User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1011 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. Nov 6, 2012
    One of the masterpieces of the science fiction, where we appreciate good theories abiut the future and the mafias of the future.
    The Performance of Gordon-Levitt and Willis is awesome, and we appreciate some similarities between the two actors
    This movie shows us again that the science fiction is a genre able to make excellent movies.
  2. Nov 6, 2012
    First of all, let me take a moment to praise outstanding work done by the director and writer of this movie, Rian Johnson. I have watched a lot of science-fiction films that incorporate the elements of time travel and in the beginning, this movie seems like any other typical science-fiction film but it has a lot of surprises, the amount of creativity that has been put in the making of this film. Looper is a remarkable and beautiful film, with astounding performances by Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Young Joe Simmons), Bruce Willis (Old Joe Simmons), Emily Blunt (Sara Rollins) and Pierce Gagnon (Sara Expand
  3. Nov 5, 2012
    Rian Johnson takes you from this world and pulls into the world of Looper. Johnson's films are unlike those of other filmmakers, because they are so surreal.
  4. Nov 4, 2012
    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 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. Nov 4, 2012
    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 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
  6. Nov 3, 2012
    Good point but have neglected entertainment.
    The two actors do not look like each other.
    Should have included some persecution for some more excitement to the movie.
  7. Oct 27, 2012
    I dont usually say this but WHY are you reading this? Go out and watch this NOW. Brilliant acting, a brilliant plot where everything clicks and excellent sequences - Looper is my favourite film of the year alongside Dark Knight Rises. And it beats the hell out of The Avengers. There are minor loopholes if you think hard enough but overall, its as enjoyable as Inception and definitely, a well-rounded film on an intriguing premise. A movie with the brains and passion that you will definitely enjoy. If you love Inception, you'll love this film. It makes you think and gives you a satisfying conclusion. Expand
  8. Oct 27, 2012
    In the running for the best movie of the year, Looper definitely does not disappoint what the cast builds the hype up to be. Bruce Willis a kid killer and JGL looking more bad-ass than ever, Rian Johnson uses the actors to their fullest potential. Brilliant take on the near future down to every subtle nuance such as the solar power rigged cars and futuristic eye drop drugs. the Idea of the film was amazing, I may of been expecting a little more out of it although i was looking for it to be one of the best movies ever when I saw the previews.. The ending threw me off but did make me think which is all you can ask for in a movie. Expand
  9. Oct 26, 2012
    It doesn't meet my expectations. But, nonetheless, Looper is a smart, unique, and well written film that ranks high above other movies in the same genre.
  10. Oct 24, 2012
    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.
  11. Oct 22, 2012
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Good, definitely not this years Matrix, but enjoyable. TK bits seem added on to get an explanation that isn't very satisfactory. Remember there are two ways to close your loop! Expand
  12. Oct 18, 2012
    The summer brought us many blockbusters, The Avengers, Men in Black 3, Prometheus, the Amazing Spider-Man, and the Dark Knight Rises. It was a successful summer overall, but the fall season is where the Oscar contenders come out, and with that, I have Looper, which is the first fall movie of the year that looks like it can contend with the heavy weights. The story takes place in the year 2044,
  13. Oct 17, 2012
    I've pondered over this film for a few days and i still have yet to come up with a legitemate flaw. This was a great film. From the acting by the new superstar Gordon-Levitt, to the engaging and genius story, to the beautiful cgi. I just had 2 minor flaws. It got a little bit boring a few times throughout the film but it was recovered quickly each time and it seemed a bit overly long but when you think about it there really wasn't a scene you could take out so i'll give Looper a 9.5/10. This is definitely the biggest surprise of 2012 for me, i didn't expect much from this film. I just expected another dumb time-travel involved film, but this one actually had an amazing plot that was near perfectly executed. Expand
  14. Oct 16, 2012
    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 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 16, 2012
    Best movies I've seen in this year is Looper and batman the dark knight rises ,my all time favorite movie's are The Godfather (1972) .Taxi Driver (1976). Carrie (1976). Scarface (1983). GoodFellas (1990) . Raging Bull (1980) .Casino (1995) there masterpiece movies, what i don't like are the silly remakes why a new carrie movie ? this is the 4th movie carrie the made it's just stupid ,Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie are absolutely perfect ,they both got Oscar nominations out of it, for God sake! Expand
  16. Oct 16, 2012
    I went to go see this movie on a whim. I'm not generally a fan of time-travel. However, Looper does incredibly well to keep the time-travel gimmick, while also being a generally good film. It keeps a steady, and never disappointing, pace throughout the film. It doesn't try too hard to explain the science behind the time travel or in what way it works. It just flat out shows you what happens. Which is better than being given five minutes of screen-time for some poorly articulated explanation for the mechanism of time-travel.

