quade 4 #1 October 18, 2008 W. Told in flashbacks and extreme close-ups of the title character eating, W. is much like its topic, that is to say, it had potential it never lived up to. George W. Bush, played by Josh Brolin, is a goofy party boy that never quite can please his father, George H. W. Bush, played by James Cromwell. The elder Bush is played sternly and respectfully as a man who is concerned with the legacy of his family and his son’s places within it. He actually should be quite pleased with the portrayal. Other people that should be pleased are; Dick Cheney (Richard Dreyfuss), Donald Rumsfeld (Scott Glenn) and Paul Wolfowitz (Dennis Boutsikaris) as they are only vaguely implicated in the reasons and ultimate failure of the the invasion of Iraq. Only briefly is the concept of domination of the oil markets brought up and even then only by Cheney. Nowhere is mentioned the Project for a New Century, to which they all belonged and had pushed for an Iraq invasion before the younger Bush even came to office. Karl Rove, brilliantly played for the few moments we see him by Toby Jones, comes off simply as a man with a lot of focus group data to steer Bush into the White House. Exceptionally “vindicated” is Colin Powell, played well by Jeffrey Wright. Unfairly and unflatteringly caricatured is Condoleeza Rice, played by Thandie Newton. I have no idea whatsoever where she came up with that voice and I find it a difficult thing to watch and listen to. Most of the dialog is taken out of context from the younger Bush’s speeches and then placed in fictionalized scenes as if that is the source. Historical video archives easily debunks most of that so I find that an “interesting” choice by writer Stanley Weisner. There was simply no need to do that when the actual context of the words themselves would have been just as damning and, well, accurate! Essentially, when you have a well of misspoken words as deep as the well the younger Bush has left us on video tape, I really don’t see the point of “inventing” scenes into which to insert them. If you’re a political junkie, I think you almost have to see it. How could you not? On the other hand, if you’re not a political junkie, there is no point whatsoever in seeing it. None. Oh, BTW, it's NOT a comedy. I realize that it might be marketed that way, but there's nothing comical about it. It's kinda sad really.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #2 October 19, 2008 Another Oliver Stone foray into fiction based around fact?Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #3 October 19, 2008 Quote Another Oliver Stone foray into fiction based around fact? Why is that different from any other "factual" movie? I recently watched The Other Boleyn Girl, apparently about Anne Boleyn and her sister (and family, and Henry VIII). At the end came the disclaimer that any resemblance to any person living or dead was purely coincidental. And then there are those Hollywood movies about WWII!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #4 October 19, 2008 You see? That's the whole problem with Iraq becoming another Vietnam... We all have to endure another two decades of rubbish films. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #5 October 19, 2008 QuoteAnother Oliver Stone foray into fiction based around fact? Well, I don't quite see it that way. Again, I blame the writer a hell of a lot more than Stone. Although Stone does seem to like scripts that are based on a slightly different perspective and point of view than what is normally thought of. If you look at JFK . . . really . . . how many people have heard the JFK story told from the point of view of Jim Garrison and Clay Shaw before? My guess is very few. So in that sense, it does make a good choice. W. seems to be written from the semi-drunken and then overly confused point of view of the title character that never quite understands what was actually going on around him. I think it's also a fair choice to make, just not executed particularly well.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #6 February 25, 2009 Just watched it, Enjoyed it. Can't say I loved it but it is good to see that the bullshit the Bush admin (Jr. and Snr.) fed the american people was addressed. oil and votes. the poor Iraqi people had thier lives turned upside down because of Oil and votes. It was a movie but it was also a very loud statement. Fuck he was a yobbo. a sad sad yobbo."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #7 February 25, 2009 The film was trashy crap. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #8 February 25, 2009 Quote The film was trashy crap...... ......because you are a republican? ......because it was all bullshit? ......because the acting was bad? ......because it skewed the truth? come on man, if you are going to throw statements out there like that, how about substanciating them? otherwise you post is a trashy piece of crap! "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #9 February 25, 2009 QuoteThe film was trashy crap. I thought the film tried too hard to foster sympathy for Jr. In my opinion, he doesn't deserve it. I heard on the drive to work this morning that he's hitting the public speaking tour. Could there be a less likely job for him? This would seem to disprove the Peter Principle. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #10 February 25, 2009 Oil and votes. Really? Go ahead and google the oil import records from Iraq over the last ten or fifteen years. When you're done with that, look up who is in control of Washington. I don't think the votes argument is too solid. I'm glad you enjoyed the Hollywood version of what happened. I don't suggest basing your political or world opinions on what you see at Blockbuster. