User Score
7.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1084 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. Jan 5, 2013
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The movie gets a 4 effort but that's about it. My main problem with movies like this, is time travel is in all respects impossible. The mind boggling physics of it make it such a sticky subject that only really good movies who attempt it, seldom get it right. Most only on the grounds that the movie is making fun of time travel, Back to the Future comes to mind. The only serious movie that comes to mind that tackles it well, is 12 Monkeys. In that movie the "circle of events" are left to unfold like an infinite loop, old bruce willis is unable to stop the spread of plague, while young bruce willis watches unaware; ad infinitum. But in this movie the plot hole keeps me from really caring about the movie at all, according to the films logic. Here is my best shot at explaining it. In the future, 2074 time travel is created. Also in the future everyone is "tagged" so it's impossible to hide a body that has been murdered. So in order for criminals to hide bodies they seize control of time travel. They do this in order to send people 30 years, to be murdered. Even though " Old Joe's" (Bruce Willis) wife is killed in the future. I wonder what they will do with that body? Now, the thugs who murder these people who are sent back are called loopers (Jason GL), they wait in designated locations to kill those wanted by the "evil higher ups" and dispose of the bodies. That is until they themselves are to be terminated. The loopers are given a bunch of gold and this lets them know they just killed there future self and that is their last kill. The problem arises in the fact that knowing this would inevitably change the future. Knowing that in thirty years you will be taken away to be sent back to the future to be killed by yourself would make any self surviving human prepare for the day when they are to be taken or get out the looper business altogether. The central theme of this movie is that there is mysterious rainmaker who is terminating all the loopers in the future. This person ends up being a kid that old joe tries to kill in order to save himself. But the rainmakers reason for terminating all loopers is because his mother/guardian is killed by old joe. This cannot happened is young joe either kills old joe or kills himself. The logic goes that if young joe kills himself, old joe disappears giving no motivation for the rainmaker to become the rainmaker. Which ends the movie from the beginning. Where the logic breakdowns is that if young joe kills himself, their is no old joe to run amok. Therefore old joe is killed in the beginning alternate scene that explains how old joe, gets old and runs amok's already seen himself get killed. He never has a chance to run amok because in this time line he killed himself. Basically the movie makers wanted to make a circle, square. By giving the movie a happy ending it ruins logic the world is based around. Thus don't waste your time trying to watch this movie, it will make you try to understand time travel, which for me has been a waste of time. Points for every-other aspect of the movie. Expand
  2. 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
  3. Feb 17, 2013
    4
    The story in Looper revolves around a gangster that takes out marked men for a criminal organisation. The twist is that the criminals are 30 years into the future where they apparently aren't allowed to kill people so they send the people that are to be slain back into the past. The movie breaks the no-killing-in-the-future-rule several times and the viewer is left wondering, like in soThe story in Looper revolves around a gangster that takes out marked men for a criminal organisation. The twist is that the criminals are 30 years into the future where they apparently aren't allowed to kill people so they send the people that are to be slain back into the past. The movie breaks the no-killing-in-the-future-rule several times and the viewer is left wondering, like in so many other instances, why the heck the writers overlooked yet another hole in the plot that is so glaringly obvious that it'll sit on your mind for the entire duration of the movie. The most explanation that you get is that you shouldn't try to understand any of it, making it nothing more than an action movie full of convenient Deus Ex machina and not the brilliant science fiction the plebs and so called "critics' are trying to make you believe it is. Bruce Willis fans (Old Joe) will be disappointed by his lacklustre performance, possibly because of a script he couldn't really work with. That and they cast him as a child-killer which I felt was slightly revolting. A completely miscast Garret Dillahunt (Jesse) enters and quickly departs the movie in a most unbecoming way for an actor who is capable of much more. The sets are anachronistic and the vision the set makers had for a 2040's and 2070's America is completely unbelievable and an insult to any seasoned sci-fi viewer. Single-action revolvers, REALLY? Yor: The Hunter from the Future had more believable set props than that. Despite the movie's many incosistencies, plot-holes and cinematized gangster-style executions that are played at a rapid pace at the beginning of the movie this movie is watchable by anyone looking for a cheesy Hollywood sci-fi flick. Just don't go in thinking this is some kind of pièce de résistance of sci-fi viewing; you'll be sorely disappointed if you do. Expand
  4. Dec 2, 2013
    4
    "Looper" was fine as mindless entertainment but if you think too much all the holes show up. Considering all the positive reviews I was very disappointed. The ending alone was tough to swallow and left me feeling "had". Futuristic movies can stretch the imagination as long as the story lines make sense within itself. "Looper" just makes no sense. An 8 for Garret Dillahunt of whom I"Looper" was fine as mindless entertainment but if you think too much all the holes show up. Considering all the positive reviews I was very disappointed. The ending alone was tough to swallow and left me feeling "had". Futuristic movies can stretch the imagination as long as the story lines make sense within itself. "Looper" just makes no sense. An 8 for Garret Dillahunt of whom I have been a fan since "Deadwood". Other than that just an okay movie. Expand
  5. Sep 30, 2012
    4
    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.
