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

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This is one of the best action movies I've ever had the pleasure of viewing. The whole time travel thing was well thought out, as was the plot. The acting was superb; the kid was really good. The ending was so intense, that I actually had tears in my eyes. Cannot wait to see this again.… Expand

One of the best films of 2012, if not, THE BEST. This movie aims to achieve the main thing we all want in movies, a mesmerising and intriguing science fiction action movie that drives the attention of the audience at all times, and that is what a great film does.

To even begin watching Looper one has to discount the glaring plot hole which should make the film redundant. Then once you have gotten over this, you must suspend your disbelief once again and just accept the ride (less a rollercoaster, more a long boring motorway in a spluttering old volkswagen golf) without questioning further the plot as the director has quite cleverly written the film in such a way that any bizarrities that might pop up throughout can be never fully explained; only through vague guesses can one try to make sense of whats happening. The film itself is paced so unevenly that it made me uncomfortable, sometimes moving so fast as it aims to confuse, at other times crawling at a pace that makes snails look like time travellers. The world that is created is as one-dimensional as the characters. The director has a chance to delve deeper into the decaying society of the future, yet we know practically nothing; all we are given is about 30 seconds worth of lazy city shots and some extreme poverty, which is enough to get one interested but is inexplicably never expanded on. JGL is the stereotypical young reckless man, Bruce the stereotypical older and wiser man. What we are to learn from this is unclear and is about as deep as the main characters get (except at the end when for some reason one character has a change of personality over the space of a day or so). Blunt and JGL are not terrible actors in any way shape or form, and neither is Bruce Willis for that matter, however the direction results in some fairly hammy and uncomfortable acting and some scenes are plain unwatchable without seeing them in a humorous light.

All in all, this is a sci-fi film without a coherent sci-fi plot, a drama without character development, a thriller without the thrills and suspense and an action film without much action (apart from one scene which, again needs suspending disbelief to watch, where Bruce seems to think he is Die Hard, or even more likely the Expendables.)… Expand

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 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

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

I expected a twist to come at some point in the movie because everything had been so predicable. Even during the final minutes of the movie I was hoping for something to happen other than the ending I had predicted about 30 minutes into the movie. I was sorely disappointed by another derivative Hollywood cut-and-paste sci-fi.

When I saw the trailer for this film, I was interested in the concept, but I initially thought that it would probably simply be a cool scifi action film and tried not to let myself get too excited. After seeing a lot of positive reviews, I was hopeful that this was going to be a great film, but upon seeing the film all of my expectations and hopes for it were exceeded.

The film throws out so many ideas and concepts for the first 3/4 of the film that I wasn't sure if everything would be resolved by the end, but amazingly, through exceptional directing, every loose end was tied up by the end of the film.

This was a rollercoaster that ebbed and flowed from amazing action sequences to thought provoking scenes, and is one of those rare films that I feel like I could watch over and over again.… Expand

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 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

Looper is an exciting and intriguing science fiction film; even if some of it's shots are cliche and there may be a few plot holes. It is a film that had me from it's opening shots and pulled me through different tones and pacing but I say this in a good way. The first act set up the themes, world and complexeties of the story even if it's not directly related to the rest. It is not a film that solely relies on it's concept; above all Looper is about characters and the moral decisions they have to make.… Expand

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

This is possibly best movie I've seen this year. It's the first film this year i've eagerly anticipated that lived up to and exceeded every expectation I had. Johnson has assembled a crack cast and written a brilliant yarn. This movie is fun to get lost in. I found myself hoping that it wouldn't end. Go see Lopper now!

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

Despite some poorly placed - or perhaps poorly delivered - swearing, some sloppy continuity errors and an annoyingly needless sex scene, Looper really was enjoyable. It did really well to keep me heavily interested in, and knowledgeable about, a storyline that could have easily gone over my head.

This was not a very good movie. I've already wasted too much of my time on it, so I won't write a lengthy review, but suffice it to say that SebDangerfield hit it on the head, it's a movie without an identity. Alternating between genre's and pace at the same time is a very BAD idea, it's one thing to intermix a thriller with a drama, but not if one scene of fast paced (and confusing) action is followed by several scenes of boring dialogue that do not satisfactorily explain many questions raised by the 'action,' or adequately explore the world around them. This could have been an interesting 'Blade Runner' style Sci-Fi Drama, however it fails in that regard, and as a Bruce Willis Action movie. First movie I've seen at or above 75 on Metacritic (user since 2006, this is being charitable, I probably could have gone with a 70 or even 65) that I've thoroughly disliked, I tried to convince myself after the film that it wasn't that bad, but that is a lie. Wasted talent, incredibly overrated.… Expand

Excellent Film! What a breath of fresh air to see a film that is highly original, exciting, touching, funny and ... did I say ORIGINAL! ( people may say it is derivative - but that is the case for every story ever told, except for the first which was long before any of us were around) I say Great Script!! If you like Science Fiction (don't expect alien landscapes, outer space etc) and don't mind seeing violence in films then my suggestion is - Go See It - and before you do learn as little about the storyline as possible. If your favorite films are romantic comedies, realistic dramas or Adam Sandler films this will probably not be your cup of tea - but otherwise you will be entertained.… Expand

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

Looper keeps you guessing the entire way through. The character development is great, while Willis and Gordan-Levitt play the same person, they act differently. Gordan-Levitt shines on screen with his true big screen debut, with this being his first film he plays the most significant role. Willis does a great job at displaying his emotion effectively on-screen. Looper's action scenes and special effects are top-tier the whole way through, keeping viewers on the edge of their seats. It has some great twists throughout adding to the how unpredictable it is. Looper is one of the smartest sci-fi films ever made, and is easily one of the best films of 2012 so far.… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This is one trippy movie..I like movies like this with cool inventions.Except for a few scenes,it is definitely not predictable.
I think they left room for a Looper 2 in the future.… Expand

