User Score
7.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 976 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 67 out of 976

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. Sep 29, 2012
    10
    Best movie I've seen in a long time; definitely the best this year. Absolutely superb. The intellect of Inception with underpinnings of The Terminator. Plot, story, action, acting, pacing... everything fit perfectly. It has a certain intellect to it that you simply do not see in many movies nowadays. It also is a new story and is not some rehashed superhero flick or modern remake of an older film. My only issue is that I would have liked a little more info about the "rainmaker" in the future. Otherwise I loved it. Very highly recommend; I don't give out many 10s. Expand
  2. Sep 28, 2012
    10
    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
  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. Sep 28, 2012
    10
    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.
  5. 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 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
  6. 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 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
  7. 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. Absolutely pathetic. Expand
  8. Sep 29, 2012
    10
    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
  9. Oct 6, 2012
    5
    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.
  10. Sep 28, 2012
    9
    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!
  11. Oct 3, 2012
    5
    This is one of those scifi flix with a cool concept that falls flat in execution. Joseph Gordon-Levitt kills people who are sent back from the future to be executed. Complication arise when his older self (played by Bruce Willis) is sent back to be offed. This takes place in one of those futuristic worlds where much is rundown and little is neat and modern. It starts off well with 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
  12. Sep 29, 2012
    9
    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
  13. 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 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
  14. 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 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
  15. Sep 29, 2012
    10
    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
  16. Sep 28, 2012
    8
    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.
  17. 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) 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
  18. Oct 16, 2012
    5
    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
  19. Feb 8, 2013
    5
    I have mixed feelings toward this movie. Looper was well edited, and suspenseful. The acting was solid, and I enjoyed the futuristic/dystopian world they created. The music fit the mood perfectly, the cinematography was also great. The problems start with the movie's plot. There are some plot holes and inconsistencies in the story, because the way time traveling was portrayed. It was impossible even on a theoretical level (I could write an essay about the problems, there are so many). I wish they would not screw up the time travel part, because that part meant to be a key element, but it just made the plot confusing and senseless at some points. Otherwise technically the movie was really well made. Expand
  20. Sep 29, 2012
    10
    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
  21. Sep 29, 2012
    10
    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
  22. Oct 8, 2012
    9
    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
  23. Sep 29, 2012
    10
    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
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. Sep 29, 2012
    9
    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!
  27. Sep 30, 2012
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. 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!
    Expand
  28. Sep 28, 2012
    9
    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
  29. 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. 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
  30. Oct 6, 2012
    5
    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.
  31. Oct 1, 2012
    10
    Ok, let me preface this by saying that I dislike most movies. I find that the majority of movies released these days are full of plot holes, are poorly written, have no character development, and contain mediocre to bad acting. You get the gist - i think most movies suck....but Looper is simply spectacular. It is probably the best movie I have seen in 10 years - great concept with spectacular writing and execution. It has everything - drama, some humor, great character development (which makes you actually care what happens), great action, suspense, cool effects. I really can't find anything wrong with this movie, and I'm very picky when it comes to movies. Someone else compared Looper to Terminator with the style of Inception, and that is pretty accurate. A lot of the basic concepts are taken from Terminator (time travel, etc.), but it's definitely it's own movie. This will go down as one of the best movies of this decade, and it's sure to be considered a Sci-Fi classic among the best of all time (Alien, Terminator, The Matrix, etc). Expand
  32. 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.
  33. 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 original scene, not one fresh line of dialog. BEWARE!!! Expand
  34. Oct 1, 2012
    10
    Wow! The most original movie I've seen since Inception. Very intelligently written! This movie is the complete opposite of most movies that come out today, which aim to please the easily entertained. You'll definitely be thinking about this movie for awhile after you see it. It's an instant classic sci-fi film, which I'll have to add to my collection for sure when it comes out on video.
  35. Sep 30, 2012
    9
    Well first off Joseph Gordon-Levitt, does not look like Joseph Gordon-Levitt. I know, shocking.
    The story is great and original, the special effects are pretty neat as well.
