OlderBrad Shoots Softbank — Take Three!
Brad’s back!!
After dropping the kids off at school in the morning, Brad Pitt was back on the set of Softbank, a Japanese telecommunications company, in Prague, Czech Republic.
The father-of-four filmed the third segment of a commercial for Softbank’s latest cell phone model dressed in a snappy white suit. (The first segment was a gray suit and the second segment was a black suit.)
The scene of the commercial involved everyone dressed in white playing soccer — nuns, body builders, and a large group of children. It doesn’t look like a typical soccer match since Brad is touching the soccer ball with his hands but he does get more and more involved as the commercial goes on. In the pictures, you can also see lots of white buttondown shirts hanging from clotheslines.
Shoud be an interesting cell phone commercial… 10+ pictures inside…
Share This Post:
574 Comments
angelina is very lucky….@@
#40: other stars should be more like the Becks, the Douglases and the Cruises. Re Posh, they said she was rude and mean to her crew. She got an apology and a settlement to boot. If they keep suing, others would not hesitate to follow suit (plus it’s free publicity). The tabs will be more careful and might even do research instead of relying on blogs for gossip or news.
Brittany Murphy was able to get a clearing up and an apology from a blind item that TC posted. He got egg in the face for that one.
Same with non-fans that come to JJ’s just to spread their slime. We should start forwarding their nasty items to TPTB so they can get a heads up early. Don’t have JJ just delete it, copy it and save for a rainy day.
nice photos. brad’s hottt..very hotttttttt…..
I love to see them again in the movie & commercial together & why not with their 4 bundle of joy? That will be soooo nice.
hotttttt
Everybody can look good in black somehow, someway but white…. You have to be Brad to look so good in white.
i hope he retires with his mate and I never have to see their aging ugly faces ever again.
16 Frenchy
=========
THANKS for postig this info!! The film A Mighty Heart is doing and will continue to be doing GREAT for a indie film!! But the haters are trying to convince themselves the opposite; because they think Angelina “stole” this role from their idol!! And all of this… is thanks to Maniston for NOT denying this rumor!! This is one of the many many many reasons i don’t like her!!
awesome pics..
nice pics!!
lol @ 81, it’s obvious that you seek for their ugly faces coz you’re here! no dur:roll:
Nice man. And sexy too.
#82: Just keep posting that pic of the X with the curls and let her fans see what their idol would look like as MP. Someone should photoshop her face with the wig, the big tummy and the complete costume so they’ll have a better perspective. That should shut them up quick!
why, oh why didn’t PH do that before? He’d get so many hits and maybe even get on TV for that one!
82 Me
———–
But you are here on their thread, take time out posting…..interesting indeed.
Oh, thanks to Peaches and good grief for the replies. I asked because I thought that’s what they showed on the Reelzchannel or was it E! when they showed Matt in his Bourne movie. Wasn’t paying too much attention, sorry.
Thanks Jared! You are totally spoiling us, but I’m just loving it.
Brad can be so boyishly sexy, as in these ads, and then he can be so ruggedly sexy, as in those pixs in the hard hat and jeans when he was helping out Jimmy Carter in India…..better wipe the drool off my face here.
hot
37 Frenchy | 06/26/2007 at 4:43 pm
———-
thanks for the excerpts Frenchy!
69 sharon | 06/26/2007 at 6:06 pm
———————
very handsome but Angie left me in awe the most!
‘WSJ’ Editors Call ‘A Mighty Heart’ Fair and Accurate
Marcus Brauchli
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003601970
By Joe Strupp
Published: June 21, 2007 11:40 AM ET
NEW YORK Two top Wall Street Journal editors said “A Mighty Heart,” the new film that depicts the brutal kidnapping and murder of Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, gives a fair and accurate portrayal of the paper. The film, starring Angelina Jolie as Pearl’s wife, Mariane, opens nationwide on Friday.
