Tags for this video have been changed from 'Kevin Spacey, Christoph Waltz, Gary Oldman, Ben Kingsley, Mandy Pantikin' to 'Kevin Spacey, Christoph Waltz, Gary Oldman, Ben Kingsley, Mandy Patinkin' - edited by brycewi19

Fair warning, this video spoils the big plot twist.

I have to say, I actually really enjoyed that twist. I loved the fact that it was just fun. Ben Kingsley was awesome in it.

yeah, Ben Kingsley as the Mandarin is just....wrong. His accent is just....wrong too.

Hate to say it but 2 really wasn't that good so I'm not really expecting 3 to be that great.

That was actually my complaint about Iron Man 2....too many jokes. Tony Stark really isn't that much of a jokester. I don't mind the wisecracks, but there's a limit. So I don't mind that 3 will be a bit more serious. My main concern is going to be the Mandarin. I've just never got into the whole east vs west conflict between the two as that was mainly a throwback to the vietnam era and the early 80's. That and Ben Kingsley is clearly not chinese. The accent he uses in the trailer is just...weird

The problem with some of the non-cgi shots of the armor is that it's hard to fake that the suit is not metal. It's hard to fake that something is pretty heavy or unyielding when it actually isn't

>> ^moodonia:

He can play Gandhi and Don Logan. Now thats range!


And a stoner psychotherapist in The Wackness!

All I can say is, I never knew how flexible (& jaw-droppingly BRILLIANT) Ben Kingsley was as an actor 'till I saw him play Don Logan (NSFW)

^Upvoted^

ben kingsley was also in bloodrayne, dude.

I was right beside Ben Kingsley in Seattle for a few yards.

>> ^Deano:

I've seen Sexy Beast but what on earth is Ben Kingsley saying at 8:14?
"You're the problem - you're the fucking problem you fucking Dr. White (tampon) honking (big) jam rag (tampon) hunking (big) spunk bubble (condom)."

I've seen Sexy Beast but what on earth is Ben Kingsley saying at 8:14?

You can believe they would notice all you want - but when it comes to the difference between $1 billion in profits and $999,500,000 in profits I think most rational people would suggest it's a negligible amount. Obviously you are not among those people.

I will defend that the tax is nothing to those who pay it, and that it's billions for those that will benefit. It's no different form the tax I pay on the cup of coffee I buy - that is used to build roads and schools. In fact, the tax I pay on a cup of coffee is magnitudes bigger than this Robin Hood Tax. Some folks here in Canada scream 'Tyranny' and 'Big Government' at those taxes - and most people correctly identify those kooks for who they really are - zealots.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
Actually, I believe very strongly that they really would notice.

And don't tell me I'm the one playing semantics when the video goes on about how the tax is both virtually nothing and worth billions. The game is semantics, but I'm the one that's calling it out for that.

In reply to this comment by Throbbin:
I thought that aspect of it came through pretty clear. 0.05% in taxes is effectively nothing - it's harder to get less intrusive than that.

You play semantics when you know damn well the bankers would hardly notice.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
I'd prefer some honesty. You can't defend the tax on BOTH the fact it costs nothing AND that it will raise billions. Be honest and say it will take billions from the rich to give to the poor.


In reply to this comment by Throbbin:
Yes....hence the 'Robin Hood" theme. Robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Sounds like a completely legit idea to me.

Or would you prefer the poor rely on voluntary charity, seeing as how it has worked so well to date?

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
It costs nothing and it will raise billions!

Don't question it or think about it, just say it fast enough and it'll be true. Or, at least it will be true if the billions raised come out of somebody else's pockets, but truth like that doesn't sound as reasonable.

Actually, I believe very strongly that they really would notice.

And don't tell me I'm the one playing semantics when the video goes on about how the tax is both virtually nothing and worth billions. The game is semantics, but I'm the one that's calling it out for that.

In reply to this comment by Throbbin:
I thought that aspect of it came through pretty clear. 0.05% in taxes is effectively nothing - it's harder to get less intrusive than that.

You play semantics when you know damn well the bankers would hardly notice.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
I'd prefer some honesty. You can't defend the tax on BOTH the fact it costs nothing AND that it will raise billions. Be honest and say it will take billions from the rich to give to the poor.


In reply to this comment by Throbbin:
Yes....hence the 'Robin Hood" theme. Robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Sounds like a completely legit idea to me.

Or would you prefer the poor rely on voluntary charity, seeing as how it has worked so well to date?

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
It costs nothing and it will raise billions!

Don't question it or think about it, just say it fast enough and it'll be true. Or, at least it will be true if the billions raised come out of somebody else's pockets, but truth like that doesn't sound as reasonable.

I thought that aspect of it came through pretty clear. 0.05% in taxes is effectively nothing - it's harder to get less intrusive than that.

You play semantics when you know damn well the bankers would hardly notice.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
I'd prefer some honesty. You can't defend the tax on BOTH the fact it costs nothing AND that it will raise billions. Be honest and say it will take billions from the rich to give to the poor.


In reply to this comment by Throbbin:
Yes....hence the 'Robin Hood" theme. Robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Sounds like a completely legit idea to me.

Or would you prefer the poor rely on voluntary charity, seeing as how it has worked so well to date?

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
It costs nothing and it will raise billions!

Don't question it or think about it, just say it fast enough and it'll be true. Or, at least it will be true if the billions raised come out of somebody else's pockets, but truth like that doesn't sound as reasonable.

I'd prefer some honesty. You can't defend the tax on BOTH the fact it costs nothing AND that it will raise billions. Be honest and say it will take billions from the rich to give to the poor.


In reply to this comment by Throbbin:
Yes....hence the 'Robin Hood" theme. Robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Sounds like a completely legit idea to me.

Or would you prefer the poor rely on voluntary charity, seeing as how it has worked so well to date?

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
It costs nothing and it will raise billions!

Don't question it or think about it, just say it fast enough and it'll be true. Or, at least it will be true if the billions raised come out of somebody else's pockets, but truth like that doesn't sound as reasonable.

Yes....hence the 'Robin Hood" theme. Robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Sounds like a completely legit idea to me.

Or would you prefer the poor rely on voluntary charity, seeing as how it has worked so well to date?

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
It costs nothing and it will raise billions!

Don't question it or think about it, just say it fast enough and it'll be true. Or, at least it will be true if the billions raised come out of somebody else's pockets, but truth like that doesn't sound as reasonable.