    The first half hour really pulls you in and then it slows down, oh but not for too long.
    This film has it all, time travel, blunderbuss's, hover bikes, gold and hobo's.
    It definitely isn't what you expect it to be
    and thats for the better.
    This is one of the best films of the year and is a must see for action and Sci-fi fans.
    Expand
  36. Sep 29, 2012
    7
    An intelligent action film is always welcomed, and this is no exception. Rian Johnson's 3rd film, this finally shows Johnson taking some creative ideas and grand detail and puts it altogether. As a result, it's his most complete film, though it's not without its plot holes. But you're going to get that when tackling time-traveling. Don't think too much about it and enjoy the ride.
  37. 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). 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
  38. 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.
  39. Nov 10, 2012
    10
    Anyone that has not seen this movie yet, you need to see it. This movie is an instant classic. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is amazing in it. This movie will really f**k with your mind if you like that s**t. I really rec amend this movie to everyone.
  40. 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 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
  41. Sep 30, 2012
    10
    Among the best films of 2012, Looper is ultra-violent, ultra-stylish and ultra-cool. It's bold, brave, smarter that even itself thinks, and most of all, extremely enjoyable. I wanted to see it again straight away.
  42. Oct 27, 2012
    7
    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
  43. 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 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
  44. Oct 5, 2012
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. GREAT MOVIE, loved it superb acting and awesome story the only reason i give it a nine is the fact that it really doesnt make sense. it started off really solid but then went down hill when they implemented the multiple universe thing. so one scenario when bruce willis gets killed and one where he doesnt. this means that there are two versions of the same person. meaning that killing or maiming an alternate version of yourself would have no effect on you. so when levitt kills himself it should have not done anything to bruce willis because hes from a different time line. this is a result of the version of bruce willis who gets away when he goes back in time is tied to a different levitt. essentially bruce willis invaded a different universe. almost a polar opposite version of reality. which means he should have no coorelation to levitt. even though they are the same person they're from two different time lines so they should not tie into one another. the same goes for the guy who got dismembered he was from a different time line so he should not of started losing limbs when his younger self got cut up. think of it as two sides of a coin. BUT...i love it when a movie really makes me think and come up with this kind of conclusion. havent had this much fun with a movie since inception. Expand
  45. Sep 30, 2012
    7
    I had great expectations for this film, not least because it showcases Joseph Gordon-Levitt who is rapidly becoming a hallmark for quality (
  46. Oct 9, 2012
    9
    Johnson deals with the subtext with no one bothers to... Looper is so original and unique, albeit not so in delivery, it is the best sci-fi yarn in years.
  47. 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 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
  48. Oct 3, 2012
    8
    Looper was quite an enjoyable movie. The story seemed pretty original, though a little slow in the middle. I thought the performances of Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Emily Blunt were excellent and whoever did the make up on Joseph's face did a great job making him look quite close to a younger Bruce Willis. I think Looper was a very good blend of a mob story and sci-fi all rolled up into a nice cozy burrito. P.S. If you want a future car just attach some solar panels and wires to the outside of your car and you will be driving a car from 2044. Expand
  49. Sep 30, 2012
    8
    Nice thing about this movie is that its original and overall good.I felt the movie showcased or built up certain characters that became pointless or underwhelming. lack of time travel technology and the way they cover up the fact made me feel as if they couldn't think of anything. Pacing was to slow at times, even for when they were building good parts, everything else was good for the most part.
  50. 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 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
  51. Oct 13, 2012
    10
    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
  52. Oct 15, 2012
    10
    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
  53. Oct 14, 2012
    9
    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. Expand
  54. Oct 1, 2012
    9
    I base great films on whether I am still thinking about them the next day. I was still thinking about Looper the next day. While I may watch something like "The Avengers" over and over again to go to sleep to and enjoy on a semi-regular basis, Looper is perhaps the best film so far this year (but far less re watchable as background noise while you are cooking dinner). Superb acting, casting, and overall directing. Expand
  55. Sep 28, 2012
    9
    This science-fiction action film is a surprising emotional blend of kick-ass fights and firearm killing and disturbing dystopian themes. It evokes powerful feelings of empathy and fear which is not really seen in similar genres and left me shaken as I left the screen. This made me realise
  56. Oct 12, 2012
    8
    Rarely you would find a science fiction movie these days not relying on CGI and action to draw audiences, this movie does not require both, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis pack a great performance, best science fiction movie I have watched in recent times.
