NSFW peek, after the cut.
Last warning, NSFW trailer is NSFW.
Sasha Stone has been around the Oscar scene since 1999. Almost everything on this website is her fault.
Better late than never! Barbie was placed in Adapted at the Oscars but is in the Original Screenplay category here,...
Read moreThe Academy should take a bow this morning for bringing back the Oscars, restoring them to their former glory in...
Read moreThe Golden Globes went off well enough this past year that CBS has signed a five-year deal with the Globes...
Read more
@Tess Are you really seriously suggesting that Michael Fassbender is a sex addict in real life and is playing himself? And then you have a nerve to act all offended when people call you on that? Wow!
The first I don’t know where the rumours about actors private life come from, and I don’t care, it’s not my business. But to be honesty so far all rumours I hear about this particular actor’s life are that he is a very private person and the only talk is about his various relationships with his girlfriends lasting from a few months up to a few years. No gossips about him cheating on them or sleeping around. So I’m not sure where the womanizer gossips you talk about are coming from. But that’s not a point. Even if it was true, you really don’t understand a difference between a sex addiction and being a person very sexually active or even a womanizer?
So do you really suggest that Fassbender is a sex addict in real life, a tortured soul who has nothing but hate and self-loathing for himself? Someone who is unable to form a healthy romantic or even sexual relationship with another person, as long as they are not prostitutes or random people met somewhere and never seen again? So how was he able to form any kind of relationship with his former girlfriends? Or do you suggest that the actor is not able to maintain a normal, healthy relationship with his family? By the way, even if he was really suffering from that addiction, it would be even more impressive if he would be able to overcome it and play his very tortured self on screen for everybody to see.
Or maybe the other way around, you didn’t understand at all what addiction means and you suggests that sex addicts are happy bunch of people sleeping around for fun and having a lot of joy with that lifestyle? They don’t mind how it destroys their lives, their families, their work etc.?
You obviously not only don’t get how stupid your post was, but also how insulting it was, for actor, his family, but also for real life addicts, suffering from that addiction and the impact it has on their lives.
And then the nerve to pretend to be offended, instead of apologizing for incredibly ridiculous post. Outrageous.
well, first of all, its incredibly stupid to assume that Michael’s life is at all like the character he plays.
second of all, even if Fassbender does relate to him, that doesn’t mean acting those scenes out is the same as living his life. Those scenes are very specific, and carry a lot of subtext and emotional content that has nothing to do with sexual addiction.
It may have been less of a physical transformation for Fassbender in Shame, but the emotional depth he brought to the role, and the intensity which which he energized every scene is leagues above what Pitt does in Moneyball.
well, first of all, its incredibly stupid to assume that Michael’s life is at all like the character he plays.
second of all, even if Fassbender does relate to him, that doesn’t mean acting those scenes out is the same as living his life. Those scenes are very specific, and carry a lot of subtext and emotional content that has nothing to do with sexual addiction.
It may have been less of a physical transformation for Fassbender in Shame, but the emotional depth he brought to the role, and the intensity which which he energized every scene is leagues above what Pitt does in Moneyball.
@Tess
Points taken. I think my issue was the perception that playing that role must have been a cake walk for MF because of his personal life (real/imagined/pr), that’s all. I’m sure that it wasn’t. Regardless, you’re right in that he is great in just about anything he does – just pick a role – and he may well have a better shot with ADM, keeping Shame in the back of everyone’s mind.
However, I’m glad you used the word “legendary” while making your point as these are precisely the actors, from Stewart and Hepburn all the way up the line to Nicholson, Deneuve, etc, who became “legends” by playing incarnations of themselves that the audience came to love. You always, always were aware of who you were watching. Jack’s biggest stretch, IMO, was About Schmidt. That’s certainly not a criticism, though, because their performances are the building blocks for our favorite pastime.
And I’m also rooting for Tree of Life (just taking a good defence for a couple of others)
@Tess
Points taken. I think my issue was the perception that playing that role must have been a cake walk for MF because of his personal life (real/imagined/pr), that’s all. I’m sure that it wasn’t. Regardless, you’re right in that he is great in just about anything he does – just pick a role – and he may well have a better shot with ADM, keeping Shame in the back of everyone’s mind.