“It was an accurate portrayal of the Journal and I think the Journal’s people, like [then-foreign editor] John Bussey, who were deeply involved came off well as they should have,” said former managing editor Paul Steiger, who said he saw the movie recently in a private showing for Journal staffers. “I think Angelina Jolie captured Mariane very, very well.”
Steiger, who stepped down from the managing editor post last month after 16 years, was among those editors closely involved in the effort to find and free Pearl after his 2002 kidnapping in Pakistan. Pearl was later beheaded by kidnappers. Mariane Pearl, at the time, offered much praise, and some criticism, of the Journal’s performance.
“I think the Journal comes off very well in the movie, I don’t recall any negatives,” Steiger added. Managing Editor Marcus Brauchli, who took over for Steiger and was national editor at the time of Pearl’s death, also believed the film was fair. “I don’t feel that the Journal was portrayed badly in the film,” he said. “I think we were treated reasonably. Angelina Jolie did a good job of channeling Mariane.”
A former foreign correspondent who worked in the Middle East, Brauchli added that the film “is very evocative of Pakistan, the place and the time.”
An October 21, 2003 article in The Washington Post included the following passage, referring to Mariane Pearl: “As she sees it, the Journal has moved on, neglecting to pursue a journalistic investigation into the murders. During the trial of Saeed and three accomplices, the Journal did not send a representative to court. Mariane, nine months pregnant, attended, against the Journal’s advice. The trial was held in a prison.
“Brigitte Trafford, the Journal’s spokeswoman, says management was strongly advised by the consulate in Pakistan to keep a low profile during the trials to avoid the appearance that a powerful Western media outlet was prosecuting the case. Instead, she says, the Journal gave Mariane $10,000 toward legal fees. The lawyer she’d hired, a Pakistani national, charged $70,000.
“’They told me to trust the Pakistani justice system,’ Mariane says of the Journal. ‘That’s a joke. I was basically left alone [by the Journal]. The first worry was, How are we going to spend as little money as possible? … Danny was so loyal to them. … It was pretty vulgar. And I’m not a venal person.”
Byron Calame, a former 40-year Journal reporter and editor who served as deputy managing editor during the Pearl kidnapping, said he is not in a hurry to see the film because of the bad memories it brings back. “It is such a sad thing for me. My main job at the time was as liaison with his parents,” Calame, who recently left a job as New York Times public editor, said. “I consider it one of the most trying times of my life. I am leaning toward the idea that I don’t want to see it because it is so painful.”
Steiger also recalled the painful elements of the tragedy. “We had a reporter who was a terrific person, kidnapped and brutally murdered. It is a thing that years later we still mourn,” he said. “The Journal did all it could before and after, but it wasn’t enough to save Danny’s life.
“I have a mix of memories,” Steiger added. “Pride in Danny’s professionalism and courage and deep sadness at his death. It’s an emotional thing and always will be.”
Although he is not portrayed in the movie, Steiger said he talked several times with Michael Winterbottom, the writer/director, about the story, but called it “very limited…We talked to them about filming at the paper, but in the end, they decided to do it somewhere else.”
Riddle me this:
A woman promotes a product and is called a has been .
A man promotes a product and is called a wonderful hunk.
Another woman promotes a product and is called a saint.
Tell me. What is the difference between all of these people when it comes to people specifically insulting one when they put their name for a product? By the way, two of these people’s ads only show up in foreign countries. While one has the, audacity(is that what it should be called?) to do it in the U.S.A.
Please no hate. It was an innocent question. And, if you have any qualities in argument, completely irrefutable. At least, when it comes to real argument without emotion. Besides, I will not return.
P.S. All this hatred over movie stars. No wonder there is no way for the U.S. to have peace with the rest of the world.
http://journalism.about.com/od/journalismonfilm/gr/mightyheart.htm
“A Mighty Heart” (2007)
From Bridget Johnson,
Your Guide to Journalism.