  57. Sep 30, 2012
    10
    Definitely one of the best movies I have seen in a great while. Definitely the best movie this year so far. It contained elements of romance, action, and humor, which combined to make a fantastic movie. While starting out somewhat slow, the movie rewards viewers in later scenes by tying together loose plot points. Character development was fantastic, as Joe went from a selfish man to become a true hero, and the same goes for his older self. The older joe goes from a composed man on a quest to save his love, to a monster ready to do whatever it takes for what may not even exist anymore. I can talk about how great this movie is all day long, but my experience in the movie theater really does a better job than any analysis. As the movie ended, as the clocked ticked off the screen, the entire movie theater, a house packed full of people, were silent. The movie literally caused the entire audience to be left speechless at the end of the movie. That has never, ever, happened to me in my entire history of seeing movies. Looper was truly one of the best movies in recent memory and bar none the best movie this year. Collapse
  58. Sep 30, 2012
    9
    "Looper" is great, simply great! It's original, fun, well written and directed, Gordon- Levitt and Bruce Willis are awesome as the same person, it has a fast rhythm and a dynamic soundtrack, it's just fantastic!
  59. Oct 1, 2012
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Time travel stories are tricky. No matter how much you try to put it all together, there always are loose ends. As good as this Sci-fi story may be, it suffers from this problem. Einstein called this "the time travel paradox". While travelling in the future is concievable through time dilation, traveling in the past is an other story.

    In Looper, Old Joe comes back in time to prevent the death of his love. However, Old Joe is a different version of the Young Joe in the movie. Old Joe who actually killed his older self 30 years ago, now escapes from his younger self. This is a time paradox : if old Joe escapes, young Joe will not follow the course of events that leads him to become the old Joe who loses his wife and travel backs in time. The very fact that Old Joe saves himself denies his very existence. The only way the old Joe can exist with altered Young Joe is if we suppose that 2 different versions of our universe can co-existe. If looper sticked to this theory, it would actually make sense. Unfortunately, it doesn't. At some point, you see that everything Young Joe does to himself affect old Joe. If Old Joe is from universe B and Young Joe is from universe A, than whatever Young Joe does to himself is unlikely to affect Old Joe, since they both come from their own universe. However, Old Joe is affected by Young Joe, and can only possible if there can be only one universe that auto-corrects itself. The writter of this story conveniently switches between two VERY opposite theories of time travel to push the story forward.

    I'll take the ending as an example to make my point. Old Joe's quest to kill the child version of rainmaker ironically leads him to create the tyran version rainmaker of his own futur. The very one he wanted to change. old Joe nearly fulfills his destiny as he shoot the child rainmaker in the jaw and is about to the mother. Young Joe sees the never ending loop that he must now break. So he takes his own life, detroying Old joes very existence in the process. Does it make sense? Not really... If old Joe very existence disappears, so should every of his actions. He never, came back from the futur, escaped, gave the adress of the barn to young Joe who thus never meets the child version of rainmake and so he never kills himself to save his mother. Yet... the childs jaw is still wounded, and yound Joes body is still there. So how can Old Joe very existence be erased and the consequences of his actions still exist? The ending just dosn't make sense. By killing himself, only two things could have happened : A) Old Joe doesn't disappaer because he is from a different universe in which he killed his older self B) The only one universe either collapse on itself, or "corrects itself". If it does correct itself as the movie suggests at some key points, then at the very moment young Joe killed himself Child rainmaker's wound would disappear, he and his mother would be back in their house enjoying some tea. None of them would remember Young Joe or Old Joe.

    I enjoyed the movie, and overall the story is very "enjoyable". I am not saying it's bad, but the way this movie exposes time travel is choppy.