However, I’m glad you used the word “legendary” while making your point as these are precisely the actors, from Stewart and Hepburn all the way up the line to Nicholson, Deneuve, etc, who became “legends” by playing incarnations of themselves that the audience came to love. You always, always were aware of who you were watching. Jack’s biggest stretch, IMO, was About Schmidt. That’s certainly not a criticism, though, because their performances are the building blocks for our favorite pastime.
And I’m also rooting for Tree of Life (just taking a good defence for a couple of others)
Some people need to be a bit more mature. @VVS, you did respond to me just to heckle me.
Just because my opinions differ from yours, doesn’t mean they are epic fail. @ Simone, very classy egging other people on, considering you jumped on others who didn’t like the trailer. Way to create a petty lynch-mob over nothing. I made the comparison because you trashed another actor by claiming the NYFCC’s picks were a travesty and acted like Fassy’s role in Shame was so epic or above everything else. This is a movie site, not the school-yard. I knew he had fangirls but jesus. The fact that the same clique of posters all launch on people who don’t think Shame is the best thing ever, is quite catty.
@ Steve50: I disagree that these legendary actors ( especially Nicholson) you mentioned just played intensified versions of themselves for their Oscar-winning portrayals. I also never said that Fassbender would be disqualified for playing an intensified version of himself but I put that into context while evaluating the film & his performance. I just felt it wasn’t much of a stretch. I just pointed out that I took his acting more seriously in other movies because I felt I was seeing Fassy play a version of himself in Shame. I also said I liked the movie but that he had a better shot with The Dangerous Method where he sinks himself into the character and it might get more traction due to Cronenberg. I even complimented the acting in Shame. It is was mainly intriguing to me because of Mcqueen directing and the cast. I would especially like to see Carey Mulligan nominated and I do think Shame has some chances at getting several nominations. I just wasn’t impressed with it as some of you, who thinks it should have swept the NYFCC. The material itself is not groundbreaking or particulary provocative for me. Too many people keep acting like the material was so daring or edgy.
For Shame, I can take it or leave it. I would be fine with it receiving Oscar nominations, I think Carey has the strongest chance. Though if it gets snubbed, I won’t be terribly disappointed either.
I am rooting more for The Tree of Life, Moneyball, Hugo, The Dangerous Method, Albert Nobbs, War Horse, and Carnage. That doesn’t mean my opinions are epic fail because I found those movies to be much more superior to Shame which seemed more trite to me in comparison.
Some people need to be a bit more mature. @VVS, you did respond to me just to heckle me.
Just because my opinions differ from yours, doesn’t mean they are epic fail. @ Simone, very classy egging other people on, considering you jumped on others who didn’t like the trailer. Way to create a petty lynch-mob over nothing. I made the comparison because you trashed another actor by claiming the NYFCC’s picks were a travesty and acted like Fassy’s role in Shame was so epic or above everything else. This is a movie site, not the school-yard. I knew he had fangirls but jesus. The fact that the same clique of posters all launch on people who don’t think Shame is the best thing ever, is quite catty.
@ Steve50: I disagree that these legendary actors ( especially Nicholson) you mentioned just played intensified versions of themselves for their Oscar-winning portrayals. I also never said that Fassbender would be disqualified for playing an intensified version of himself but I put that into context while evaluating the film & his performance. I just felt it wasn’t much of a stretch. I just pointed out that I took his acting more seriously in other movies because I felt I was seeing Fassy play a version of himself in Shame. I also said I liked the movie but that he had a better shot with The Dangerous Method where he sinks himself into the character and it might get more traction due to Cronenberg. I even complimented the acting in Shame. It is was mainly intriguing to me because of Mcqueen directing and the cast. I would especially like to see Carey Mulligan nominated and I do think Shame has some chances at getting several nominations. I just wasn’t impressed with it as some of you, who thinks it should have swept the NYFCC. The material itself is not groundbreaking or particulary provocative for me. Too many people keep acting like the material was so daring or edgy.
For Shame, I can take it or leave it. I would be fine with it receiving Oscar nominations, I think Carey has the strongest chance. Though if it gets snubbed, I won’t be terribly disappointed either.
I am rooting more for The Tree of Life, Moneyball, Hugo, The Dangerous Method, Albert Nobbs, War Horse, and Carnage. That doesn’t mean my opinions are epic fail because I found those movies to be much more superior to Shame which seemed more trite to me in comparison.
@VVS
Preach it!
@VVS
Preach it!
@tess
If playing intensified versions of oneself disqualify one from receiving an oscar, imagine the list! Nicholson, Hepburn, Keaton, Matlin, (no point in going on) would not have any.
