Posted on 03/10/2017 7:07:54 AM PST by TigerClaws
I only want to see the segment when Hillary found out she lost. If accurate, it should show one great temper tantrum.
This was the most historical election in history. i expect movies and tv miniseries for a long time to come. It is what it is.
I thought “Truth”, although obviously slanted toward making you empathetic to the characters, actually did a fair job of showing the kind of subjective delusion that journalists often operate under.
Overall, not a good film though. It was “Insider” wannabe film but failed
More frightening than the first twenty minutes of Saving Private Ryan.
I expect it will be more Joan of Arc style, with St. Hillary on the road to saving the nation, only to be struck down by the eeeeeeeevil Donald Trump.
It was called “Bosom Buddies.”
Funny but true, That is the LAST Television Show I have watched. I decided that TV was officially dead and on the way downhill fast. Boy was I right.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3035359/Hollywood-stars-shine-Hillary-Spielberg-Clooney-Streisand-Hanks-female-U-S-president.html
His "support" position comes from an interview where he said that "America is a resilient country and we'll be fine (or words to that effect)," and I also remember him doing more for Hillary than Trump.
He's still a snake
I don’t get HBO. One less subscription to cancel.
The name of the show will be.....RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA!!!!!!!
It’s the beatification of Hillary and democrats in general. I can see the camera panning away from Hillary in a still shot at the end as she smiles and waves and leaves us all thinking about what could have been. UGH!
Pointless.
No actor could capture Trump’s magnetism or the soulless evil behind Hillary’s eyes. And if we want to re-live the election - it’s all there on YouTube. Every debate. Every rally. Every network’s wall-to-wall coverage of election night. Why do we need a bunch of Hollywood leftists to offer an alternate reality?
There is an interesting review of game change by roger ebert:
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/game-change
basically, ebert wrote that it is a good movie, and surprisingly sympathetic to mccain, but that palin was portrayed as unqualified for the VP slot by way of lack of policy experience at the national level.
i do not know hanks’ deep political background. however, he does seem to have a bit of a penchant for avoiding overtly PC films. A Band of Brothers was IMHO good. I thought Scully was rather good (I waited until i could rent it). Finally Hanks is at a point in his career where he is viewed as being unable to do any wrong. If anyone could make a politically incorrect film about Trump in today’s Hollywood, it would require someone of Hanks’ stature to pull it off.
Frankly yes, he is, and that’s that.
Hopefully they include the facts, Hillary ran the worst election and she was unlikeable and had no message other than hate.
Here we go again. More Hollowoodie idiocy. Hankie needs to call his sob story, “Poor Hillary”.
I could thumbnail the plot here... but then again, so could any other FReeper.
Spoiler alert:
Bad guys: Putin & Trump
Good gals: Hillary & Huma
Why? So they can remind us that the hildabeast won the popular vote in kalifornia?
Steven Spielberg calling puppet Hanks! Steven Spielberg calling puppet Hanks!
The globalist cabal will never stop using ANY POSSIBLE mechanism to denigrate Trump, make excuses for their own twisted philosophies and attack conservatives and mainstream America.
Go to hell Steven Spielberg and take Tom Hanks with you.
A historical narrative that to the best of my knowledge we currently lack is something like “the making of the president, 2016.”
especially (perhaps) the final hours, in which each candidate hunkered down in their respective bunker with their families and trusted advisors, and awaited the results.
what would be a hoot is if the movie were to be made as authentically and as true to history as possible— including the complete backstory of pizzagate, a complete accounting of the actions of the last few days including such details as the cancellation of the the fireworks by hillary campaign, and hillary’s notorious temper tantrum at the private campaign victory celebration in which the saudi-bought big screen TV ends up destroyed and plates end up embedded in hotel room walls.
i’m not seeing much of a path to portraying hillary in a good light if the movie sticks to the historical facts.
people again can go look at scully. it seems to be a very authentic rendering and portrays the main protagonists in a very positive light. it is really a celebration of what gets done right (in the end) in the USA, but not without struggle to overcome odds. IOW if Hanks does for Trump what he and Eastwood did for Scully, it should be a good movie IMO.
As for his early and allegedly flawed work, I think it is not uncommon for new actors to have to pay their dues by taking bad roles when they first start out in Hollywood. The better actors eventually overcome the bad roles and become known for their later and much better work. I don’t think anyone argues that Hanks is a bad actor or has bad taste in choosing what projects to take once people developed a real appreciation for him as an actor. He probably has a better track record of choosing good films than many if not most hollywood actors. He’s probably in the henry fonda / clint eastwood league or approaching that (or I would at least imagine so).
Ohhh boyyyy. Will Babs play Darth Hillary? Clooney as Podesta ? Alec Baldwin as Bill? Chelsea as herself?
So much for Hanks’ future paying audiences.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.