    Expand
  60. 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 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
  61. Sep 28, 2012
    7
    Looper is a movie that has time travel in it, but at its core, it is a character drama, a movie about a crime and redemption.

    First of all, while time travel is a plot element which tends to promote intricate, complex plots which can at times be confusing but also enjoyable, Looper intentionally tries to avoid that by keeping vague the actual details of what time travel is and what
    effects actions in the past have on the present. Looper is less interested in exploring what the actual implications of time travel would actually be, and rather simply uses them to achieve its real goal, which is a way for the main character to literally come face to face with himself, and try to decide what he wants to be.

    Because of this, the movie has a very noticeable shift in pacing midway; at the start, the film is chaotic with very few moments of respite, while once everything is in place for the real story to start, the movie really takes its time to build up to a final conclusion.

    The problem I had with this movie wasn't that any part of it was really bad; but that the focus of the film was actually much weaker than the premise and exposition. The technology and setting of the movie are incredibly detailed. There is a definite feel to the cities that aren't quite too futuristic but are also just a little different to modern cities. And while the time travel was a little less sophisticated than I would have liked, it really wasn't difficult to get the suspension of disbelief going because everything in the film was just so consistent. I think my favorite segment was just the very first ten minutes, where we get to gleam a sort of basic understanding of the world. However, when the movie shifts into a drama, a lot of the initial charm of the movie is lost. Two of the major characters are introduced midway through, and because of that, it's just difficult to become emotionally attached to them. A lot of the scenes that are intended to create sympathy just feel rushed, and it felt like a weak way of manipulating me into caring, rather than actually showing or emphasizing the characters of the movie. This may be a minor spoiler, but in general I don't think it's a good idea for a lot of the emotional weight of a movie to depend on a child; it's simply too difficult to get an actor good enough to carry that burden. In particular, I remember in multiple scenes of the movie, which were intended to display the child's emotional instability, laughter erupted in the theater because the kid's expressions were just so exaggerated. And while we are on the topic of tone, there was almost TOO much comedic relief in the movie. It got to the point where it detracted from what was actually going on.

    Again, there really wasn't any part of the movie that I didn't enjoy, but the first half was incredible while the second half, intended to be the real climax of the film, was just plain good, and that just gives me a feeling that a lot of potential was wasted.
    Expand
  62. 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 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
  63. Sep 30, 2012
    7
    This movie could have been so much more, but unfortunately shot itself in the foot around the time after the farm house was first seen. Around 30 - 40 minutes of nothingness... but relationship building and character development.. this is not what I want to see in a Sci-Fi Thriller/ Action movie... Having said that, along with a few other irritating nuances.. I must say, stunning visuals, great acting, wonderful script.. it's a shame they let the structure go so horribly wrong. Expand
  64. Sep 30, 2012
    7
    The movie was ok. The only problem i had is Bruce is left handed and Joseph Gordon-Levitt is right handed. Did anyone else notice that. If i had to grade the movie i would give it a C plus
  65. Oct 1, 2012
    10
    This was a fantastic movie and I would say is a genuinely new idea to hit theaters. Without spoiling anything all I can say is that it goes beyond the average "time-travel loop" plot and every time it seems like it's going to follow a clichà (C) it veers off in a different direction. The only things I can see that people might not like are that it is much more of a psychological thriller than an action film, which the trailers make it out to be, and that there are several threads left untied at the end of the movie; while some might find these unexplained parts of the story annoying, I liked them and the fact that the movie left the viewer with some questions gave me a lot to think about after the credits. Its a hard movie to describe without spoiling, but the best way I can put it is Terminator meets Memento, with a little Donnie Darko thrown in. This is an instant classic in the science fiction genre and I absolutely recommend it. Expand
  66. Oct 7, 2012
    6
    It's definitely not a bad movie. I see what they tried to do with all time stuff and for casual consumer it may be a lot to comprehend and it will take time to think this movie through. The thing is I watch Doctor Who a lot and I got used to all the time travel stuff and in Doctor Who this things a lot deeper and confusing. Can't rate performance of Levitt or Willis because i saw this movie in translation. As i said it's not a bad movie. In fact it may be very good but my familiarity with Doctor Who kinda ruins movie for me. It gets 6 out of 10. If it wasn't for Doctor Who this movie would probably got 8 or 9 out of 10 Expand
  67. 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.
