User Score
7.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1090 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. Oct 7, 2012
    10
    Best movie I've seen in a long time. Genius plot, awesome actors and great cinematography. Definitely the best movie of the year. I really was excited when I saw the trailer, but I didn' t expect to have been as surpised as I became.
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Oct 9, 2012
    9
    I went, I saw, I was entertained. I didn't go in overthinking every little thing, with some ridiculous notion that I was going to see a time travel movie and there would be no plot holes. No time travel movie has ever done that right. I didn't go in expecting non-stop action for two hours, either. I felt it spent just enough time on everything - action, story and characters. I stillI went, I saw, I was entertained. I didn't go in overthinking every little thing, with some ridiculous notion that I was going to see a time travel movie and there would be no plot holes. No time travel movie has ever done that right. I didn't go in expecting non-stop action for two hours, either. I felt it spent just enough time on everything - action, story and characters. I still liked TDKR better, but this was an excellent movie. Expand
  5. Jan 3, 2013
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Basically unwatchable. I really do not understand why Joseph Gordon-Levitt is being heralded as the new Hollywood superstar. There is absolutely nothing that makes you want to see him, in any role. He is short, ugly, has absolutely no charisma, and is as boring as hell. Well, hell is probably a lot more interesting. Bruce Willis at least attempts to spice this movie up, but even he cannot do it. When trained killers miss him time and again, at point blank range, the entire premise becomes nothing but utterly ridiculous. Expand
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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????
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. Oct 1, 2012
    8
    The first half of the film is extremely stylish and ambitious, but the second half just gets far too narrow in plot. There are a host of really nice time travel touches, but nothing that wasn't already covered with aplomb in Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey. I give the film credit for attempting to go big with the attempt. Again, the story of the boy is really interesting, but I expected aThe first half of the film is extremely stylish and ambitious, but the second half just gets far too narrow in plot. There are a host of really nice time travel touches, but nothing that wasn't already covered with aplomb in Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey. I give the film credit for attempting to go big with the attempt. Again, the story of the boy is really interesting, but I expected a grander path for the film after the first hour or so. It's great to see Piper Perabo in a slightly racier role than her Covert Affairs persona. Expand
  15. Oct 8, 2012
    10
    This movie is a masterpiece of sci-fi cinema. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis were the perfect choice of actors for the right movie. Looper is a unique and fresh film in a period of bland $200 million films.

    P.S. The movie should be seen twice in order to understand what's going on, or realise that the film gets better the more you see it.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. Sep 30, 2012
    7
    It's a mix of "10" scenes and three times as much "6". Worth watching--as is any film that manages to have even a minute of level ten. But, 66 critics saying 8.2? They're bonkers.
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. Sep 30, 2012
    8
    Time travel is confusing. Once you think you may have a grasp on it and have ironed out the 'what-ifs', a new paradox will pop up and collapse your argument which was a house of cards anyways. There are too many holes, and especially plot holes, when you try to rationally reason through what it means to travel through time and change the past. Once time travel is invented, hasn't itTime travel is confusing. Once you think you may have a grasp on it and have ironed out the 'what-ifs', a new paradox will pop up and collapse your argument which was a house of cards anyways. There are too many holes, and especially plot holes, when you try to rationally reason through what it means to travel through time and change the past. Once time travel is invented, hasn't it always been invented then? If you go back in time and change something, will you just disappear because your specific future no longer exists?

    Looper sidesteps this whole enigma by having old Joe (Bruce Willis) tell his younger self that there is no use trying to figure it all out; it will just confuse you. This one statement immediately smooths out the conversation he is having with young Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), the audience's mental gymnastics, and while still leaving them right there in front of you, chooses to ignore the Grand Canyon sized plot holes. If you spend enough time with a pen and a sheet of paper, you will most likely identify a dozen or so glaring issues with jumping back through time, but where is the fun in that? With Looper, it is enough to recognize you have a creative story to watch and gifted actors to watch carry it out.