  6. Oct 6, 2012
    4
    I am writing this review 30 minutes after I saw this movie. This movie started ok, it had a few plot holes but otherwise the first third the movie went smooth. Then it was destroyed. The rest was a mix of mass confusion that didnt add up at all. It had magic 10 year olds, and became rediculous. None of the characters were connecting with me. The entire movie I was thinking, "I dont evenI am writing this review 30 minutes after I saw this movie. This movie started ok, it had a few plot holes but otherwise the first third the movie went smooth. Then it was destroyed. The rest was a mix of mass confusion that didnt add up at all. It had magic 10 year olds, and became rediculous. None of the characters were connecting with me. The entire movie I was thinking, "I dont even care what happens to these people". The movie was funny at times, but only due to the ridiculous scenes. This movie couldve been more like Inception or The Matrix, but instead of being thought-provoking, it was a bad action movie. Definitely skip this. Expand
  7. Dec 10, 2012
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Mildly entertaining premise that wasn't executed well. The movie's ending was terrible.

    The main character just happens to end up on the very farm as the kid he is looking for after running from the diner? He didn't even know what that information on the note was until the farm owner explained it to him.

    The story seemed to grow more and more inconsistent after the farm culminating with this hardened killer sacrificing himself for some kid he barely knew.
    Expand
  8. Nov 7, 2012
    4
    Well... What to say... I think they really tried to make an intelligent movie but they kind of fail. That's too bad because the idea wasn't bad but too many things are out of place. The actors, they're not bad but not really good either, none of them is really engaging.
    I'd say go see this movie if you don't think too much and you are a bit bored because still the action scenes are not that bad.
  9. BKM
    Feb 20, 2013
    3
    Kudos to Rian Johnson for a creative and tricky screenplay, but the problem with Looper is that's all there is to the movie. The pacing is agonizingly slow, the performances are uninspired and there is little for viewers to grasp onto in order to connect with the film. There are lots of ideas but nothing to really think about. Perhaps a different director would have yielded moreKudos to Rian Johnson for a creative and tricky screenplay, but the problem with Looper is that's all there is to the movie. The pacing is agonizingly slow, the performances are uninspired and there is little for viewers to grasp onto in order to connect with the film. There are lots of ideas but nothing to really think about. Perhaps a different director would have yielded more satisfying results. Expand
  10. Feb 3, 2013
    3
    Good movie, horrible unnecessary ending so many other possibilities that should have been explored. This movie has it's own time travel rules. I really don't know what else to say.
  11. Oct 9, 2012
    3
    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)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
  12. Oct 12, 2012
    3
    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 sheerLooper 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
  13. 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
  14. Nov 9, 2012
    3
    Slightly Interesting story - a bit confused at times mixing too much diverse sci-fi into the same story. Good acting and direction. HORRIBLE violence -- its way to excessive and gory at times and un-necessarily so. It makes Tarentino look like a sissy. And that's not easy to do, neither is it a good thing to achieve.