  68. Oct 3, 2012
    9
    It's very interesting thriller. Everything is perfect. It's "hard" movie and age rating is right. The story is very interesting and it's difficult to keep track of the story cunningly. I think it's one of the best movies of 2012.
  69. Oct 15, 2012
    10
    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.'
  70. 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 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
  71. 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????
  72. Oct 12, 2012
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The trailer for Looper had my attention, but the film did not. The first act of the film starts out very promising...set in 2030something a dark future underworld of crime where Loopers are paid to "assassinate" dudes sent back from 30 years into the future where time travel exists. Blah blah. I'm not going to spend ages writing this, because this film already owes me 2 hours of my life back. I wish everyone would stop raving on about JGL's prosthetics that are supposed to make him look more like Bruce Willis. They don't. The action is contrived, unsuspenseful, stupid and scarce. The 2nd act is boring...I could give to craps about anything that happened to any of these characters but Im forced to listen to the rubbish dialogue while this film tries to figure out what it wants to be and never does. Unimaginatively filmed, annoying subplots, too many boring characters, a child actor who is annoying and far from menacing (like he is meant to be), plot devices that are poorly used...themes that are not sufficiently explored because they are in the wrong genre of film to allow time for this to happen and actions without consequences. My biggest annoyance was how he betrayed his "best" friend in the first act and gets all sad and then this is never mentioned again. Don't waste your time on this mess of a film. Expand
  73. 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 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
  74. 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, 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
  75. Feb 11, 2013
    6
    Vastly overrated. The film never lives up to its first 20 minutes. (which is high in spectacle and hyper stylish direction)
    The deliberately slow burning second half on the other hand, is standard science fiction time travel yarn with a creepy telepathic kid. Watch "Twelve Monkeys" or "Source Code" instead.
  76. 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 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
  77. 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.
  78. Oct 8, 2012
    9
    Wow! An original idea comes out of Hollywood! Even though It bogged down a bit through the middle and took a weird left turn with the whole telekinesis plot line I confess I really enjoyed it. Of course its not possible to make a believable time travel movie so I suppose I shouldn't be offended by the endless paradoxes. My hat is off to Joseph Gordon-Levitt and the prosthetics folks on this one. I was totally sold that the kid from 3rd rock was the guy from blind date. Ripe with sequel potential. Expand
  79. 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 still liked TDKR better, but this was an excellent movie. Expand
  80. Oct 1, 2012
    7
    I love Sci Fi, and like all the actors in this film, so I was looking forward to seeing it. It was a mixed bag for me. The film kept me interested, but turned out to be more about the telekinetic kid than anything else. The child, played by Pierce Gagnon, is one of the best child performances I've ever seen in a film. He is absolutely mesmerizing. Unfortunately, the film ended up feeling more like a "demon seed" scary film rather than an intriguing Sci Fi film. I did not care for the whole telekinesis angle which seemed tacked on, and there is a sex scene in the film which was ridiculous and unnecessary. There was also inconsistencies which made no sense. The younger looper always shot and killed the future loopers the instance they appeared, and for some unexplained reason when the older version of himself appeared he hesitated before shooting. There was also some very slow moments throughout the film. Not a bad film, but it won't be a Blu Ray purchase. Expand
  81. Dec 9, 2012
    10
