1. rastapasta

   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

   • Helpful? 4 of 5 users said Yes.
2. ThatBrianW

   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

   • Helpful? 4 of 6 users said Yes.
3. jkxtreme

   7

   This is slightly unfair, as a film itself I would give it 8 maybe, but I must give it 7 due to the consensus, the consensus is this was an amazing film, it wasn't, it was solid but wasn't awe inspiring, it was also this decades Matrix, and it wasn't, it was nowhere near Matrix, I had to be true to myself, I'd rent it before buying it
   And Emily Blunt fans, She acts well, but she is the most pointless character ever… Expand

   • Helpful? 1 of 1 users said Yes.
4. Oxcart

   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

   • Helpful? 6 of 12 users said Yes.

See all 209 User Reviews