|
19 Oct 08 - 05:21 PM (#2470214) Subject: BS: "W" From: Ed T Anyone see the movie "W"? Was it worth going to see? Did it change your mind on this fellow? |
|
19 Oct 08 - 05:49 PM (#2470227) Subject: RE: BS: W From: Alice I hope to see it as soon as it gets here. Was not playing at any of the theaters in town this weekend. |
|
19 Oct 08 - 07:04 PM (#2470295) Subject: RE: BS: W From: Cluin Oliver Stone's movies are good for one look, usually. But afterwards, you don't have much desire to see them again. Kinda like W himself. |
|
19 Oct 08 - 07:29 PM (#2470312) Subject: RE: BS: W From: McGrath of Harlow I gather there's a pretzel scene. |
|
19 Oct 08 - 08:26 PM (#2470338) Subject: RE: BS: W From: Ron Davies Supposedly it's not as much a hatchet job as a usual Oliver Stone creation would be. And the actor portraying GWB was dead serious about getting it right. However I can't imagine spending money to watch an Oliver Stone movie--unless your only goal is entertainment. Which might well fit this one perfectly. I just think the less we see of GWB--in any medium--the better. It's past time for him to leave the stage--for good. |
|
19 Oct 08 - 08:34 PM (#2470345) Subject: RE: BS: W From: John O'L A movie about him is the last thing I want to see. |
|
19 Oct 08 - 08:43 PM (#2470348) Subject: RE: BS: W From: Alice I've never been a fan of Oliver Stone, but the reviews I've seen of this movie intrigue me. |
|
19 Oct 08 - 11:16 PM (#2470414) Subject: RE: BS: W From: catspaw49 I hear it was pretty good right up to the part where Stone has Lee Harvey Oswald fly the 767 into the south tower where the CIA-paid mobsters planted squib charges 5 years before the WTC was built................ Spaw |
|
19 Oct 08 - 11:30 PM (#2470419) Subject: RE: BS: W From: Cluin Sure... ruin it for us. |
|
20 Oct 08 - 12:23 AM (#2470446) Subject: RE: BS: W From: Michael Harrison My wife and I saw it last night and just for the record we are both left-wingers (unfortunately not for the Red Wings) who just detest GWB; either of us will turn the volume down to "zero" on the t.v. or radio if he comes on as the sound of his voice is just the most sickening thing and cannot be tolerated; besides, he has nothing to say that either of us are interested in hearing except, "I quit." As for the film: a big let down for me and a moderate one for my wife. Why? Well, we were expecting more of a comedy and it is not a comedy; in fact, we're not sure what it really is. Sure, there were some funny bits, but it wasn't a ha-ha kind of film; then again, how could you make a comedy out of the life of GWB given what he has done for the last eight years? All the bit players were there - Condi, Rove, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, Tenet, Paul,...ah,...whats-his-name; but, most of them were not portrayed as I think they really are, so either I'm totally wrong about them or I don't understand what they were doing in the film. Without writing and writing and writing and writing I'd serve this thread best by saying go see for yourself, but know that it is not a comedy. To conclude: I thought that most of the "bit players," with the exception of Rice, were just not portrayed accurately enough and Bush was presented as exercising more authority than many people think he ever has - and I personally think that he is a moronic puppet for Rove and the neo-cons who are now running the GOP. My wife and I both agreed that the movie was surely one thing - an anti-war film, and that's in keeping with Stone's track record. The most significant thing for me, and the saddest, is that the movie broke me from even the slightest (and I've desperately held on to a tiny bit) hope that those who might govern us are cut from a slightly better cloth - it's bullshit! For me the movie was a slap in the face with the reality that the only thing we have to govern ourselves with is ourselves - and that's not very encouraging. One might feel a bit sorry for the pathetic GWB, but I agree with Donald Trump who told Wolf Blitzer that it is a crime that Pelosi and the democrat congress have not impeached Bush for war crimes. As one might imagine - my views are not widely held in Texas. Cheers,.........mwh |
|
20 Oct 08 - 12:32 AM (#2470455) Subject: RE: BS: W From: Alice Ah, then, I'll save my money. Thought it was a comedy. |
|
20 Oct 08 - 09:54 AM (#2470691) Subject: RE: BS: W From: Stilly River Sage Michael, you're not the only Texas resident with those views. I can't for the life of me figure why Stone would go to this much trouble to make a film about this guy now. What was he thinking? He must have passed that bottle of elixir he drank over to McCain and it influenced his VP choice. Just doesn't make a lot of sense in either case. SRS |
|
20 Oct 08 - 10:42 AM (#2470727) Subject: RE: BS: W From: Mr Happy http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=moutUEfqUQ4 |
|
20 Oct 08 - 12:15 PM (#2470834) Subject: RE: BS: W From: Goose Gander I saw it the other night . . . it was strangly symathetic to the Boy Emperor. But I've seen this movie before. Wait for the DVD release if you really need to see it. |
|