    What an original and masterful sci fi film, the kind We've been waiting for for ages, maybe since Twelve Monkeys. Great to see Willis on form here and nailing the action genre again. From the second you start watching it you're thinking 'timeless classic.' Stick this one in the sci fi cannon without a doubt, open the gates and real her in. Prometheus is nothing compared to this. Brilliantly woven plot, great pacing, always exciting. Might be a while before we get another treat like this Expand
  82. 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
  83. Oct 3, 2012
    8
    Seen Looper tonight. Does it live up to the hype? Not really, but I don't think that is the movies fault. The trailer makes you think its an action flick but its not. Its a concentrate and work out the plot and time travel paradoxes flick, however in my book thats a good thing! I didn't get the Joseph Gordon-Levitt make up as I don't think it made him look like Bruce Willis but watch out for one of the best child acting performances in recent memory. Even though I seen the main "twist" coming a mile off I still really liked the film. Like Inception I'm sure multiple viewings will make it even better. This is a real thinking mans Sci-Fi movie. Expand
  84. 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 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
  85. Oct 1, 2012
    9
    Best sci-fi I've seen since maybe Inception, although I wouldn't call Inception a strictly sci-fi film. As far as time travel movies go, which there really aren't very many of, let alone good ones, this is the best I've seen in years. As with any movie based on time-travel, you have to accept a few rules presented by the specific movie or you WILL make the film fall apart. Thankfully this film only has one major rule, and it's easy to accept and let go of your reality. It's hard to talk about the story without giving anything away but you will be very entertained. There is not a dull moment in the film's entirety and there are twists and turns throughout. The acting is fantastic (JGL is only getting better and better, and Bruce Willis is captivating as usual), the cinematography is engaging...this is a very well made and meticulously thought-out film. Definitely worth a visit to the cinema to see it on the big screen, and if not, absolutely worth a rental or even a place on your shelf in your collection. Expand
  86. 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
    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
  87. 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.
  88. 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.
  89. Oct 1, 2012
    7
    Looper was good. It wasn't great, but it was good. It was really heading in the right direction except that inconsistencies with how "future" works was silly. Some of the characters are pretty annoying, too. You aren't ever actually sure what characters you are supposed to "like" and "dislike". That can be good sometimes, but by how the characters were developed and built, it fails. The movie had good ideas and concepts, it just wasn't pieced together that well. It's a pretty good movie if you only look on the 'outside'. If you want it to be logical and well done science fiction, then perhaps this isn't the greatest of movies. What separates a movie like this from Moon is that it Moon is perfectly structured and has very little to nitpick at. I suggest seeing it, but don't have super high expectations. It is only a B or C level sci-fi movie. But there are boobs Expand
  90. Oct 2, 2012
    10
    I hate to say it, but a lot of people just didn't get Looper. Honestly, the way it was marketed made is seem like a generic action thriller, something akin to In Time. I was astonished that the main conflict to the movie was never featured in any of the previews making it a pleasant surprise. The first thing to understand is there will never be a perfect time travel movie because there is always the idea of the paradox. With that aside I found Looper to be well grounded in its logic and a thrill to watch. People complain about over wrought violence, but this movie is about the mafia so it is par for the course in any overly violent/sexual nature. It pushes the age old tradition of the dangers of crime, and the violence it can bring. Most of all it pushes the idea that we can be a totally different person in 30 years time, with different motivations and understanding. Looper is just as brilliant as Rian Johnson's other films (Brick, The Brothers Bloom), and is surprising from start to finish. Expand
  91. 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.
