*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Thursday, June 28th, 2012 7:54am PDT - promote requested by luxury_pie.

And the "LBJ in Forrest Gump Award for Bad CGI Mouth" goes to @ 56 seconds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjMVlGvCt3Q&feature=player_detailpage#t=20s

Fuckin' dammit 'Merica, stop showing us the whole damn film in the trailer!!!

>> ^hpqp:

Fuckin' dammit 'Merica


What part of "international trailer" did you not understand? This is a UK trailer, not an American one.

Oh Yeah.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is fantastic!

I would hate seeing this trailer but for the fact, like 90% of films that have good trailers these daysthese days, it's going to be pretty shit.

this looks goooood. might be crap... but it looks gooooood. And I love me some Joseph Gordon Levitt. In a very non-gay, masculine sort of way.

Am I the only one that doesn't get the premise? The young guy is willing to kill himself from 30 years in the future? Who's going to do that? First hurdle and the story stumbles.....

*timeshift?

Adding video to channels (Timeshift) - requested by Boise_Lib.

>> ^jjw001:

Am I the only one that doesn't get the premise? The young guy is willing to kill himself from 30 years in the future? Who's going to do that? First hurdle and the story stumbles.....


Uh... no. He's been killing lots of people for the future mob. Made tons of cash. He's supposed to treat this like any other hit, but he recognizes himself.

>> ^jjw001:

Am I the only one that doesn't get the premise? The young guy is willing to kill himself from 30 years in the future? Who's going to do that? First hurdle and the story stumbles.....

Was explained in the american trailer - he kills everyone until he meets and kills himself (the mark will be himself as an old man). He won't know in advance which one or when, but eventually one of the marks will be himself. From that moment the killer is retired from his dirty job, and gets enough money to swim in for the rest of his life, which will be until some time in the future, when he's old and weary, and will be sent back to be killed by himself, closing the loop. Thus the name "Looper".
See - simple.

FYI Rian Johnson (the director of this film) posted the following on Twitter:

"If you're already set on seeing Looper, I'd avoid any trailers from here on out. They don't ruin the movie, but they tip a few little things that are fun to discover in the context of the movie."

If the director of a film tells you to avoid the trailer, it's probably a good idea to listen.

>> ^Sarzy:

FYI Rian Johnson (the director of this film) posted the following on Twitter:
"If you're already set on seeing Looper, I'd avoid any trailers from here on out. They don't ruin the movie, but they tip a few little things that are fun to discover in the context of the movie."
If the director of a film tells you to avoid the trailer, it's probably a good idea to listen.


...And this should also be a calling card to START telling movie companies to reign in their trailer releases, editing what information and scenes are still in and what isn't. You can easily make a perfectly good trailer that still gives you an idea of what the story will be that pulls the crowds and still not give away really anything. Hell, sometimes it's good to even leave the STORY a secret, as in my point below.

I may not have liked Cloverfield too much (although it did do a lot of things right, like atmosphere; leaving you in perpetual suspense with the characters--rather than you being the omniscient overseer as usual), but damn it's small burst trailer and viral craze was enough to make people foam at the mouth. The reason why it worked is right down below...

BTW, Hollywood executives I'm about to tell you what makes a good trailer:

This is ALL you need, produce curiosity and you have your audience (in fact I'd dare say that by putting more information in that gives away ANY plot lines will actually DIMINISH your crowd size). Just give them curiosity and if your film isn't good enough to form curiosity then you happen to be releasing a Tyler Perry movie, again (or Adam Sandler).

This obviously isn't ever true as the majority of people STILL see movies even though these trailers are released. But, is this because they don't care about the trailers or they just want to see the show either way (trailer be damned, like us). For us commenting, we are movie goers that actually LOVE cinema hate having movies ruined by seeing one bad trailer.

It would be nice if they would atleast give it a chance.

BTW, this looks like an interesting film, but yet again--why in the hell do we need to know the whole story and how it will end (you can almost guess a few ways it will; I shouldn't even be able to conceptualize it yet!) basically before going? Does everybody release Michael Bay style trailers now (The Transformers trailers were REALLY bad in this area, as is Michael Bay...)?