20 Oct 08 - 12:19 PM (#2470839) Subject: RE: BS: W From: Michael Harrison SRS - nice to know I'm not alone down here. Interesting and funny video link, Mr. Happy. I still find it so amazing that this buffoon made it to Washington and then was retained for a second term - both elections with controversy. I'm not sure what all that says about the American electorate, but it scares me to death to think that Palin will probably be back in four years spewing her filth again; of course, this time she'll be the captain of the vessel and will have to go through the primary process where, hopefully, she will be outed as another buffoon. There is, however, always hope, and to that I will cling. Cheers,.............mwh |
|
20 Oct 08 - 12:35 PM (#2470863) Subject: RE: BS: W From: Donuel this movie was made in about 38 days. |
|
20 Oct 08 - 12:52 PM (#2470884) Subject: RE: BS: W From: WFDU - Ron Olesko I heard that the sled is actually "rosebud". |
|
20 Oct 08 - 03:21 PM (#2471017) Subject: RE: BS: W From: Ed T The world is a tragedy to those who feel, but a comedy to those who think. Horace Walpole |
|
20 Oct 08 - 04:18 PM (#2471074) Subject: RE: BS: W From: Little Hawk I love virtually every movie Oliver Stone has made, so my guess is that I will probably enjoy this one. I think Oliver Stone makes movies about subjects that he finds meaningful and interesting enough to bother about, strictly from his point of view. Given that, he isn't necessarily aiming for wide commercial success or general acceptance, is he? Nor is he aiming to please any particular constituency that is out there. Fine with me. I find the subjects he chooses interesting too. |
|
20 Oct 08 - 04:24 PM (#2471081) Subject: RE: BS: W From: Stilly River Sage Michael, FW. You? Stone's films will be lumped as a "type" in future generations. He plays fast and loose with history, making himself an unreliable narrator. A trickster. SRS |
|
20 Oct 08 - 04:56 PM (#2471121) Subject: RE: BS: W From: Little Hawk Stone's films will probably not even be noticed by future generations. Haven't you noticed that the shelf life of popular culture and the public attention span is getting shorter and shorter with each passing decade? |
|
20 Oct 08 - 06:01 PM (#2471182) Subject: RE: BS: W From: Michael Harrison SRS - Yes, F.W., or as I affectionately call it: Hockeytown South. Ed T - maybe Walpole was right; so I pray AND watch Bill Maher. Cheers,..................mwh |
|
20 Oct 08 - 06:06 PM (#2471184) Subject: RE: BS: W From: Ed T Bill Maher interview of Oliver Stone http://rackjite.com/archives/2091-Bill-Maher-interviews-Oliver-Stone-and-new-movie-About-George-Bush,-W.html |
|
20 Oct 08 - 07:09 PM (#2471235) Subject: RE: BS: W From: Cluin Stone's films will probably occupy a similar shelf as that one occupied by "Reefer Madness" today. |
|
20 Oct 08 - 08:39 PM (#2471321) Subject: RE: BS: W From: Stilly River Sage That makes at least three of us here in the Fort Worth area, Michael. Wesley S is a little north of town. SRS |
|
20 Oct 08 - 10:42 PM (#2471404) Subject: RE: BS: W From: Little Hawk Stone's films are highly intelligent and raise interesting questions about human nature. Reefer madness was sheer, pointless idiocy from beginning to end. |
|
20 Oct 08 - 11:03 PM (#2471418) Subject: RE: BS: W From: Cluin Time will tell, Hawk. |
|
20 Oct 08 - 11:09 PM (#2471421) Subject: RE: BS: W From: Little Hawk Here's what Roger Ebert thinks about the movie... (he gives it 4 out of 4 stars) * * * * "by Roger Ebert Oliver Stone's "W.," a biography of President Bush, is fascinating. No other word for it. I became absorbed in its story of a poor little rich kid's alcoholic youth and torturous adulthood. This is the tragedy of a victim of the Peter Principle. Wounded by his father's disapproval and preference for his brother Jeb, the movie argues, George W. Bush rose and rose until he was finally powerful enough to stain his family's legacy. Unlike Stone's "JFK" and "Nixon," this film contains no revisionist history. Everything in it, including the scenes behind closed doors, is now pretty much familiar from tell-all books by former Bush aides, and reporting by such reporters as Bob Woodward. Though Stone and his writer, Stanley Weiser, could obviously not know exactly who said what and when, there's not a line of dialogue that sounds like malicious fiction. It's all pretty much as published accounts have prepared us for. The focus is always on Bush (Josh Brolin): His personality, his addiction, his insecurities, his unwavering faith in a mission from God, his yearning to prove himself, his inability to deal with those who advised him. Not surprisingly, in this film, most of the crucial decisions of his presidency were shaped and placed in his hands by the Machiavellian strategist Dick Cheney (Richard Dreyfuss) and the master politician Karl Rove (Toby Jones). Donald Rumsfeld (Scott Glenn) runs an exasperated third. But what made them tick? And what about Colin Powell (Jeffrey Wright) and Condoleezza Rice (Thandie Newton)? You won't find out here. The film sees Bush's insiders from the outside. In his presence, they tend to defer, to use tact as a shield from his ego and defensiveness. But Cheney's soft-spoken, absolutely confident opinions are generally taken as truth. And Bush accepts Rove as the man to teach him what to say and how to say it. He needs them and doesn't cross them. In the world according to "W.," Bush always fell short in the eyes of his patrician father (James Cromwell) and outspoken mother (Ellen Burstyn). He resented his parents' greater admiration