. Jan 19, 2013
    Just like Terminator mixed with some Die Hard. It is a really good movie. A must watch for people who like action and TriStar movies should defenetly watch this!
  12. Jan 18, 2013
    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 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
  13. Jan 18, 2013
    Movie requires a small amount of suspension of disbelief; negative reviewers got hung up here. Director did a fantastic job hinting just enough to understand everything going on, along with creating characters the audience is interested in. Highly entertaining, best movie I've seen in a long time.
  14. Jan 17, 2013
    Amazing movie!!!!!!!! Nice story and good actors
  15. Jan 16, 2013
    Thank god that the National Board of Review seems to have common sense still with giving "Looper" the Best Original Screenplay award. This film is AMAZING. It is a "Inception 2.0" of sorts, but even more action-packed. Is that the possible downfall of it in the awards circuit? Maybe. I'll admit, I've been rather limited in my 2012 film watching (so far), but this has been my second favourite film of the year (right after "Argo"). The screenplay, as noted, is extremely well done with an intelligent idea and exceedingly good dialogue. Bruce Willis is great in action films, and he does the same here. Ms Blunt is a great actress and she keeps her head high with this performance. The best, however, is the work of the makeup department and Mr Gordon-Levitt. Wow. That was a great and totally out-of-character performance for his usual self. Finally, I can see him as a serious actor. So, what more does one need than a great screenplay and great cast? Technical aspects? Those are covered too. It's just a good film. No. It's a great film. There is no way about it. One of the best of the year. Expand
  16. Jan 15, 2013
    Such a surprising cinematic experience. I was apprehensive before watching because most movies dealing with time travel completely butcher it and make the movie seem more silly than anything. Thankfully, Looper did a very good job with it. They didn't try to explain anything about the science of it, which I was fine with, but I felt that they nailed the concept. Joseph Gordon-Levitt did an amazing job, not only acting but as portraying a young Bruce Willis. Obviously the make-up department deserves credit for the look but JGL mastered all of the mannerisms and the style of talking. Very impressive performance on his behalf. And I love Emily Blunt so her being in the film is a nice bonus, plus it's nice to see her take on a slightly different role from her typical typecast. The only negative in the film, in my opinion, was the telekinesis element. I thought it was a really silly aspect of the film and didn't need to be in there at all. The Rainmaker, could've easily been portrayed to be a genius child, not a borderline superhuman. That's really the only part of the film that was mediocre. Looper is definitely a movie that I think most people would enjoy. Some will probably find it challenging to follow but those that follow it well will surely consider it entertaining. Expand
  17. upi
    Jan 13, 2013
    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). 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
  18. Jan 12, 2013
    A well constructed story-driven scifi film that doesn't hit you over the head with explanations about causality but just works with the already well established (mainly by Back to the Future I guess) hollywood time-travel ruleset. Levitt plays a younger Bruce Willis and does so very well but his 'altered' appearance does take some getting used too. One of the better films of 2012 and certainly a recommended watch! Expand
  19. Jan 12, 2013
    Looper is a really good sci-fi/action thriller. Although the second half of the film tapers off towards the end, the film is held together by a solid concept, great direction, and good performances, even if some things are left unanswered.
  20. Jan 12, 2013
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie could have done with a 10, although it was great it did not live up to my expectations, there were may plot and logic holes/flaws. Like with almost all time travel movies it stumbles in handling its core element (time travel logic). There was nudity which was forced. The ending was great but the addition of the TK Kid was SO STUPID. Other than these flaws the movie was great, loved the whole young BWills thing decent action the story was also commendable putting aside the time travel logic issues. Expand
  21. Jan 7, 2013
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Life seems to have a clear beginning and end, but I don't see why almost every movieplot needs to follow the same format. Not saying that all movieplots litteraly begin with the birth of a character and end with their death, but instead I'm suggesting they begin with the so-called "Hollywood Beginning" and end with its short-bus brother the "Hollywood Ending." I define the "Hollywood Beginning" as any plot that force feeds milk down our throats until we understand what's going on, while its counterpart the "Hollywood Ending" ensure's us that the plot is over and not continuing on secretly after you leave the theater. What I like about Looper is the beginning. Without any leadup, it drops you into the middle of the main characters somewhat unique situation (Just watch the trailer and you'll find out what that is). A dangerous move for most far-fetched plots, but Looper is paced well and acted clear enough so the we naturally get on board with what's going on and even start to feel for the main character and the people around him. Brilliant. What I don't like about Looper is the latter half and the god awful ending. It takes everything that was semi-unique and compelling about the first 30 minutes and tosses it out the window with a lit molotov **** in its mouth. The only shred that remained was a "It's me against a brigade of unfair big cocks" plot, or in other words, the "Minority Report" plot.. So, to the same effect of sticking your mom in the ring to fight Mike Tyson, we have to watch our main character put up with his future brainless, professional death machine self, who wields uzzies like he's on the set of the next Die Hard installment. The beginning of the movie was so good because the daily life of a looper sounds so enticing, of course you'd inevitably have to think about the possibitly of killing your future self. A movie based around this idea alone is doomed to follow a path that leads to a big pile or already been used toilet paper. But a movie based around the life of one looper who has to deal with drug addiction, daily executions and the disposal of such victimes, coping with co-workers who shot their future self, or even didn't shoot their future self, is already enough character-plot crap to jam into a 2-hour flick. Expand
  22. Jan 7, 2013
    A time Travel Movie that is fresh and finely acted without getting overly complicated. Levitt and Willis do great work here as well does the rest of the cast. I just wish more movies likes this would get made.
  23. Jan 6, 2013
    This movie has everything you would want in a time travel film, action drama and well TIME TRAVEL. Now i wouldnt say its the best film of 2012 or it sould win best picture but it is a great film and maybe sould be nominated for original screenplay. From the begining to end it is a rollercoaster that has countless loops. It keeps the audiences attention and never lets go. Now for the action, it is great, just enough to hold the audience over. During the movie you will be thinking alot about the time travel in this movie and it can be a little bit confusing but think about it its just a movie about time travel thats all it is too it. Overall this is one of the best timetravel action films i have seen also my top 5 films of 2012. 9/10 Expand
  24. Jan 6, 2013
    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.
  25. Jan 5, 2013
    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
  26. Jan 5, 2013
    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
  27. Jan 4, 2013
    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
  28. Jan 3, 2013
    Brilliant, unique and disturbing, with a lot of unexpected twists and turns. Looper is far from your typical generic time travel movie and is one of those rare science fiction futuristic movies that will tug on your emotions. Emily Blunt and Joseph Gordon Levitt deliver brilliant performances and the child actor who plays Blunt's son is a scene stealer. Easily the best movie I've watched this year. Expand
  29. Jan 3, 2013
    Rian Johnson wrote delicious script for this movie. It's inventive, original, and unpredictable (but with plenty of foreshadowing to properly prepare the audience). When you consider just how many movies recently are sequels and remakes, and the few that aren't are adapted from popular books, its surprising that hollywood managed to produce a movie this interesting. I don't give a 10/10 to anything, but there literally was not one thing I hated about this movie. Some "comic book guy" ("worst movie evar") types are unable to accept some of the fictional elements in the story, but that's their loss. I would dare any of them to write a script 10% as good as Johnson's. Expand
  30. Jan 3, 2013
    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

Universal acclaim - based on 44 Critics

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