    The film has a great feel to it. A dystopian future hasn't looked this good since Children of Men and Blade Runner- and I don't think one will for a while. The layout of the film is brilliant too, with the Life in a Day scene being one of the most powerful scenes (for me at least) this year in movies. The film does share some inconsistencies in the storyline, but it's never significant enough to draw it down.

    The actors performances are brilliant as always. Bruce Willis portrays Old Joe incredibly well, you can get that sense of turmoil that he's going through. Pushed to the edge, if you will. You empathise at parts, but at the same time, you know he has lost it. Joseph Gordon-Levitt's portrayal of Young Joe is also great. Especially given the prosthetics and make-up he had to wear during his entire performance.

    Anyway, to sum it up, it's an absolutely brilliant science fiction film. It blends great themes, science fiction elements and action into an enjoyable movie. Certainly recommended to anyone and everyone.
  17. Oct 15, 2012
    The trailer for this movie gives the wrong impression. Yes there's plenty of action and violence blended in with Sci-fi elements, but it's more than that. This is a thought-provoking, original piece of work. Sure there are some influences, the biggest one seems to be Terminator, but this is as close to original as you can get in this day in age. I would like to also put out that, as I said there's plenty of action, but the movie at some points slows down. These scenes are just characters talking but they were never boring to me, but they might be to you. Half of the movie takes place on a farm but, like I said I was never bored. I have nothing bad to say about this movie. The plot and story are rich and thought-provoking. For example: If you could go back in time to kill baby Hitler would you? The screenplay is extremely well done and thought out. Sure there are some minor flaws within the time travel aspect(I can list a few but that could potentially spoil things) but that's the case with every movie about time travel. Johnson does a terrific job at plugging in most of these holes and this is probably the best and well thought out movie about time travel. Now if time travel did exist would it be something like this? Probably not but Johnson does such a good job at explaining everything that he makes us believe it, and he never breaks his own rules. You have to really pay attention to everything or else you might miss something and get lost, sort of like Inception. This is nothing like Inception by the way so those who are comparing this movie to that one are wrong. The acting in this more is terrific, but I'm sure none of these performances will get recognition from the academy which is a dam shame. Over the past couple of years Joseph Gordon-Levitt has slowly become one of the best actors working today. His performance is amazing, his impression of Bruce Willis is spot on from his facial expressions to the way he speaks he nailed it, and even though his face is covered in prosthetics he is still able to convey emotion and act. Bruce Willis is back between Expendable Two, Moonrise Kingdom and now Looper. I hope he picks these kinds of movies in the near future. He doesn't just kick was in this movie but he also proves that he's got the chops. One scene in particular, he is crying because of the terrible thing he did and even though I hated what he did I couldn't help but feel sorry for him during that scene. You'll know when you see it. Emily Blunt is great as well, I'm surprised not that many people actually mentioned her, without her the movie wouldn't have been the same. The kid is also great, he certainly has potential. He provided some humorous scenes that the film needed. The guy who plays the main person in charge of the Looper did a great job too. There really is no hero, everyone is the antihero which was a nice change as you don't often see that in movies and just adds to the freshness. The romance between Blunt and Levitt was nice, they both displayed a nice degree of chemistry. I really liked them as a couple even though they're both terrible people(I'd mention a few other things but I don't want to ruin anything). The ending to this film is brilliant, it has a lot of deep meaning behind it even though I'm sure people hated it. There's a reason why the director did this and if only people would look at the meaning behind it. This is as perfect of a movie about time travel as you're going to get. I loved everything about it. Sure you can pick away at some of the flaws within the time travel but what's the point? Every movie about time travel has some flaws within time travel. The strong script, outstanding performances, fleshed out characters, and the rich/original plot make this the best one. Johnson did a brilliant job at closing as many of the flaws as he could. This is one of the best films of the year, it's thought-provoking and original. This movie is still on my mind and though this won't alter my life in any way, I'm glad I got to see it. Expand
  18. Oct 15, 2012
    I found it to be an overall good movie, best of its genre i have seen in a long time. It developed the story very well and increased its intensity as it went. 9/10-9.5/10 is exactly what it deserves.