@tess
If playing intensified versions of oneself disqualify one from receiving an oscar, imagine the list! Nicholson, Hepburn, Keaton, Matlin, (no point in going on) would not have any.
@Tess
those comments are so full of epic fail, they don’t even deserve a response.
@Tess
those comments are so full of epic fail, they don’t even deserve a response.
They made a great choice with Brad Pitt who actually played both very different characters in very different movies with great skill, talent, and emotional resonance which elevated the films. The people who keep dismissing it are just either personally biased or because he is considered to be too mainstream as an actor. He was impressive in both movies. Tree of Life and Moneyball were not mediocre choices nor were they expected so I felt it was bold.
Shame having tons of sexual content doesn’t make it bold or incredibly deep since I have seen dozens of movies or characters dealing with sexual addiction or empty womanizers or lotharios looking for a connection. I liked the film but felt it was far more slight than Tree of Life or Moneyball so I don’t think The NYFCC’s choices were a travesty. Did people seriously predict Shame would beat the other movies in contention?
I still feel Shame has a good chance at getting Carey Mulligan a nom and maybe an original screenplay nom since Steve McQueen seems to be working it well in industry circles. Fassy might be better off campaigning for the bigger movie with the iconic director, The Dangerous Method.
Shame only stood out for me because of the acting and because I like the cast & appreciate Steve Mcqueen as a director due to Hunger.
I personally liked Fassy better in The Dangerous Method because he actually inhabits a character. In Shame, he plays a sex addict and womanizer. In real life, he is known to be a womanizer and a very sexually adventurous guy. It is like he was playing a version of himself in Shame except that Carey Mulligan added a different dynamic. It was no stretch for Fassy to play the lead in Shame so I was more impressed with him in Jane Eyre, The Dangerous Method, and even X-Men: First Class.
Watching Queer as Folk in the past or other edgy movies don’t make a movie like Shame shocking or provocative to me. I would be fine with it being nominated but I don’t think it is a cinematic crime if it loses.
They made a great choice with Brad Pitt who actually played both very different characters in very different movies with great skill, talent, and emotional resonance which elevated the films. The people who keep dismissing it are just either personally biased or because he is considered to be too mainstream as an actor. He was impressive in both movies. Tree of Life and Moneyball were not mediocre choices nor were they expected so I felt it was bold.
Shame having tons of sexual content doesn’t make it bold or incredibly deep since I have seen dozens of movies or characters dealing with sexual addiction or empty womanizers or lotharios looking for a connection. I liked the film but felt it was far more slight than Tree of Life or Moneyball so I don’t think The NYFCC’s choices were a travesty. Did people seriously predict Shame would beat the other movies in contention?
I still feel Shame has a good chance at getting Carey Mulligan a nom and maybe an original screenplay nom since Steve McQueen seems to be working it well in industry circles. Fassy might be better off campaigning for the bigger movie with the iconic director, The Dangerous Method.
Shame only stood out for me because of the acting and because I like the cast & appreciate Steve Mcqueen as a director due to Hunger.
I personally liked Fassy better in The Dangerous Method because he actually inhabits a character. In Shame, he plays a sex addict and womanizer. In real life, he is known to be a womanizer and a very sexually adventurous guy. It is like he was playing a version of himself in Shame except that Carey Mulligan added a different dynamic. It was no stretch for Fassy to play the lead in Shame so I was more impressed with him in Jane Eyre, The Dangerous Method, and even X-Men: First Class.
Watching Queer as Folk in the past or other edgy movies don’t make a movie like Shame shocking or provocative to me. I would be fine with it being nominated but I don’t think it is a cinematic crime if it loses.
GO SEE THE MOVIE! ok you dont like the trailer, you dont know what its about. go see the movie and find out.
GO SEE THE MOVIE! ok you dont like the trailer, you dont know what its about. go see the movie and find out.
@Antoinette, there’s more but its ambiguous. Personally, I think the characters issues with sex and relationships stem from his complicated relationship with his sister. And the director has done a great job to suggest that, although he continues to deny it.
@Antoinette, there’s more but its ambiguous. Personally, I think the characters issues with sex and relationships stem from his complicated relationship with his sister. And the director has done a great job to suggest that, although he continues to deny it.
FS is really putting a lot of money into this campaign. I will be interested to see if they can get the steak eaters to watch this film, or like it for that matter.
