‘Frost/Nixon’ poster

Posted by · 7:12 pm · September 17th, 2008

Universal Pictures' Frost/Nixon

I guess it’s alright.  Sort of reminds us of the stage production’s materials.  Sadly there isn’t a larger version available yet.

Remember to check the latest on “Frost/Nixon” here.

(Courtesy: Entertainment Weekly)

→ 15 Comments Tags: | Filed in: Daily

15 responses so far

  • 1 9-17-2008 at 7:16 pm

    Casey said...

    i actually like this. despite taking the face and a half method we’ve seen so many times, i like the look of it. almost a throwback to the look of tv in the stories contemporary 70s. also glad they gave Frost the “spotlight” i guess. in the trailer it looked like frost was the lead and nixon looked a little bit like a supporting character. lets see if that the way the studio pushes

  • 2 9-17-2008 at 7:27 pm

    JAB said...

    Am I alone in thinking Sheen looks a little silly? Or more than a little silly?

  • 3 9-17-2008 at 8:03 pm

    The Z said...

    It’s the faces again… Looks like we’ve got two more nominees in place. ; )

  • 4 9-17-2008 at 9:06 pm

    Chad said...

    I’m with JAB. Sheen looks like he’s on the poster for “Critters 4” or “Monkey Shines” in the 80’s.

  • 5 9-18-2008 at 1:20 am

    Guy Lodge said...

    I think this is awful. The whole thing — typeface, lighting, colour scheme — is weirdly 1980s.

  • 6 9-18-2008 at 3:00 am

    Jonathan Spuij said...

    It’s a wholly 70s/80s style poster and Sheen really looks possessed in it. Makes for a great bargain bin dvd-c0ver though :D.

  • 7 9-18-2008 at 8:17 am

    mike said...

    Sheen looks out of place, something doesn’t seem right.

  • 8 9-18-2008 at 10:00 am

    Marvin said...

    Bad poster.

  • 9 9-18-2008 at 12:27 pm

    Ben said...

    I actually think its okay. Though one thing I find interesting is that in earlier UK material and on the trailer’s credits Sheen is billed first while Langella is billed first here, maybe they switched the order of billing for different countries based on who was more well known in each.

  • 10 9-18-2008 at 2:56 pm

    AJ said...

    400 million people were waiting for the truth? What? Who?! I’m so confused

  • 11 9-18-2008 at 4:33 pm

    Guy Lodge said...

    Ever heard of a little thing called Watergate, AJ?

    Seriously, the poster’s not at fault there. Do some research.

  • 12 9-18-2008 at 6:27 pm

    Liz said...

    I think AJ might be referring to the number, since it’s obviously not the population of the U.S. at that point in time, nor was it the population of the world. The populations of U.S. and the U.K. combined?

    I know what Watergate is, but the number seems a little random.

  • 13 9-18-2008 at 6:33 pm

    Liz said...

    No, the combined population can’t be right, which I probably should have realized at the time. The number of people who watched the interview? Seems awfully high. Am I missing something obvious?

  • 14 9-19-2008 at 5:37 pm

    JAB said...

    I saw the trailer for this yesterday….I am very excited.

  • 15 9-20-2008 at 12:33 am

    Guy Lodge said...

    Liz: the number refers to the worldwide TV audience. (Interest would have extended far beyond the US and the UK, after all.) The figure is mentioned in the play, and I assume in the film too.