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #11 February 25, 2009 QuoteOil and votes. Really? Make no mistake about it, the Bush family, going all the way back to Prescot, has been intimately tied into Saudi oil and if being a politician is about anything, it's about votes. So, I don't see how it's possible to separate the two. That said, I don't think that is specifically what the movie is about, certainly not from a story perspective. The STORY is about a kid that likes to party and have a good time, doesn't quite live up to his father's expectations, is found by a guy (Rove) that thinks he's likable enough to get elected to small office, but then has higher aspirations to win the approval of dad. Unfortunately for him (and us) he's a bit of a dope that is easily manipulated by others and never quite understands the power he thinks he has. THAT is what the story in the film is regardless of it's factual nature.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #12 February 25, 2009 Quote Go ahead and google the oil import records from Iraq over the last ten or fifteen years. You are right, there is fuck all oil in Iraq and none of it has been used by you in your car. "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #13 February 25, 2009 Quote Quote The film was trashy crap...... ......because you are a republican? ......because it was all bullshit? ......because the acting was bad? ......because it skewed the truth? come on man, if you are going to throw statements out there like that, how about substanciating them? otherwise you post is a trashy piece of crap! Gez, dude, relax. Don't soil your BVD's. It was clearly intended as a smear film against GWB, and not as ay kind of biography. An example is showing W eating several times while talking with food dripping out of his mouth Another example is that they entirely ignored his military service. Then there's the way they covered the WMD/Iraq war stuff; I really doubt it happened that way. It realy was a piece of crap film. Acting was good though. Of course, we all know why you liked it. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #14 February 26, 2009 Quote Another example is that they entirely ignored his military service. That wouldhave taken up much of his life at the time.. all the parties at the Officers club while he was defending it from the Cubans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #15 February 26, 2009 QuoteIt was clearly intended as a smear film against GWB, and not as ay kind of biography. I don't believe that is true, if it was a smear movie it would have outlined the clusterfuck during 911. Aparently allowing an aircraft to hit the pentagon almost an hour after the first 911 attack. But the truth in that would have been too outrageous for the US public to concede. I am not only talking about the thery of a conspiracy which many of you know my thoughts on, but even as the story has been told to us would outline the incompetence of him and his administration. They could have smeared GW all over texas and still had ammo. They went light on him, even felt sorry for him for being hard done by. QuoteThen there's the way they covered the WMD/Iraq war stuff; I really doubt it happened that way. It realy was a piece of crap film. Acting was good though. I doubt it was word for word bro, but the punchline was about what we were told and what we observed. WMD's = War, No WMD's = Oops, but oh we'll. QuoteOf course, we all know why you liked it. Probably the same reason you didn't like it."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #16 February 27, 2009 Quote Another example is that they entirely ignored his military service. So did Bush, a lot of the time. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #17 February 27, 2009 Quote Quote Another example is that they entirely ignored his military service. So did Bush, a lot of the time.Tongue lolThat was good!"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #18 February 27, 2009 QuoteQuote Another example is that they entirely ignored his military service. That wouldhave taken up much of his life at the time.. all the parties at the Officers club while he was defending it from the Cubans. Surely he was defending Texas from the Viet Cong. (Maybe we should have let them have it). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #19 February 27, 2009 QuoteQuoteOil and votes. Really? Make no mistake about it, the Bush family, going all the way back to Prescot, has been intimately tied into Saudi oil and if being a politician is about anything, it's about votes. So, I don't see how it's possible to separate the two. That said, I don't think that is specifically what the movie is about, certainly not from a story perspective. The STORY is about a kid that likes to party and have a good time, doesn't quite live up to his father's expectations, is found by a guy (Rove) that thinks he's likable enough to get elected to small office, but then has higher aspirations to win the approval of dad. Unfortunately for him (and us) he's a bit of a dope that is easily manipulated by others and never quite understands the power he thinks he has. THAT is what the story in the film is regardless of it's factual nature. Agreed. Other than the wealth and privilege, he is a pretty normal schmuck. He got marketed and sold like a can of peas or a pack of cigarettes. Too bad he didn't possess the intellect, or even the vocabulary, to play the part successfully." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