  19. Oct 15, 2012
    An endlessly creative mind-blowing film that captures everything right about the movie going experience. Johnson conjures up the most imaginative action/science fiction film since 'Inception.'
  20. Oct 15, 2012
    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
  21. Oct 15, 2012
    Looper is a great sci-fi thriller with an intense and intriguing story. It has good characters and visuals while using time travel in interesting ways. The third act has a shift in pace and story. In my opinion it felt a little disjointed and less interesting compared to the first two-thirds of the film. Never-the-less, it is a great experience.
  22. Oct 14, 2012
    I believe this is one of the top ten best movies of the first three years of this decade. It's very rare that a movie can be this enjoyable and exciting, have this much of an emotional impact, make a thought provoking statement, be an intelligent story throughout, and even make the viewer reflect on themselves, and question their own character. This movie does all of those things. Just about any criteria that can go into a great movie is very strong with this one. It was a very well thought out story, but it's orchestrated in the script very competently, so that every moment is able to have its full impact. From the very beginning of the movie, you're already questioning things about yourself, and that's only mild compared to the self evaluation you'll be doing towards the middle of the movie, and at the end. If you want a movie that is going to knock you out emotionally, and leave you in chills at the end, this will do it. At the same time, if you just want to be entertained, this will do the job too. This is the rare kind of movie that can be satisfying to watch no matter what mood you're in. There are times when I feel like watching a thought provoking movie, or one with a clever story, or an emotional movie, or just one that's going to entertain me. This would be a good choice for all of those moods. There are a couple of plot holes, but they are mild, and easily forgivable, when the script overall is this brilliant. The choices made by the director are also very clever, and elevate the script even further. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, and Emily Blunt all give strong performances, and add depth to their characters, and dimensions to the story overall. I'm not even worried about raising people's expectations too high. I heard great things about this movie before I saw it, and I expected it to be in contention for my favorite movie of the year, yet it still exceeded my expectations, and blew me away. Collapse
  23. Oct 13, 2012
    Looper mixes mind-bending time-travel craziness, bloody action, some great hilarity and very nicely-done drama, all delivered in an astonishingly creative and original way.
    Extremely well-written, shot, acted and, clearly, directed. I knew it was good -- it turned out to be good raised to the 1000, meaning insanely good. A whole new level of fantastic. I'm never using the word "amazing"
    for non-truly amazing things (those that don't match Looper's level of amazing) ever again. Expand
  24. Oct 13, 2012
    Looper was interesting, but not for so long. The concept of time traveling and the Loopers killing waste from the future seemed incredibly intriguing. But the problem is that the movie shifts from those ideals into a more standard type of movie. So the first half is fast paced and explains the concept in majestic ways, but then the second half deviates and almost completely forgets it. Its still an entertaining movie thanks to some very good acting and great direction, but the shifts in genre from action to slow drama kills what it could have been. It had the potential to be the next Inception, but the thing is that Inception never abandoned its unique concept the way Looper does. Looper feels like it lacks identity, but at the same time given what it does right, it also feels intriguing when compared to most of the movies that come everyday. Its a recommendable movie, but also disappointing nonetheless. Expand
  25. Oct 12, 2012
    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.
  26. Oct 12, 2012
    Looper -- well scripted. It has a very logical and believable sci-fi. My only problem is that Joseph Levitt-Gordon and Bruce Willis are just not from the same mold. Poor casting there.
  27. Oct 12, 2012
    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 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
  28. Oct 12, 2012
    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 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.

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.