  92. Feb 25, 2013
    0
    This story was written by someone who does not comprehend even the basics of time travel problems and paradoxes. It is a mystery why this chaos received so high grades. The plot in short: mafia from the future sends their assassination targets into the present to be disposed of; in the present there are killers, so called loopers (organized by a sadist from the future) who await their targets and kill them. Before or later, the looper receives a mission to kill his future self. Some of them fail to do so. And then the chase begins. First of all, the premise is pretty stupid, to use such advanced technology for such mundane goal. In the movie they have explained, that in the future it is impossible to get rid of someone without being tracked. It is, as it seems, far easier to build a time machine then to avoid tracking technology from a collapsed society. Then we have a pretty horrifying (and illogical) scene of punishment for a failed looper. His present self is mutilated and his future self loses his limbs one by one. This is wrong, all his wounds have been inflicted in the past so they would appear all at once in the future. And it is unresolved if his present self has been killed or will they keep him alive for the next few decades without his limbs, until he is sent into the present. Then we have our „hero", Joe who escapes his captors in the future, escapes his present looper-self and begins his search for a mysterious future mafia boss, the elusive „Rainmaker", who in the future has killed his wife. Then begins a „Terminator-rip-off". Terminator-Joe from the future does not have exact information about Rainmaker, only his date of birth and he manages to narrow his search to only three kids he will have to kill. He eliminates two targets and of course, his past self protects the real Rainmaker, the fact that it HAS TO BE KNOWN to his future self even before his trip to the past, because it is past, no matter when the audience has find out this. Then the Terminator-Joe eliminates his entire (ex-)gang and there is a showdown between him, his present-self and the Rainmaker-Kid. The situation is resolved when the present Joe kills himself and the Terminator-Joe disappears. Which would set in motion time traveling paradox: Terminator Joe does not exist so he cant be sent into the past and all his actions would be reversed. But no, all his actions in the movie remain. The Rainmaker-kid survives and he will grow up not to be mafia boss but exemplary member of future society. The end. Oh, and this Rainmaker-kid has a Carrie-like telekinetic abilities, which has nothing to do with a plot and is complete superficial. As for the pacing of the movie, it is horrible. We begin with a bang (literary), then a movie comes to a halt and we have an hour or so pure boredom (or character „development"). Then we have a final shoot out. All in all a very bad experience, caused by a fanboy-hype. If you want to see Bruce Willis travel through time, watch „12 Monkeys", a far superior movie in every sense. Expand
  93. Oct 6, 2012
    9
    Intelligent. Entertaining. Unique. Violent. Emotional. Disturbing. Sentimental. I loved it. I hope it gets a nomination from the academy.
  94. 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.
  95. 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.
  96. 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
  97. Oct 7, 2012
    7
    The verdict is out. It appears if you are a troubled male enduring a violent life style, a woman from your past, or future, is likely responsible. If you want proof, look no further than this film. All major characters are deeply affected by females. Whether it's a mother, a wife, or a hooker, they all determine the destiny of the world.
    I won't give it away, but do pay attention to the
    various female driven pointers, from small to large. It's all there. Ladies are the oil that runs the machinery of the world.
    This was no doubt an entertaining film. The story kept me interested. Particularly because the promotional trailers did something abnormal by today's standards: they didn't give away the whole thing. I didn't expect it to follow the path that it does. Two thumbs up right there.
    It's worth mention what a fastantic job they did making Joseph Gordon-Levitt look like a younger version of Bruce Willis. Frightening.
    The one bit that often gets to me when it comes to science fiction is how you can smell the compromisse in the futuristic look. Specially when it comes to technology. Our future selves are geniuses in one aspect, like, say, time travel, but when it comes to other details of the world, like architecture or simple street signs, we dumbed down... And of course, the story does take place in the "past" version of this future. Can you hear a studio guy say: 'we gotta shoot this thing cheaper!'... Well, you can't have it All. So it does feel a bit more like an HBO production than big theatre fare, but I still had a fantastic time. Enjoy.
    Expand
  98. Oct 2, 2012
    9
    Definitely one of the best movies of 2012, and most likely the best science-fiction movie of this year. With movies such as The Dark Knight Rises and The Hunger Games, Looper still manages to shine and delivering one of the best movie experiences of the year. A must see, surprisingly good. 9/10
  99. Nov 20, 2012
    8
    If you're looking for something thrilling yet thought provoking, go no further, Looper has arrived. Rian Johnson's Looper is a bold, wholly original genre film that delves into the fabric of time travel like you hardly get see these days. The high concept story line of a man's future-self on the loose after failing to 'get rid of him' is only the tip of the iceberg. Whats left is a dizzying tale of crime, time alteration and most interestingly, parenthood, that twists and turns the audience like an intelligent thriller should. The deceptive direction may not satisfy all, but it kept the intrigue on high.The principal cast was very good, and it's also good to see Bruce Willis on form this year. Filmed with much style and edited with clockwork precision; I highly recommend this to movie-goers. Expand
  100. 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.
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.