FS is really putting a lot of money into this campaign. I will be interested to see if they can get the steak eaters to watch this film, or like it for that matter.
I personally enjoy when a trailer doesn’t show everything in the movie. I’m VERY intrigued by the film. Can’t wait to see it. Reviews are great, and so are Fassbender and Mulligan. Those are enough to get my butt in the seat, that is if it plays here, and unless it breaks out this awards season and gets some big nominations it probably won’t play anywhere near me (would probably take more than Fassbender and Mulligan being nominated). I’ve asked my theater and they said their chain caters to families so they won’t show an NC-17 film. But violent movies like the Saw series are fine. They also did play Blue Valentine, which was originally NC-17 but got away with an “R” rating without cutting anything. And of course they’ll have The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. Hypocrites. There are adults in families that might want to see a movie for them.
I personally enjoy when a trailer doesn’t show everything in the movie. I’m VERY intrigued by the film. Can’t wait to see it. Reviews are great, and so are Fassbender and Mulligan. Those are enough to get my butt in the seat, that is if it plays here, and unless it breaks out this awards season and gets some big nominations it probably won’t play anywhere near me (would probably take more than Fassbender and Mulligan being nominated). I’ve asked my theater and they said their chain caters to families so they won’t show an NC-17 film. But violent movies like the Saw series are fine. They also did play Blue Valentine, which was originally NC-17 but got away with an “R” rating without cutting anything. And of course they’ll have The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. Hypocrites. There are adults in families that might want to see a movie for them.
Nick Ray, those last two paragraphs are very beautiful and should be printed and framed someplace every internet user may see and reflect upon before posting criticism regarding trailers.
We may call it The fASSbender Trailer Test: did this film trailer nudge my butt, or did it not? If it nudged other people’s butts, how constructive is it for me to complain that it did not nudge my own butt?
A deep and probing question, for sure.
Nick Ray, those last two paragraphs are very beautiful and should be printed and framed someplace every internet user may see and reflect upon before posting criticism regarding trailers.
We may call it The fASSbender Trailer Test: did this film trailer nudge my butt, or did it not? If it nudged other people’s butts, how constructive is it for me to complain that it did not nudge my own butt?
A deep and probing question, for sure.
to Antoinette
to Deena Jones
you have a right to not like the trailer. I have a right to like it just how it is. you can find reviews that tell you every detail of the plot. please don’t try and demand that the trailer tells ALL OF US everything too. if they wanted to tell us everything in the trailer then they know how to do that. probably they didn’t tell us much because they didn’t want to. I for one want to respect that.
>>>> you are still in the dark about the film and don’t understand the buzz now… you never will, and that’s ok.
what I would say is the only real way to understand the movie is to go see it. but if you don’t have the curiosity yet then you shouldn’t risk it. there are reviews around that tell you a lot more. if you want to risk ruining any surprises there might be. I wouldn’t want to know more than I already do.
>>>>>> when I tried to convince friends to see it and they would ask what the film is about all I could say is… “Well it’s Fassbender as a sex addict…” And they always go… “And..?”
you can tell me > The Iron Lady is Streep as a Prime Minister. And I will go> *AND?* god, please tell me she’s a transvestite serial killer too, because 2 hours of plain ordinary prime minister better be something else besides a good Thatcher imitation. sure, everybody says it’s a good performance, I trust those people, so I will take a chance on it. everybody says Fassbender’s performance is great, I trust them too, so I will take a chance on it. I don’t see the big difference. I agree with Ryan T. I already know enough about both movies to want to go see them.
Deena, I don’t understand how you are positive Simone did not see Shame yet. She sounds expertly informed about it.
.>>>>> I didn’t get anything that you said from the trailers. But trailers are supposed to be advertisements. Meaning getting butts in the seats.
either the trailer reached out and touched your butt or else it didn’t nudge your butt. speaking on behalf of my own butt, my butt is feeling good and nudged. If this trailer did not nudge your butt then that is ok.
Dr. Seuss taught me. I am not here to judge your butt or nudge your butt or hold any grudge against your butt.
to Antoinette
to Deena Jones
you have a right to not like the trailer. I have a right to like it just how it is. you can find reviews that tell you every detail of the plot. please don’t try and demand that the trailer tells ALL OF US everything too. if they wanted to tell us everything in the trailer then they know how to do that. probably they didn’t tell us much because they didn’t want to. I for one want to respect that.