    The year is 2044, not so far in the future to imagine teleportation and interstellar flight, but far enough to dream up new technology, weapons, and illicit drugs. 2044 is quite similar to today's reality, but its every day norms and today's extreme edges magnified by 1000. There are hover motorcycles, currency is literally based on gold and silver, and the drug all the kids are using is administered through eyedrops and appears to have the effects as cocaine. There is also some glaring income inequality, you either have money or you do not; there is no middle class. The city landscape shows thousands of people living on the sidewalks and sometimes in the middle of the street. If someone steals from you, it looks like you are allowed to pull out your personal shotgun and teach them a severe lesson. Young Joe is a looper. At a specific time and always in the same place, the edge of a corn field, a hooded person will appear out of nowhere and all Joe has to do is immediately pull the trigger on his weapon and get rid of the body. These unfortunate souls are being sent back through time from 30 years in the future where time travel is illegal; therefore, it has morphed into a black market time travel system run by the mob. Young Joe is paid handsomely to do these simple tasks and spends the rest of his day and most of the night going to a club to drink, dance, take drugs, and spend time with Suzie (Piper Perabo), his favorite lady of the evening. There are rules to follow though. Since the system is run by the mob, breaking the rules is frowned upon. I will not go into the rules because young Joe does a good job explaining to you what they are. In his film noir, gravelly voice, which is trying to match a young Bruce Willis in style, Joe opens the movie and brings you up to speed on what has been happening with the time travel business and his specific spot on the food chain. He has looper friends with Seth (Paul Dano) as his closest one and he gets called in to see the boss, Abe (Jeff Daniels), from time to time. Other than that, young Joe is really running his own loop with his day job and his nightly activities.

    Old Joe effectively ends that routine as soon as he pops into the corn field out of thin air. One would think that young Joe would have some questions or would want to cut his older self some slack, but no such luck. Young Joe enjoys his current situation and is in no frame of mind to have it messed with, even if it is a version of him doing the interrupting. Old Joe is on a quest to change the past and does not seem too pleased to run into his former self either. These two are the same man, but they certainly are different people. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is really the leading man here because Willis is in more of a supporting role and has noticeably less screen time; however, Bruce still gets top billing on the poster and in the credits. I wonder if that chafes Gordon-Levitt? Both Gordon-Levitt and Willis are very good here. On one hand, they are playing the same person and must try and match each other's facial ticks and mannerisms, but on the other hand, Gordon-Levitt is playing a kid against Willis's older and yes, wiser, character. Another supporting character is Sara (Emily Blunt) but I leave it to you to discover her role. Sara is saddled with most of the slower scenes in the middle which drag on a bit, but it's good to take a break from Joe, both young and old, after awhile. Looper was written and directed by Rian Johnson (Brick, The Brothers Bloom) who should be commended for sitting down and puzzling through what must have been a very arduous screenplay.
    Expand
  22. 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.
  23. Oct 15, 2012
    3
    I thought this was a pretty bad movie overall. Everything is derivative of stuff you've seen before, and even if this is deliberate, the riffing on familiar themes and plot points isn't clever enough to hold your interest.