Guide Rating -
5/5
The Bottom Line
“A Mighty Heart,” starring Angelina Jolie, adapts the memoir of Mariane Pearl, whose husband, Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, was kidnapped and savagely murdered by terrorists in Pakistan in 2002. While taking viewers through the heart-wrenching period from abduction to Pearl’s death, the movie also shows how Mariane, also a journalist, came to terms with her husband’s horrific death and refused to be overcome by bitterness.
Pros
Moving and powerful
Accurate in its details of the Pearl case
Realistic portrayals of all journalist characters
Fantastic performances
Great edge-of-your-seat direction and cinematography
Cons
Those unfamiliar with the story may get lost
Some may find it difficult to keep up with the film’s frenetic pace
Description
Rated R
Running time: 100 minutes
Based on Mariane Pearl’s book “A Mighty Heart: The Brave Life and Death of my Husband, Danny Pearl”
Directed by Michael Winterbottom
Production team includes Brad Pitt
Guide Review - “A Mighty Heart” (2007)
Both sides of the political aisle can — and have — gone into “A Mighty Heart” searching for elements that will prop up their preconceived viewpoints on terrorism. But as a journalist, one can only emerge from this film all-too-aware of the escalating dangers faced by our profession around the globe, as reporters are considered fair targets by those with a broad hatred of the West.
One of the most convincing scenes in “Heart” is near the beginning, when Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl (played by Dan Futterman), in Pakistan with his pregnant wife Mariane (also a journalist; played by Angelina Jolie), visits U.S. diplomatic security agent Randall Bennett (played by Will Patton) to ask whether his upcoming meeting with a shadowy contact is a wise idea. Pearl, we learn, is investigating links to “shoe bomber” Richard Reid, and he’s given the advice that most journalists have long believed: If you meet your contact in a public place, things should be OK.
They weren’t for Pearl, of course. He disappears into a car, and doesn’t show up for dinner that evening. Thus starts the frantic search for the reporter, and a balance of raw emotion and a journalist’s characteristic focused drive from Mariane. She and an Indian writers begin by plowing through Pearl’s e-mails, charting his contacts and the tangled web of their contacts on a write-wipe board.
Later in the movie, Pearl’s editor John Bussey (played by Denis O’Hare) arrives, giving one of the most raw and real journalist portrayals in the film as he vascillates from uncertainty to leadership to reading Mariane’s baby-advice book. When the team of journalists sees Pearl’s beheading video, it’s as real as it gets. (The WSJ said after the film’s release that it portrayed the newspaper fairly.)
82 Me | 06/26/2007 at 6:22 pm
i hope he retires with his mate and I never have to see their aging ugly faces ever again.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then why are you torturing yourself coming to a blog that post their pictures???? You must be RETARDED!!!
Go and watch AMH. It is the first movie with Oscar Buzz this year. Let’s keep a good thing going.
http://www.forward.com/articles/11005/
Wed. Jun 20, 2007
Just Who Was Daniel Pearl?
New Film Raises Questions of Man vs. Myth
Gabriel Sanders | Wed. Jun 20, 2007
Asra Nomani should have loved “A Mighty Heart,” the new feature film about journalist Daniel Pearl’s abduction and murder in Pakistan five years ago.
Pearl’s onetime Wall Street Journal colleague was, after all, a consultant on the film and a central player in the story itself. It was her Karachi home that became the headquarters for the weeks-long search that forms the movie’s spine. But despite the fact that Nomani was given a say about a host of small details — right down to the kind of notebooks the film’s reporters used as props — the final product didn’t sit well with her.
“I just don’t believe in the movie and the mythology of its marketing and PR campaign,” she wrote to one of the producers. (Her e-mail was later reprinted on the Web site Gawker.com.) “As much as the talking points say that this movie is for Danny and that everyone made the movie for the right reasons, I don’t at all feel that it is for Danny or that noble intentions underl[ie] this movie.”