>>>> you are still in the dark about the film and don’t understand the buzz now… you never will, and that’s ok.
what I would say is the only real way to understand the movie is to go see it. but if you don’t have the curiosity yet then you shouldn’t risk it. there are reviews around that tell you a lot more. if you want to risk ruining any surprises there might be. I wouldn’t want to know more than I already do.
>>>>>> when I tried to convince friends to see it and they would ask what the film is about all I could say is… “Well it’s Fassbender as a sex addict…” And they always go… “And..?”
you can tell me > The Iron Lady is Streep as a Prime Minister. And I will go> *AND?* god, please tell me she’s a transvestite serial killer too, because 2 hours of plain ordinary prime minister better be something else besides a good Thatcher imitation. sure, everybody says it’s a good performance, I trust those people, so I will take a chance on it. everybody says Fassbender’s performance is great, I trust them too, so I will take a chance on it. I don’t see the big difference. I agree with Ryan T. I already know enough about both movies to want to go see them.
Deena, I don’t understand how you are positive Simone did not see Shame yet. She sounds expertly informed about it.
.>>>>> I didn’t get anything that you said from the trailers. But trailers are supposed to be advertisements. Meaning getting butts in the seats.
either the trailer reached out and touched your butt or else it didn’t nudge your butt. speaking on behalf of my own butt, my butt is feeling good and nudged. If this trailer did not nudge your butt then that is ok.
Dr. Seuss taught me. I am not here to judge your butt or nudge your butt or hold any grudge against your butt.
@RyanT if the words “Michael Fassbender full frontal” doesn’t get them to want to see it then you DEFINITELY need new friends! :p
@RyanT if the words “Michael Fassbender full frontal” doesn’t get them to want to see it then you DEFINITELY need new friends! :p
Deena, I saw the movie at Toronto and even asked Fassbender a question about his role in the film. I know first hand that some people will really enjoy the movie, and others not so much.
Deena, I saw the movie at Toronto and even asked Fassbender a question about his role in the film. I know first hand that some people will really enjoy the movie, and others not so much.
Tell them it’s a dark character study about a man whose carefully constructed life begins to crumble because of an insidious and caustic addiction. Sparse, efficient screenplay and stunning performances.
It’s easier to advertise a film like Requiem for a Dream of Leaving Las Vegas by showing the addict(s) drinking or shooting up. It’s not like you can really delve into the nitty-gritty of Brandon’s addiction without making the trailer NSFW. (I was actually expecting this one to be even more controversial than it is.)
Tell them it’s a dark character study about a man whose carefully constructed life begins to crumble because of an insidious and caustic addiction. Sparse, efficient screenplay and stunning performances.
It’s easier to advertise a film like Requiem for a Dream of Leaving Las Vegas by showing the addict(s) drinking or shooting up. It’s not like you can really delve into the nitty-gritty of Brandon’s addiction without making the trailer NSFW. (I was actually expecting this one to be even more controversial than it is.)
Not totally agreeing with Deena and Antoinette but they have a point. Me? I’m seeing the film because of buzz, my crush on Fassbender, and I thought the trailers were good. I’m okay not knowing what the film is “about” but when I tried to convince friends to see it and they would ask what the film is about all I could say is… “Well it’s Fassbender as a sex addict…” And they always go… “And..?”
Maybe I need new friends?
Not totally agreeing with Deena and Antoinette but they have a point. Me? I’m seeing the film because of buzz, my crush on Fassbender, and I thought the trailers were good. I’m okay not knowing what the film is “about” but when I tried to convince friends to see it and they would ask what the film is about all I could say is… “Well it’s Fassbender as a sex addict…” And they always go… “And..?”
Maybe I need new friends?
Posters like Simone are really making this a wonderful place to be around. But since you’ve decided that it’s not for me, I won’t see it. How’s that? They don’t need my money. Thanks for being insulting (you are still in the dark about the film and don’t understand the buzz now… you never will) and rude (Go see something else that is easier to grasp, when I was commenting on a trailer. At no point did I decide anything about the film based on it and you would think people who make trailers/advertisements might like the feedback but I guess not. I hope the film fails. Happy?
I’ve been at AD for so long, but the ‘better than you’ attitude of some posters is turning me against movies and actors for the first time because I’m getting freaking headaches from having to justify and fight over ever single comment. Let other people have an opinion without personally attacking them.
