|
Looks good, who's playing Sir Jony?
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 18:44 |
|
|
Fassbender is always really good, although it looks more like he's playing Ewan McGregor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
That's a helluva trailer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
How hard is it for Ashton Kutcher to watch that trailer?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
That was a fantastically made trailer and the movie is probably worth watching, but I can't help but feel like it's a discount "The Social Network", complete with Aaron Sorkin.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
The plot/writing bleeds Sorkin even in that short trailer, but goddamn does it look beautiful. Reluctantly, I'm sold.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Solid trailer, but I still find Fassbender looking nothing like Steve Jobs super god drat distracting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
If I didn't already know Aaron Sorkin wrote this, I'd know it because of the reused line from West Wing. quote:BRUNO
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Yeah but thats nothing new!
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Cant wait for rear end in a top hat Steve, he's the best! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
teagone posted:Solid trailer, but I still find Fassbender looking nothing like Steve Jobs super god drat distracting. I'm still waiting for Fassbender to play the biopic role he was born to play, where he plays Viggo Mortenson.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
kiimo posted:How hard is it for Ashton Kutcher to watch that trailer? Not as hard as it was for other people to watch his movie. That movie featured rear end in a top hat Steve segments just to tick some "balanced perspective" checkbox. On a whole that movie would have benefitted a lot from perspective gained by simply not making a movie about Jobs within a decade after his death. I have more faith in this movie, but I'm skeptical nonetheless.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Creed looking pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Fassbender doesn't look like Jobs nor does he sound like Jobs but I don't care because that movie looks more interesting than every other Steve Jobs biopic so far. Too bad, I think Christian Bale might've been perfect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
isteve is the best biopic
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Too bad, I think Christian Bale might've been perfect. Not might've, he would've. Dude bears an uncanny resemblance to Jobs, more so than Kutcher imo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
teagone posted:Not might've, he would've. Dude bears an uncanny resemblance to Jobs, more so than Kutcher imo. Looks doesn't matter. Fassbender appears have the character down 100%, mannerisms and all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Mierenneuker posted:Not as hard as it was for other people to watch his movie. There's a reason why the last scenes of the movie seem to take place 15 years ago. If they wanted to really felate Jobs they would include the iPod, iPhone, etc wrecking everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
I never understand why people get so hung up on the appearances. Having an actor that looks as close to the subject is obviously ideal, but it's hardly a deal-breaker for me. I think Fassbender looks enough like him to make me mostly forget (and the performance will do the rest). You want someone who looks just like him? Here:
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Trump posted:Looks doesn't matter. Fassbender appears have the character down 100%, mannerisms and all. I agree he does, because Fassbender is a phenomenal actor. It's still distracting to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Eh, Anthony Hopkins was a better Nixon than all the Nixon lookalike's over the years.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Eh, Anthony Hopkins was a better Nixon than all the Nixon lookalike's over the years. Frank Langella was good too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
John Cusak's Nixon oozes sliminess: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rft59wPnoqk
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Yeah, that felt like a great followup to Social Network, I just wonder what the third part of the "Internet rear end in a top hat Trilogy" is going to be. Are we going to get the Lowtax movie we deserve?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:Yeah, that felt like a great followup to Social Network, I just wonder what the third part of the "Internet rear end in a top hat Trilogy" is going to be. It should be Uber, but we'll have to wait a few more years until every knows and hates Kalanick.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Eh, Anthony Hopkins was a better Nixon than all the Nixon lookalike's over the years. computer parts posted:Frank Langella was good too. Both fine actors, but I'm sad that Walter Matthau never got a swing at it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 10:08
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:Yeah, that felt like a great followup to Social Network, I just wonder what the third part of the "Internet rear end in a top hat Trilogy" is going to be. It will be about Bezos.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 10:46
|
|
|
London has Fallen (Gerard Butler) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9y3z-lx-ZE
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 13:54
|
|
|
Hopefully they can get rid of the House of Lords while they are at it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
PaganGoatPants posted:London has Fallen (Gerard Butler) Thinking about it, that's a terrible title seeing as the first one didn't literally take place at "Olympus." They couldn't have come up with another code name?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Hasters posted:It should be Uber, but we'll have to wait a few more years until every knows and hates Kalanick. The person has to be at least a tiny bit redeemable to make an interesting movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Thinking about it, that's a terrible title seeing as the first one didn't literally take place at "Olympus." They couldn't have come up with another code name? They missed "London Falling" by ... that much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
PaganGoatPants posted:London has Fallen (Gerard Butler) The houses of parliament are going to cost us like £3 billion pounds to renovate and like £30 million a year to keep repairing temporarily, so blowing it up is actually a good thing, economically speaking  edit: £3.5-£7 billion :/ Kin fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Jul 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Thinking about it, that's a terrible title seeing as the first one didn't literally take place at "Olympus." They couldn't have come up with another code name? "Avalon Has Fallen" sounds kinda cool.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
KEANU REEVES: Knock Knock https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti6S3NZ5mKI "Chocolate with sprinkles?!" THE TRANSPORTER: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JH9dHryEZjQ PaganGoatPants fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Jul 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
Fun fact about that Transporter movie is that it wasn't originally supposed to be a reboot but Statham turned them down for trying to be extremely stingy. He's said they wanted to pay him less for three movies than he gets for one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Eh, Anthony Hopkins was a better Nixon than all the Nixon lookalike's over the years. Better than Richard M. Dixon? I don't think so. Also, he was not better than Phillip Baker Hall.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 14:16
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:"Avalon Has Fallen" sounds kinda cool. "Yes but our research shows that dumbfuck hicks in name of your least favorite Middle American state have never heard of Avalon blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah" The thumbnail really calls attention to this guy's lipstick.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
Is Statham really worth that much anymore? It feels like half the stuff I see him in is DTV nowadays.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 18:44 |
|
|
I honestly couldn't even make it through the trailer I was so bored.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 20:10
|
|