With A-list director Michael Winterbottom at its helm, and mega-watt star Angelina Jolie playing the role of Pearl’s six-months-pregnant wife, Mariane, “A Mighty Heart” is easily the biggest Pearl tribute to date, but it is hardly the first. In the years since Pearl was slain, countless awards, fellowships, lectures, dialogues and even musical compositions have been named for him — all, ostensibly, dedicated to furthering his legacy; all, presumably, “for Danny.” In the process, Pearl, like Alfred Dreyfus before him, has become a Jew who, because of a peculiar intersection of history and biography, has been transformed into something larger than himself: the stuff of myth, an icon. He has become infinitely meaningful — indeed, capable of representing conflicting meanings. He has been invoked as an ambassador of peace and a justification for war, a proud Jew and a humanist who saw beyond religious particularism, an ordinary man and a holy martyr. (In an unprecedented move, the Miami Holocaust Memorial recently added Pearl’s name to the 30,000 etched on its memorial wall — the first non-victim of the Shoah to be so remembered.)
Can a single person’s memory bear the weight of so much significance?
Those who knew Pearl have responded to his growing legacy in varying ways. For Nomani, the chasm between Pearl the man and Pearl the myth has become too great. For Mariane Pearl, whose memoir served as the basis for the new film, her husband’s memory is something that needs to be guarded against undue sanctification. And for Pearl’s father, Judea, arguably the chief custodian of his son’s legacy, the Daniel he knew and the Daniel of myth are, more often than not, of a piece.
Initially, Mariane Pearl did not want her book turned into a movie. “I just didn’t think it was right,” she recently told Newsweek. She worried that her husband would be made into “a saint.” In interviews, Mariane Pearl, herself a journalist, eschews the language of myth; she doesn’t speak of her husband’s “legacy.” “To me,” she told Newsweek, the film is “a story about Danny being held by extremely intolerant people, and yet we, in that house in Pakistan — Christian, Hindu, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim — came together to find him.”
In her book, too, Mariane Pearl’s focus is on the concrete. Her husband emerges not as larger than life but as flesh and blood. “Danny goes to the most unexpected hairstylists,” she writes, poignantly using the present tense. “The more picturesque the barbershop, the happier Danny is. Most of the time the barbers don’t speak English, but this way one is always assured of a surprising result. This is Danny’s way of facing the world: with trust.”
Mariane Pearl’s approach to her husband’s memory has, in subtle but unmistakable ways, been different from that of Pearl’s parents. In addition to her memoir, she wrote the preface to a collection of his Wall Street Journal articles. Pearl’s parents, meanwhile, released the anthology “I am Jewish,” reflections on Pearl’s last words by a Who’s Who of the Jewish world, and began a foundation “to promote cross-cultural understanding through journalism, music, and innovative communications.”
Reached by phone at home in Los Angeles, Judea Pearl spoke with the Forward about his son’s legacy and some of its seeming paradoxes, beginning with the tension between Daniel the man of peace and Daniel as justification for war.
“He was a bridge builder,” said Pearl, a professor of computer science at UCLA, “who has become an instrument of indictment against radical Islam. It’s not unreasonable that a person who would devote his life to building bridges will become an indictment when his death is perceived to be a betrayal of what he stood for.”
Asked if there was a tension between Daniel the bridge builder and Daniel the Jew, Pearl demurred.
“Universal humanity emanates from personal empathy,” said Pearl, who was born in Tel Aviv in 1936. “Tribalism is stepping stone to universal understanding.”
Unlike Nomani and Mariane, Judea Pearl is comfortable with the language of myth. Indeed, he said, the mythology that has come to envelop his son has only helped bring him more clearly into view.
“The more I go through this, the more I see he was really a great man,” Pearl said. “I’m learning through imagining his reactions. I don’t understand how I missed it in his life. I should have spent more time with him. I should have used him more. I should have learned from him more. The mythology still hasn’t grasped what he really was.”
Real face of Asra Nomani
By Maqbool Arshad
http://www.fact.com.pk/archives/oct05/feng/asra.htm
Please stop promoting Asra. We can post all the positive reviews, why do we like controversy? This movie promotes a very important message, that’s what we need to read about.
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 … 23 » Show All
Comment and Share!
E-mail to a Friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and more!