Posters like Simone are really making this a wonderful place to be around. But since you’ve decided that it’s not for me, I won’t see it. How’s that? They don’t need my money. Thanks for being insulting (you are still in the dark about the film and don’t understand the buzz now… you never will) and rude (Go see something else that is easier to grasp, when I was commenting on a trailer. At no point did I decide anything about the film based on it and you would think people who make trailers/advertisements might like the feedback but I guess not. I hope the film fails. Happy?
I’ve been at AD for so long, but the ‘better than you’ attitude of some posters is turning me against movies and actors for the first time because I’m getting freaking headaches from having to justify and fight over ever single comment. Let other people have an opinion without personally attacking them.
“‘Shame’ is very deep and it is for the artsy and mature film viewer.” – Simone
Not sure if I will like to belong to an “artsy” but that is neither here nor there. How do you know it is very deep if you don’t know what it is about? or should I base my opinions on what critics are saying and refuse to think for myself? I’m not saying Shame is a bad movie but why do people get so excited and make such verbose proclamations about a movie they know nothing about?
“‘Shame’ is very deep and it is for the artsy and mature film viewer.” – Simone
Not sure if I will like to belong to an “artsy” but that is neither here nor there. How do you know it is very deep if you don’t know what it is about? or should I base my opinions on what critics are saying and refuse to think for myself? I’m not saying Shame is a bad movie but why do people get so excited and make such verbose proclamations about a movie they know nothing about?
Antoinette and Deena Jones’, ‘Shame’ is not a film for you guys based on the inquiries you are making. As regulars here at AD, with all the chatter, plot synopsis’ reviews, and now trailers, you are still in the dark about the film and don’t understand the buzz now… you never will, and that’s ok. Go see something else that is easier to grasp by simply glancing at the advert. ‘Shame’ is very deep and it is for the artsy and mature film viewer.
Antoinette and Deena Jones’, ‘Shame’ is not a film for you guys based on the inquiries you are making. As regulars here at AD, with all the chatter, plot synopsis’ reviews, and now trailers, you are still in the dark about the film and don’t understand the buzz now… you never will, and that’s ok. Go see something else that is easier to grasp by simply glancing at the advert. ‘Shame’ is very deep and it is for the artsy and mature film viewer.
“I mean it’s like the trailers are for people who’ve already seen it. After all this time I have no idea what the plot is, if there is one. Okay he’s a sex pervert. What else? I’m not really asking because I hate spoilers but the trailers are extremely super vague to the point of almost being perfume ads.”
Exactly my reaction Antoinette, hence the question I posed earlier. What is the movie about? a sexaddict? ok! what’s going on with the sexual addict? I cannot understand this alleged “buzz” when the plot is elusive or is the elusive plot fanning the flames of this “buzz” or is this “buzz” really about the Fassbender sexual obsession and the fact that he is playing a sex addict? so many questions. Based solely on the trailers, I cannot deduce if Fassbender’s performance is anything out of the ordinary or if Mulligan pushes herself outside of the sad puppy fragile box. Clearly this is pandering to the artsy crowd but all I’m getting is an Dior hommes fragrance ad with Fassbender heaving and faux edgy lightning. Until my doubts are allayed, I will pass.
“I mean it’s like the trailers are for people who’ve already seen it. After all this time I have no idea what the plot is, if there is one. Okay he’s a sex pervert. What else? I’m not really asking because I hate spoilers but the trailers are extremely super vague to the point of almost being perfume ads.”
Exactly my reaction Antoinette, hence the question I posed earlier. What is the movie about? a sexaddict? ok! what’s going on with the sexual addict? I cannot understand this alleged “buzz” when the plot is elusive or is the elusive plot fanning the flames of this “buzz” or is this “buzz” really about the Fassbender sexual obsession and the fact that he is playing a sex addict? so many questions. Based solely on the trailers, I cannot deduce if Fassbender’s performance is anything out of the ordinary or if Mulligan pushes herself outside of the sad puppy fragile box. Clearly this is pandering to the artsy crowd but all I’m getting is an Dior hommes fragrance ad with Fassbender heaving and faux edgy lightning. Until my doubts are allayed, I will pass.
Okay. But trailers are supposed to be advertisements. Meaning getting butts in the seats. I didn’t get anything that you said from the trailers. I’m here, so I can ask and you can tell me that. But people who only see the trailer? I don’t know if that will motivate them to watch.