I'll still see this as it's a Bruce Willis movie and he seems to have an O.K. streak; he hasn't ever really made/been-in a dud, similar to Harrison Ford on that front. Plus Joseph Levitt to boot, should be alright.

>> ^kceaton1:


I'll still see this as it's a Bruce Willis movie and he seems to have an O.K. streak; he hasn't ever really made/been-in a dud, similar to Harrison Ford on that front. Plus Joseph Levitt to boot, should be alright.


Air Force One?

>> ^Payback:

>> ^kceaton1:

I'll still see this as it's a Bruce Willis movie and he seems to have an O.K. streak; he hasn't ever really made/been-in a dud, similar to Harrison Ford on that front. Plus Joseph Levitt to boot, should be alright.

Air Force One?


*cough*Hudson Hawk*cough*Armageddon*cough*

The problem I have with this is the idea that the mob in the future is going to use "time travel" which is illegal to kill people. There's gotta be 1,000 easier ways to get rid of a body other then time travel.

What the HELL have they done to JGL??? He looks so....unlike himself! Its like a complete CG remake of his face!

>> ^AeroMechanical:

>> ^Payback:
>> ^kceaton1:

I'll still see this as it's a Bruce Willis movie and he seems to have an O.K. streak; he hasn't ever really made/been-in a dud, similar to Harrison Ford on that front. Plus Joseph Levitt to boot, should be alright.

Air Force One?

cough Hudson Hawk cough Armageddon cough


While both those films are fairly bad, they are FAR more watchable than the true dregs of movies that have been made by people such as Uwe Boll or M. Night Shyamalan--when M.N.S. made a good show, followed by a decent one, and then proceeded to believe that he made the best films man had ever bear witness to. Plus we both know that there was an audience (and a large one for Armageddon) for BOTH of those movies and also Air Force One, @Payback; sure, they weren't me and you (or @Payback), but there are a lot of people in this world that do not ask very much from their movies.

It's when a movie lets down EVEN THEM that it is a pure and utter failure, able to be ridiculed without equal until the end of time. These are the worst films made. Of course many of the movies that DO succeed, like Prometheus right now (June 2012--for reference), can be made fun of A LOT (like Armageddon, which has been the punchline to many jokes). Why? Because, they have MASSIVE disconnects from reality or other bad writing and screenplay mechanics that they are just ridiculous when thought about with any amount of real thought and prowess in a subject dealing with the movie and it's attempt to portray reality in another light that is utterly false. As I said they appeal to the "entertainment" type audience; someone that would go see Independence Day over and over again. Not to us were we watch someone take off a helmet in a potential zero atmosphere environment "to test it out"; that is UTTER NONSENSE, no one does this in reality! This is the stuff that makes us hate those movies (and create the myriad of jokes for it as well). But, not the entertainment crowd who can enjoy a movie for what it is and suspend their connection with reality for awhile.

Granted if I were to use my "full-on" reviewing analysis of what I would include as good movies--the count of "alright" movies would plummet (for Harrison Ford and Bruce Willis). I can think of atleast 3-4 shows that Bruce has been in that I would consider failures in this light, but I know that many people beyond me DO like these movies--that is why I don't count them as failures as there remains an audience--a decently sized one--for those movies. I have to admit I have my own "cult" movie favorites that no-one likes, really, except for me and maybe a few other people I know. I also have been able to like movies for their entertainment value although I know if I treat them with reality they fall completely apart, quickly. Sometimes it's best to let your imagination rule your heart.

Same thing here. I'm just not on the end of the spectrum that enjoys those movies, if you get my drift. So, trust me, I know Bruce has his bad movies (same with Harrison Ford)--but his bad movies, so far, are better than the real dregs and bottom scraped-up leftovers that are out there. That is what I was trying to say in a lot less context--I hope this clears it up. We most likely see things fairly close or the same; I'm just giving credit to the people that DO like Hudson Hawk, Armageddon, and Air Force One.