Is he natty?

Attached: 2019-01-26_01.34.55.jpg (1080x1080, 101K)

No look at the delts

Why does he not have good traps in these pics, but in this pic he does?.

Attached: 1548134611511.gif (700x291, 261K)

>transitions from a shredded beast to an eight year old beast because Nurse Ratchet changed the lighting
He is the definition of natty

I figured he was on gear because of his face. He went from looking like he was in his late 20s to looking like he's 45

it's called cg

yes

His felts are 100% natty

It's achievable natty, but he is not. It's not a difficult concept

Ahem, THEY are literally superhuman?

Yeah sure maybe after 3 years perfect lifting and diet everyday plus a few cycles.

The lower left pic is pure CGI. He never looks all that big in the actual movie (which is awful btw) except when he is very obviously digitally enhanced. That said, most of his apparent size comes from crossed arms, a deep V, and trap work.

God those thighs hngggggh.

>(which is awful btw)

Opinion discarded, faggot.

Bro the movie is utter garbage. I pulled my neck cringing at the first 2 minutes of dialogue, let alone the rest of it.

Stop cherrypicking for the sake of being trendy. The dialog was only slightly "cringe" like 3 times throughout the movie. It was an OK movie. Solid 7.5

trendy? Bro it was a fucking awful film that is bad for many reasons beyond the dialogue. Awful pacing, boring cinematography, flat acting, bizarre misuse of psychiatric terms/ideas, and next to no character development

>boring cinematography

Okay, so you didn't even see it then.

Lmao because the misuse of psychiatric terms really just ruins the entire experience for you huh?.
The only thing you can really criticise it for was being it disappointing, they should have had a more brutal fight.

A dutch angle and a few strange character perspective shots does not a good film make. The scene from unbreakable where they needlessly replicated the position of the camera behind the chairs--which, in the film, was the perspective of the child watching Bruce Willis and meant to que us in to this being a movie about fatherhood--was replicated just for the "UH YA LIKE THE OTHER MOVIE, REMEMBER>" factor

It doesn't ruin it, but it breaks disbelief. A "cloudy section in the brain"?

Those gopro shots were cool af. M.night upped his game better than usual this time with the cinematography.

they stood out, yes, but there were a few that were really botched. It's like he didn't figure out to use a go-pro until the end

i couldn't get through the whole thing, i remember watching this shit years ago at a friends house, it was so poorly done and the acting from him was just awful it made me never want to see his face again.

Just give up lol. Why do want to grasp at straws to criticise a relatively entertaining film?. It's like you guys didn't actually form your own opinions and are just copying the reviewers to feel smart, hmm.

I'll bet you liked Aquaman.

No, I thought it was bad. But I'm willing to say that the cinematography in it was pretty cool, unlike you, the bandwagoning sheep.

I said achievable, not that it'd be easy. There's no fucking way he did it natty though.

In-lore? no.
The actor? Probably not, but the bottom left looks faked as fuck and the rest isn't at all unusual looking.

Why are you so stupid?, he's dyel and what he has is achievable in like 6 months of lifting correctly.

In OPs pic he seems to be flexing his lats which makes traps to look smaller. Try it yourself in the mirror and you'll see what I'm talking about

This movie was really fun

torso angle+flex

Pump + makeup + CGI. They tried to make the Beast look, well, beastly.