Okay. But trailers are supposed to be advertisements. Meaning getting butts in the seats. I didn’t get anything that you said from the trailers. I’m here, so I can ask and you can tell me that. But people who only see the trailer? I don’t know if that will motivate them to watch.
“Okay he’s a sex pervert. What else? I’m not really asking because I hate spoilers but the trailers are extremely super vague to the point of almost being perfume ads.”
Forget the sex, it’s ancillary. This is a movie about addiction. Think Requiem for a Dream, but an even more devastating character study. It’s almost a 2 man play, with Fassbender and Mulligan as the focus. Very intimate, sparsely worded, brilliantly acted.
And the trailers are works of art. If you’re looking for exposition, you ain’t gonna find it here.
“Okay he’s a sex pervert. What else? I’m not really asking because I hate spoilers but the trailers are extremely super vague to the point of almost being perfume ads.”
Forget the sex, it’s ancillary. This is a movie about addiction. Think Requiem for a Dream, but an even more devastating character study. It’s almost a 2 man play, with Fassbender and Mulligan as the focus. Very intimate, sparsely worded, brilliantly acted.
And the trailers are works of art. If you’re looking for exposition, you ain’t gonna find it here.
@Paddy I appreciate what you’re saying, but the fact of the matter is that the NYFCC had the first opportunity to show they can make bold choices. Second is not first. Shame was utterly and completely shut out of any of the possible awards. A film made in NY, a city that both Michael and Steve are quiet fond of and enjoy filming the movie there. And this is how the film is rewarded? With nothing.
And to lose to Brad Pitt? Please.
@Paddy I appreciate what you’re saying, but the fact of the matter is that the NYFCC had the first opportunity to show they can make bold choices. Second is not first. Shame was utterly and completely shut out of any of the possible awards. A film made in NY, a city that both Michael and Steve are quiet fond of and enjoy filming the movie there. And this is how the film is rewarded? With nothing.
And to lose to Brad Pitt? Please.
That purple hat is so not sexy.
I dunno these trailers aren’t doing anything for me. If it didn’t supposedly have all this buzz then I’m not sure I’d bother to watch it. I mean it’s like the trailers are for people who’ve already seen it. After all this time I have no idea what the plot is, if there is one. Okay he’s a sex pervert. What else? I’m not really asking because I hate spoilers but the trailers are extremely super vague to the point of almost being perfume ads.
That purple hat is so not sexy.
I dunno these trailers aren’t doing anything for me. If it didn’t supposedly have all this buzz then I’m not sure I’d bother to watch it. I mean it’s like the trailers are for people who’ve already seen it. After all this time I have no idea what the plot is, if there is one. Okay he’s a sex pervert. What else? I’m not really asking because I hate spoilers but the trailers are extremely super vague to the point of almost being perfume ads.
I’m surprised they didn’t use voiceover of the scene where he’s desperately trying to steal that biker’s girlfriend in the bar. THAT would have been SOOOOO NSFW.
I’m surprised they didn’t use voiceover of the scene where he’s desperately trying to steal that biker’s girlfriend in the bar. THAT would have been SOOOOO NSFW.
* quality
Aw fuck what am I like…?!?
* quality
Aw fuck what am I like…?!?
@ Simone
Not so fast. Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan both placed second in their respective categories, so the NYFCC were evidently clued in to the quality of the acting in this film, and most likely the quslity of the film too.
@ Simone
Not so fast. Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan both placed second in their respective categories, so the NYFCC were evidently clued in to the quality of the acting in this film, and most likely the quslity of the film too.
Deena, they are obsessing over this movie because it is a great piece of filmmaking. The best I have seen this year so far.
Deena, they are obsessing over this movie because it is a great piece of filmmaking. The best I have seen this year so far.
I hope to God Shame gets the recognition it deserves from other critic’s group. Today was a travesty.
I hope to God Shame gets the recognition it deserves from other critic’s group. Today was a travesty.
So are people obsessing about this movie because they are obsessed with Fassbender or is the buzz based strictly on good acting or both? It’s hard to tell.
So are people obsessing about this movie because they are obsessed with Fassbender or is the buzz based strictly on good acting or both? It’s hard to tell.
Michael Fassbender is so damn sexy.
Michael Fassbender is so damn sexy.
Jesus…you know a trailer is effective when you start to blush.
Jesus…you know a trailer is effective when you start to blush.