Looper

User Score
8.2

Universal acclaim- based on 1411 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream 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

User Reviews

  1. Oct 3, 2012
    8
    Seen Looper tonight. Does it live up to the hype? Not really, but I don't think that is the movies fault. The trailer makes you think its an action flick but its not. Its a concentrate and work out the plot and time travel paradoxes flick, however in my book thats a good thing! I didn't get the Joseph Gordon-Levitt make up as I don't think it made him look like Bruce Willis but watch outSeen Looper tonight. Does it live up to the hype? Not really, but I don't think that is the movies fault. The trailer makes you think its an action flick but its not. Its a concentrate and work out the plot and time travel paradoxes flick, however in my book thats a good thing! I didn't get the Joseph Gordon-Levitt make up as I don't think it made him look like Bruce Willis but watch out for one of the best child acting performances in recent memory. Even though I seen the main "twist" coming a mile off I still really liked the film. Like Inception I'm sure multiple viewings will make it even better. This is a real thinking mans Sci-Fi movie. Expand
  2. Sep 3, 2013
    10
    Outstanding movie. It also makes Bruce Willis the only actor to star in not one but two flawless time travel movies. The movie is much better than the trailers appear to indicate the action isn't the focus, but a really deep, compelling and surprising story. I was seriously impressed with the consistency. The photography, acting, score and plot are superb as well, but the fact that theOutstanding movie. It also makes Bruce Willis the only actor to star in not one but two flawless time travel movies. The movie is much better than the trailers appear to indicate the action isn't the focus, but a really deep, compelling and surprising story. I was seriously impressed with the consistency. The photography, acting, score and plot are superb as well, but the fact that the movie continues to surprise with unexpected plot twists while telling a convincing and not inane time travel story is astonishing. I wish I had seen this one in the theaters. Expand
  3. Sep 30, 2012
    8
    Nice thing about this movie is that its original and overall good.I felt the movie showcased or built up certain characters that became pointless or underwhelming. lack of time travel technology and the way they cover up the fact made me feel as if they couldn't think of anything. Pacing was to slow at times, even for when they were building good parts, everything else was good for the most part.
  4. Oct 6, 2012
    9
    Intelligent. Entertaining. Unique. Violent. Emotional. Disturbing. Sentimental. I loved it. I hope it gets a nomination from the academy.
  5. Oct 2, 2012
    9
    Definitely one of the best movies of 2012, and most likely the best science-fiction movie of this year. With movies such as The Dark Knight Rises and The Hunger Games, Looper still manages to shine and delivering one of the best movie experiences of the year. A must see, surprisingly good. 9/10
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Oct 8, 2012
    7
    This movie has an interesting premise and great actors and acting, which make up for the sometimes-lackluster action sequences. I think that if ones goes into this movie looking for simply an action movie, they will be disappointed. However, if you want something deeper: compelling characters and character development, suspense, moral dilemmas, then you will be satisfied. The film doesThis movie has an interesting premise and great actors and acting, which make up for the sometimes-lackluster action sequences. I think that if ones goes into this movie looking for simply an action movie, they will be disappointed. However, if you want something deeper: compelling characters and character development, suspense, moral dilemmas, then you will be satisfied. The film does suffer a bit at a few crucial plot points, where it's not entirely clear what happened. If you leave the theater confused, then look online for an explanation and it should make those little pieces fall into place nicely. Expand
  12. 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
  13. Jan 19, 2013
    8
    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!
  14. 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
  15. 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
  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 8, 2012
    9
    Wow! An original idea comes out of Hollywood! Even though It bogged down a bit through the middle and took a weird left turn with the whole telekinesis plot line I confess I really enjoyed it. Of course its not possible to make a believable time travel movie so I suppose I shouldn't be offended by the endless paradoxes. My hat is off to Joseph Gordon-Levitt and the prosthetics folks onWow! An original idea comes out of Hollywood! Even though It bogged down a bit through the middle and took a weird left turn with the whole telekinesis plot line I confess I really enjoyed it. Of course its not possible to make a believable time travel movie so I suppose I shouldn't be offended by the endless paradoxes. My hat is off to Joseph Gordon-Levitt and the prosthetics folks on this one. I was totally sold that the kid from 3rd rock was the guy from blind date. Ripe with sequel potential. Expand
  18. 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
  19. 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
  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 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.
  22. 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
  23. 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????
  24. Sep 29, 2012
    5
    In short, this is not a bad film it is just not a very good one. The first twenty minutes of the film had me completely engorged by it's style, understated tone and intriguing if not completely original plot line. By it's second act, however, it begins to run out of steam. It becomes distracted by sub plots that are never realized and characters that lose their initial promise of depth. ByIn short, this is not a bad film it is just not a very good one. The first twenty minutes of the film had me completely engorged by it's style, understated tone and intriguing if not completely original plot line. By it's second act, however, it begins to run out of steam. It becomes distracted by sub plots that are never realized and characters that lose their initial promise of depth. By the end of the film I felt like I was deprived of the breath of fresh air it could have been had it managed to focus more on its core characters, central story lines and themes. Instead it asks the audience for the all to generous courtesy of ignoring its plot holes, shallow characters and abrupt and underwhelming ending. Given the critics and audience response especially, I was mostly unimpressed. Save it for a rainy day when your Netflix queue feels stale. Expand
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. Sep 28, 2012
    7
    How would you like to sit in a diner having steak and scrambled eggs with a version of yourself, but 30 years older, who also orders steak and scrambled eggs? How would you like to be Bruce Willis surrounded by 20 men with guns and you kill them all but can
  28. Oct 1, 2012
    6
    The overall movie is fantastic, excellent acting, special effects, and story all-around. The dissappointing ending was the only drawback, which made me subtract from the score.
  29. 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
  30. Jan 12, 2013
    8
    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
Metascore
84

Universal acclaim - based on 44 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 42 out of 44
  2. Negative: 0 out of 44
  1. The New Yorker
    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.