Oliver Stone's "W"

[dudalb]

Stone is also talking about remaking "Citizen Kane". And I am not joking.
His ego is totally out of control.

 

[Pardalis]

The casting looks pretty good though. It took me a while to recognize Josh Brolin.

 

[applecorped]

The casting looks pretty good though. It took me a while to recognize Josh Brolin.

Is that you in the avatar Pardalis?

 

[boloboffin]

Stone is also talking about remaking "Citizen Kane". And I am not joking.
His ego is totally out of control.

The joke is on you. That is from an article that was revealed at the end to be a hoax (all but the last film, which I believe was Rocky Horror).

 

[Pardalis]

Is that you in the avatar Pardalis?

No, it's Stanley Kubrick with a Coors Light.

 

[dudalb]

The joke is on you. That is from an article that was revealed at the end to be a hoax (all but the last film, which I believe was Rocky Horror).

OUch! I don't get taken very often, but I got took here.
But is says something about remake mania and Stone's ego that I was taken in.

 

[dudalb]

No, it's Stanley Kubrick with a Coors Light.

I thought Peter Jackson......

 

[applecorped]

Anyone looking forward to seeing this film?

 

[Oliver]

I thought Peter Jackson......

Anyone looking forward to seeing this film?

I do. It even may be aired in Cinemas in my area. If not, I will try
to watch it online.

 

[dudalb]

Nope, Have no interest.
I have a LOT more interest in Josh Brolin being cast as Jonah Hex.

 

[Snide]

I saw it and do not recommend it to people who follow American politics, liberal or conservative.

 

[dtugg]

I kind of want to see it, just to see what Oliver Stone says but I am not willing to give money to him given his penchant for making political movies based on outright falsehoods like JFK. I'll just wait to steal it via bittorrent, to my knowledge it isn't out there yet.

 

[tomwaits]

Roger Ebert seemed to think it was amazing, but I'm not a fan of the fact that they made this movie while he's still the president (and that it's Oliver Stone). Give it another decade so all the facts are in and we can gain some perspective.

 

[Snide]

Roger Ebert seemed to think it was amazing, but I'm not a fan of the fact that they made this movie while he's still the president (and that it's Oliver Stone). Give it another decade so all the facts are in and we can gain some perspective.

I'm amazed he would find it amazing.

For example :

The Condi Rice character, I couldn't tell if it was just a bad impersonation, an attempt at comedy, or just plain camp. The audience snickered when she spoke. Judging by Dreyfuss's excellent Cheney character, I can only assume it was meant to be serious. If so, it sucked.

Also, many of the quotes we know about (e.g., "Won't get fooled again") were presented as if they happened at different times and places. Not that that's critical, but it makes me wonder what else got moved around, and what facts are facts and what are not.

OK, not really a "spoiler," but just in case you didn't want to even read that much...

 

[tomwaits]

I'm amazed he would find it amazing.

For example :

The Condi Rice character, I couldn't tell if it was just a bad impersonation, an attempt at comedy, or just plain camp. The audience snickered when she spoke. Judging by Dreyfuss's excellent Cheney character, I can only assume it was meant to be serious. If so, it sucked.

Also, many of the quotes we know about (e.g., "Won't get fooled again") were presented as if they happened at different times and places. Not that that's critical, but it makes me wonder what else got moved around, and what facts are facts and what are not.

OK, not really a "spoiler," but just in case you didn't want to even read that much...

Ebert has kind of jumped the shark lately. Understandable, considering his fight with cancer. However, he can still occasionally put out a great review.

 

[gnome]

I think it deserves to be pointed out that Oliver Stone is not claiming this movie should be taken as a factual accounting of the Bush presidency.

 

[Cicero]

I think it deserves to be pointed out that Oliver Stone is not claiming this movie should be taken as a factual accounting of the Bush presidency.

Really? Stone places no such caveat on his fabrications in "Platoon" and "JFK."

 

[Snide]

I think it deserves to be pointed out that Oliver Stone is not claiming this movie should be taken as a factual accounting of the Bush presidency.

Yeah, and that's why I wondered what it was trying to be, then? Brolin didn't even deliver the "fooled again" line right, and it wasn't as funny as when Bush did it. So was it a poorly done comedy? Camp? Or was it just to say, "Here's how Bush basically looked to us who didn't like him for those of you who haven't been following things for the last, umm, ever."?

 

[DrBaltar]

I snuck in the theater during the last 15-20 mins of the movie out of curiosity. (Shoot me... Oliver Stone won't get my nickle).

The press conference at the end where one reporter asked Bush what his biggest mistake has been. I actually remember seeing that very same press conference, because Bush gave so few press conferences, and it was nothing like what was portrayed in the film. Sure, the press can ask the president tough questions, but in the real press conference I thought the press crossed the line and was incredibly disrespectful in front of the president of the United States. This minor detail was of course overlooked. Also, Bush did not stand there speechless and looking like a complete idiot like it showed in W. After that press conference, I'm not surprised that Bush rarely gave another one.

Also, did I miss something? Or did they actually not show that Saddam had been captured? Perhaps I missed it since the projector shut off for about 5 mins. (mysteriously, the same thing happened when I saw JFK... conspiracy??).

Then there's other films like Eagle Eye, which are thinly veiled attempts at criticism against wire-tapping, which the Bush administration approved.

Hollywood hears that the government has been wire-tapping. They attempt to show how bad an idea this is by creating a movie that shows that the government's purely fictional ultra powerful AI computer uses wire-tapping to track everything going on in the country, is able to control just about anything that's electric (like the Terminator in T3) and forces several people around the country to do its bidding... all in real time. None of this stuff is remotely possible.

Hollywood seems to be the self proclaimed voice of the left, and keeps coming out with left-wing trash in criticism of the Bush administration. If they showed historical moments as they actually happened, without casting idiots to play the part (like the ridiculous Condi Rice portrayal, or the Katherine Harris portrayal in Recount), or distorting the way events played out, leaving out the good things that were done, or wack-job conspiracy theories like the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by the evil Bush administration, or that Bush somehow caused hurricane Katrina to steer away from the rich areas of New Orleans and head for the poorer sections, then the left might be taken more seriously. Oh and don't forget Fahrenheit 911. Pure garbage.

 

[moon1969]

I am not because Oliver Stone just knows that controversy sells. Why should I waste my money on a movie that Oliver Stone made?