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

    And the overall concept sounds cool initially, but makes no sense. If they wanted to make no sense, the whole movie shouldn't have taken itself so seriously and been more cartoonish. As it is, there's really no reason to have the loopers in the first place--why didn't the bad guys of the future just send their victims into some volcano of the past?
    Expand
  24. Dec 22, 2012
    3
    This review contains spoilers. The title is a Mars bar and just like junk food this film delivers that useless energy. In its fantasy came a world that could never even be explained, logically or even with any degree of attempt. Maybe in 1930's there is an era of which this film is modeled from definitely in no foreseeable future. This aside the plot is littered with gaping holes. Paradoxes were given as much thought as some illiterate explaining the theory of relativity and resulting in suicide. Quite literally those braincells where already popped from it's crackheads abusive direction. Poor at everything, what SCI-FI I ask, it really didn't even try to be scientific. Bums with guns, and silver equals gold. Collapse
  25. Oct 7, 2012
    0
    What bothers me about this movie isn't that it's stupid. It's that so many stupid people are calling it "smart". Right, so the Mob has time-machine technology. But instead of using it to, say, send them back football scores or manipulate the stock market, they use it to get rid of bodies. Right, that makes ALL KINDS of sense. Oh, and instead of just using the time machine (which wouldWhat bothers me about this movie isn't that it's stupid. It's that so many stupid people are calling it "smart". Right, so the Mob has time-machine technology. But instead of using it to, say, send them back football scores or manipulate the stock market, they use it to get rid of bodies. Right, that makes ALL KINDS of sense. Oh, and instead of just using the time machine (which would obviously have to also be a "space" machine, since the planet is constantly moving) to dump the bodies into the ocean, or a volcano, or outer space, they hire people in our time to kill them. *sigh* If you think this movie is "smart" or "clever" or any of the other terms currently being used to describe it, it's because you yourself are an idiot. Expand
  26. 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
  27. Sep 29, 2012
    1
    No one was looking forward to this movie more than me. I love science fiction, Bruce Willis and especially time travel. So let me get to the nitty gritty. There is no time travel to see nor any glimpse of futuristic life. So get that out of the way immediately. Secondly, the writing for this script is as lame as anything you will ever see. The plot hole is so obvious that you couldNo one was looking forward to this movie more than me. I love science fiction, Bruce Willis and especially time travel. So let me get to the nitty gritty. There is no time travel to see nor any glimpse of futuristic life. So get that out of the way immediately. Secondly, the writing for this script is as lame as anything you will ever see. The plot hole is so obvious that you could drive a Mack truck thru it. This is blood and gore shoot em movie in which you feel nothing for any character. Th ending is predicatble. Just awful. Expand
  28. Oct 24, 2012
    0
    Apparently the method of time travel movies is to show the same scene over and over again to see if the outcome can be changed. The effect is numbing. J. Gordon Leavitt is talented, but he is gotten up to look like Keanu Reeves and acts accordingly. Bruce Willis has only his smirk left. I lasted a bit less than an hour.
  29. Feb 7, 2013
    0
    if garfield was sent back in time to past garfield to kill future garfield i bet they would have both eaten lasagna but that did not happen 0/100000 DONT BOTHER WATCHING
  30. Sep 28, 2012
    4
    Disappointing. Great opening, great ending... yet half way through it turns into a boring talk festival for 50 minutes until the action starts up again. I feel sorry for the actors because the action stalls and you stop seeing the characters on the screen but actors reciting their lines. I couldn't figure out why so many film critics love this movie unless the script idea reminds them ofDisappointing. Great opening, great ending... yet half way through it turns into a boring talk festival for 50 minutes until the action starts up again. I feel sorry for the actors because the action stalls and you stop seeing the characters on the screen but actors reciting their lines. I couldn't figure out why so many film critics love this movie unless the script idea reminds them of what they would have written in school. It is a great idea but the execution seems like something out of a studio committee. The cinematography and editing is straight out of the 80s. I can not recommend it even though the trailer is fanstatic. Expand
Metascore
84

Universal acclaim - based on 44 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 42 out of 44
  2. Negative: 0 out of 44
  1. Reviewed by: Anthony Lane
    Oct 1, 2012
    90
    For all its mayhem, runs like a mad and slightly sad machine, whirring with hints of folly and regret, and the ending, remarkably, makes elegant sense to a degree that eludes most science fictions. How to describe it, without giving anything away? Scrambled, but rare. [1 Oct. 2012, p.84]
  2. Reviewed by: Dana Stevens
    Sep 28, 2012
    50
    Looper felt to me like a maddening near-miss: It posits an impossible but fascinating-to-imagine relationship...and then throws away nearly all the dramatic potential that relationship offers. If someone remakes Looper as the movie it could have been in, say, 30 years, will someone from the future please FedEx it back to me?
  3. Reviewed by: Andrew O'Hehir
    Sep 28, 2012
    90
    I'm not ready to proclaim Looper a sci-fi masterpiece just yet; let's let it sit awhile. But it's a lean, mean, smart, violent picture with a bit of Stanley Kubrick edge, fueled by the terrific Gordon-Levitt.