A vicious and often bleak thriller involving time travel and telekinesis. To those who haven't seen the movie, it DOES sound like an awful concept. However, both Justin Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis deliver with solid acting, a script that has believable (and fun) twists and turns, interesting moral dilemas, and amazing special affects. The only bad aspect of this movie i can think of as of this writing is if you put wayyy too much thought into the time travel mechanics. So just sit back and enjoy the violence and cacophony that is Looper.… Expand

What did I like about Looper? Well, the better question is, what didn't I like? Legitimately, I sat up all night pondering this question and can honestly say I couldn't come up with anything. It has they style of Drive, the sci fi level of detail of Children of Men, the ingenuity of ,well, I can't think of a good comparison (:P), and a razor sharp script to boot (filled with deliciously dark humor). It is an extremely dynamic movie, and can be appreciated on so many levels from action fans, to sci fi fans, to movie buffs, its all there. While it may not be packed to the gills with symbolism like Prometheus, it doesn't need to be and completely avoids that movie's pretentiousness for it. In Prometheus, some of the scenes are so stagy that it practically screams at the viewer "THIS SCENE HAS MEANING", whereas in Looper, you could miss the symbolism entirely simply because of the distracting level of quality found in the rest of the film. Looper is a film that respects the viewers intelligence, exemplified in the scenes where it denies the viewer an explanation of its time travel mechanic, because rather than telling you, Looper shows you. Take Prometheus' exploration of man's origin, which is alluded to from its title, vs. Looper's challenging of the notion that maturity comes with age, while the messages are fundamentally different, Looper has courage to be subtle and explain its message through the character's actions alone (seriously, the whole future Joe vs. past Joe is a really smart way of representing self conflict). I can totally understand why some people didn't like this movie, but that same reason is why I absolutely loved it. It constantly toys with your expectations. The movie actively anticipates your attempts to figure out the resulting changes to the timeline and narrative, but each time playfully veers in a different direction. As for the people that talk about it how it is just a rip off of Blade Runner universe, what these people fail to realize is that every sci fi builds on other sci fi, so even Blade Runner's overcrowded dystopia cribbed from something else at some point. The worst part about this though is the fact that they criticize Looper for taking the good bits of Blade Runner and other sci fi, (SINCE WHEN IS TAKING THE GOOD ELEMENTS OF ANOTHER MOVIE A BAD THING!) but completely fail to see what it adds to the formula to create something all its own. From the technologies, to the fashion, to the TK(telekinesis), it all works to create its own rich dystopian society driven by superficial gimmicks. This influences the way people act and even the idea of closing a loop, which is impractical and unnecessary, but also highly dramatic and believable in this context of this world. Everything works to create a fantastically well realized universe that rivals the depth found in Children of Men. The only thing I would say to be wary of, is if you don't have a stomach for cruelty because Looper has a good deal of the stuff. However, don't let that turn you away because every aspect of the movie serves to aid the narrative, including the cruelty. So please don't listen to the nit pickers on this one, if you are looking for a great movie regardless of genre check out looper. Instant classic.… Expand

I'm confused and a little shocked at the reviews. I heard a rave review on NPR and so my husband and I went to see it. We both found it boring and a mix of too many not very interesting things. It never really made up it's mind what it wanted to be. I should have watched the trailer first. My advice would be to skip it. Emily Blunt and the kid were the only redeemable features for us.

Good idea, lousy execution. Needed a couple of more rewrites. If you think you're getting an exciting action movie, you're not. A depressing bloody film. Why is it that Hollywood always has the future depicted as dirty, depressing and crime-ridden? The interesting concept makes it a fair DVD rental. Save the big movie theatre bucks for something else.

The most interesting Movie of 2012 by far. The storyline is just great. If the middle of the wasn't a bit overextended, I think I'd give it a 10. The Movie is full of memorable characters, the actors play well. Also the ending is really intense!

This review contains spoilers. Well written,strong performances and brilliant action set pieces. I loved this film when I first saw it, I missed the marketing so I wouldn't ruin anything (The young boy who played Sid and Jeff Daniels). Joesph Gordon Levitt does a great job 'as Bruce Willis' and this was one of Bruce Willis's best performaces in years (massive fan of his). Emily Blunt was fantastic as Sid's mother, but for me Sid stole the movie. I had no idea there was a telekinetic part to the plot which was a great surprise for me. The only thing I had a problem with was Jeff Daniels was under used (I think he is very under rated)

I think this will have a following in 20 years like Blade Runner!… Collapse

Looper is a film that could have spiralled out of control at any moment either with its introduction of new sci-fi elements throughout the first hour, or its slightly complex use of time travel which is the emphasis of the science fiction portion of this film. The reason nothing went into disarray is because it was expertly written, keeping itself grounded as much as it could while delivering the viewer with a world to sink its teeth into. What Looper does to surpass itself from merely being an incredibly visceral science fiction and action experience, is it delivers character development and individual moments that transcend what is already a pretty packed film full of interesting ideas and motifs. It's hard not to instantly compare the film to others such as Twelve Monkeys, Inception and even The Matrix, but I think that's what Johnson does best is pull the vibe from other films and source materials (he read a lot of Philip K. Dick before writing this) then incorporate them into a film that feels wholly his own.

Go to http://independentcinema.wordpress.com/2012/09/27/im-from-the-future-go-see-looper/ for the rest of the review.… Expand

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. 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

This movie is very hard to score out of 10, as the first half was as brilliant as the second half was disappointing, so I've opted for a 5.

In my opinion, it would have been far more satisfying without the inclusion of the "Rainmaker" subplot, which bogged it down and stretched the limits of credibility to breaking point.