for his younger brother Jeb. The film lacks scenes showing W. as a child, however -- probably wisely. It opens at a drunken fraternity initiation, and "Junior" is pretty much drunk until he finds Jesus at the age of 40. He runs through women, jobs and cars at an alarming speed, and receives one angry lecture after another from his dad. While running for Congress for the first time, he meets pretty Laura (Elizabeth Banks) at a party, and love blossoms. She was a Gene McCarthy volunteer. Did she turn conservative? I imagine so, but the movie doesn't show them discussing politics. She is patient, steadfast, loving, supportive and a prime candidate for Alanon, the 12-step program for spouses of alcoholics. After Bush quits cold turkey, the movie shows him nevertheless often with a beer at his hand, unaware of the ironic AA curse for someone you dislike: "One little drink won't kill you." [In an interview conducted after this review was posted online, Oliver Stone told me that Bush was not drinking real beer in the later scenes, but the non-alcoholic O'Doul's.] Dried out, Bush is finally able to hold down jobs. The movie is far from a chronological record, organizing episodes to observe the development of his personality, not his career. Even several spellbinding scenes about the runup to the Iraq war are not so much critical of his decisions as about how cluelessly, and yet with such vehemence, he stuck with them through thick and thin. At a top-level meeting where he is finally informed that there are no WMDs in Iraq and apparently never were, he is furious for not being informed of this earlier. Several people in the room tried to inform him, but were silenced. Colin Powell spends a lot of time softly urging caution and holding his tongue. There is no indication that he will eventually resign. The movie's Bush is exasperating to work with. At his Texas ranch, he takes the inner circle on a march through the blazing sun, misses a turn and assures them it's only a half-mile back. Cheney, after three heart attacks, and Rice, wearing inappropriate shoes, straggle along unhappily. His parents are apparently even more disturbed by his decision to run for governor of Texas than by his drinking. Cheney is lectured at a private lunch to remember who is president. He quietly forgets. Many of the actors somewhat resemble the people they play. The best is Dreyfuss as Cheney, who is not so much a double as an embodiment. The film's portrait of George Senior is sympathetic; it shows him giving Junior the cuff links that were "the only real thing" his own father, Sen. Prescott Bush, ever gave him. The name and the oedipal complex were passed down the family tree. One might feel sorry for George W. at the end of this film, were it not for his legacy of a fraudulent war and a collapsed economy. The film portrays him as incompetent to be president, and shaped by the puppet masters Cheney and Rove to their own ends. If there is a saving grace, it may be that Bush will never fully realize how badly he did. How can he blame himself? He was only following God's will. |
|
21 Oct 08 - 12:02 AM (#2471466) Subject: RE: BS: W From: Michael Harrison Well, that's why Roger Ebert does movie reviews and I don't. To tell the truth, I have held no knowledge of the Bush family's personal doings and inter-relations; and, though I did come away from the film wanting to feel sorry for GWB - my distate for him would not let me do it. The man is a murderer and a home-wrecker on a GRAND scale and I cannot forgive him for the deaths he has caused and the pain and suffering he has caused for so many, many people - certainly I speak of Americans, but Iraqi's and others, too. I do think Ebert said what I was sort of trying to say about the "bit players;" again, though, I don't think they acted as I would have expected them too. Dreyfuss looked a lot like Cheney, but I think that Cheney is the devil-incarnate and Dreyfuss wasn't surly and cold enough except during one scene that discussed Iraq and the taking over of the middle east. I wouldn't go see it again, but with Ebert expressing the "known" truths about GWB and the family, it certain puts it in a different light for me. Thanks for posting Ebert's review. Cheers,....mwh |
|
21 Oct 08 - 10:41 AM (#2471802) Subject: RE: BS: W From: Little Hawk Whether a person like Cheney is "a monster" is a little hard to say...but one thing is sure: these people are never monsters in their own eyes. To them, everything they do is rational, appropriate, and justified. They all think they are "the good guys". That's why the destructive actions of all people become ultimately tragic, and tragedy makes for great drama. If you cannot empathize with a tragic character (even an evil figure or a criminal) to at least some extent, it is because you lack the ability or the willingness to empathize. Your own anger won't let you. To empathize is not to sympathize or make excuses for. You can be entirely and deeply opposed to the policies and actions of a man like George W. Bush, and still understand how the demons of his own youth contributed to badly skewing his views of reality...and led him into making tragically bad decisions that ruined and destroyed many lives. If the movie succeeds in shedding some light on the workings of the inner George W. Bush, then the movie has done well. |