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. Oct 5, 2012
    3
    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 filmTo 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
  18. 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
  19. Dec 26, 2012
    3
    The worst movie i saw this year by a long margin, not only its full of the usual nonsense about time traveling but also the whole story is a mess. I watched the movie accepting its own schizophrenic paradigms but even doing so all the remaining plot doesn't make sense, the main character is just a lunatic cliche that doesn't even know himself and act randomly without any logic, all theThe worst movie i saw this year by a long margin, not only its full of the usual nonsense about time traveling but also the whole story is a mess. I watched the movie accepting its own schizophrenic paradigms but even doing so all the remaining plot doesn't make sense, the main character is just a lunatic cliche that doesn't even know himself and act randomly without any logic, all the events, i repeat, even accepting the time traveling part that is very inconsistent on its own, are scattered without any logic leading to an end where he does the dumbest choice of the whole movie, really only for 10 years old kids or something, avoid it. Expand
  20. Dec 22, 2012
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. 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. Expand
  21. Jan 18, 2013
    3
    In 2 words, this film is so-so. It wants to be a Hi Res concetpt sci-fi film, but the plot doesn't hold out for that, and the splatter violence and appalling and unnecessary language give away the fact that there isn't enough in the story or the characters to keep it going. If you've paid oyur money and bought your popcorn, it will tick over, but you'll forget it within minutes if youIn 2 words, this film is so-so. It wants to be a Hi Res concetpt sci-fi film, but the plot doesn't hold out for that, and the splatter violence and appalling and unnecessary language give away the fact that there isn't enough in the story or the characters to keep it going. If you've paid oyur money and bought your popcorn, it will tick over, but you'll forget it within minutes if you have any semblance of intelligence. And if you have any sensitbility, you will actively WANT to forget it. It's just poor and nasty, at its heart. Expand
  22. Oct 1, 2012
    2
    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.
  23. 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
  24. Jan 6, 2013
    2
    The problem with this movie is, that it tries to be taken as a serious piece of work. But fails, becasue of the many loop holes in the plot. On the positve side, the cast did a great job. But that wasnt enough, to save this movie.
  25. Nov 4, 2012
    2
    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 ofLooper 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
  26. 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.
  27. 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????
  28. 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
  29. Mar 11, 2013
    2
    I know I'm in the minority here, but I HATE this movie! After watching it I was actually angry. I felt like the writers and the director had just smacked me. This movie really did show ALLOT of promise as it built itself up rather nicely, establishing a "kind-of" realistic near future. But then they introduce the whole time travel element. At first it was a creative new use for it. But theI know I'm in the minority here, but I HATE this movie! After watching it I was actually angry. I felt like the writers and the director had just smacked me. This movie really did show ALLOT of promise as it built itself up rather nicely, establishing a "kind-of" realistic near future. But then they introduce the whole time travel element. At first it was a creative new use for it. But the longer they developed it, the more it the logic surrounding it fell apart. Basically they have created a form of time travel that completely ignores its own rules to the point that you would have to be a a half brained idiot to not see it. Basically the movie is saying: Shut up, stop thinking and enjoy the movie. Overall: This had the chance to be a really good movie, but any ingenuity was raped out of it by lazy writers and a director with no direction. Expand
  30. Jan 5, 2013
    2
    I joined Metacritic, as a public service, to review this movie and hopefully prevent someone else like me, who generally relies on the consensus of professional critics, from making the mistake of watching this tripe. THIS IS NOT A GOOD FILM, IN THE LEAST. Compounding the film's incoherent, inconsistent treatment of time travel -- the writer explicitly telegraphs, during one of the scenes,I joined Metacritic, as a public service, to review this movie and hopefully prevent someone else like me, who generally relies on the consensus of professional critics, from making the mistake of watching this tripe. THIS IS NOT A GOOD FILM, IN THE LEAST. Compounding the film's incoherent, inconsistent treatment of time travel -- the writer explicitly telegraphs, during one of the scenes, that the viewer need not attempt to make any sense of it -- are myriad additional (glaring) plot holes and unanswered questions. The "development" (such as it is) of JGL's "character" (such as it is) is utterly, maddeningly unbelievable. (The only way even to begin to make sense of him is as a walking mommy complex.) The penultimate action sequence is simultaneously so out-of-place and fantastic that it beggars contemplation, much less belief. And those are just the movie's three most fundamental defects; there are many, many more. It seems to me that the writer, when developing the screenplay, first conceived of the "clever" ending (which is actually clever only insofar as one is profoundly stoned) and then sloppily constructed a storyline to get there. I am honestly *befuddled* by the strong critical reception of this movie, *befuddled*. See also the reviews by Oxcart, JonnyRaves, mess888, and (especially) SebDangerfield. Do not waste your time or money on this one. Expand
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.