Just Saw The Movie, "W." , and It's Awful

[Yavin4]

It's like a really bad SNL skit. Oliver Stone just didn't do any homework on this movie. It should not even be seen as a bio-pic. There's plenty of material out there on Bush, his life, and his administration for Stone to mine. Yet, he left out crucial details about Bush's life. For instance, there was no mention of Bush's National Guard "service".

Also, most of the scenes between Bush and his Dad are over the top and overblown. It was completely unbelievable. You could have depicted Bush's relationship with his Dad in a much more believable and subtle manner. Also, the scenes with Bush meeting with Condi, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, etc. were also over the top.

In the end, Stone has done a great disservice because future depictions of Bush and his administration may be dismissed because of this film.

[Blue_In_AK]

1. I think everybody knows

you get "over the top" when you go to an Oliver Stone film.

[Parche]

5. JFK

Was a good film

[JHB]

10. "good" and "over the top" are not necessarily exclusive

"JFK" being a case in point.

[LanternWaste]

14. Talk Radio seems almost prescient in the here and now...

Also 'Talk Radio' and 'Wall Street'. Two movies I like to watch every now and then.

Talk Radio seems almost prescient in the here and now...

[cemaphonic]

40. Yeah, Talk Radio is awesome - Stone's best film

Although obviously a huge amount of the credit has to go to Eric Begosian for that, since it's almost a one-man show that he wrote. But Stone did a great job keeping an essentially "stagey" film dynamic and visually interesting.

JFK is pretty good too, from a cinematic point of view, although the history is pretty loony and slipshod. He hasn't really made any great movies since though.

[TexasObserver]

23. And it was NOT over the top.

although ostriches will try to claim it was

[stopbush]

41. JFK was great movie making, but was a fictional account of the assassination.

If the disregard for facts and evidence that Stone displayed in JFK are running rampant in W, then that's a shame.

[grantcart]

68. It is not repeat not over the top and no reviewer has called it so

You can criticize the film on many grounds but no critic who has seen it is suggesting that it is a typical Stone movie.

All of the critics are saying they are surprised by Stone's even handedness.

Ebert, for example states

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.


There are other non political reasons to criticize the movie but it is not a cheap shot on Bush and the OP is 100% wrong.

This link is to Yahoo's list of reviewers, none of whom agree with the OP that it has taken an 'over the top' slam at Bush:

11 out of the 14 critics gave it a B- or higher

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810026489/critic

[ailsagirl]

2. Thanks for the heads-up... :)

[Auggie]

3. I'm waiting for the PNAC movie

[mrreowwr_kittty]

4. I saw a sneak preview on Tuesday.

Several of us wondered why there was no depiction, or even reference, to his well-known cocaine problem. They did show him drinking a lot but no drug use.

[Heather MC]

64. I have a little too much Contempt for the Real Bush to sit through a 2 hour movie

about someone who acts like him

Oliver ain't getting my 10.00 and the theater ain't getting my $80.00 for popcorn, soda, and cheap plastic toy!

[fujiyama]

69. It's a rough economy right now. 10+ bucks is a LOT to spare

I saw Religiousity last weekend. Funny, but not worth $10+.

I MAY see this movie in the next week or so. I won't make a judgment on it before I see it. Hopefully it's decent. It was bad enough living through the last 8 years of his presidency....

[The Wielding Truth]

6. That's a shame .

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. That's why I hated Apolcalypse Now.

There wasn't one single mention the seige at Khe Sahn.

And Wizard of Oz? Hello? Crimean War anybody?

[ShortnFiery]

13. Try to keep up. "Apocalypse Now" was directed by Francis Ford Coppola NOT Oliver Stone.

:eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. Yeah, but TheChariots of Fire was directed by Hugh Hudson.

So there.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

46. This post is either brilliant satire...

...or complete and total clue failure. Either way I love it.

[yardwork]

48. Me too post. In fact this entire sub-thread is hilarious.

[dysfunctional press]

53. ummmmm- who said that it was directed by oliver stone...?

:shrug:






( :eyes: )

[Blue_In_AK]

18. Oliver Stone directed Platoon.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. Moby Dick was written by Herman Melville.

[Sal Minella]

28. All the Jane Austen books were written by Jane Austen.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. The Pride and the Prejudice sucked goat ass.

Whole damn book and not one mention of Dubya's national guard service.

[arcadian]

39. The OP is incorrect on this aspect.

It is mentioned. Sorry, spoiler.

[stopbush]

42. And the works of Homer were written by a DIFFERENT guy named Homer...

[Fozzledick]

63. D'oh!!

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

24. I had problems with Platoon

The extremely bad sargent (Berenger) and the extremely good sargent (Dafoe) were just too extreme for me to believe. Most people, even bad ones and good ones have some amounts of good and evil in them. For me, these two extremes were more symbols than real-life three-dimensional characters. I thought it was a very well-made and riveting movie, but the way these two characters were handled bothered me.

But Oliver Stone has made some very interesting films. Born on the Fourth of July, Talk Radio, The Doors, and Wall Street are great movies in my opinion. Alexander was very interesting as well and not as bad as many critics claim. I didn't realize that Oliver Stone was French. A couple of years ago, he appeared on French television on a talk show and spoke excellent French. His mother was French, entitling him to dual French/U.S. citizenship. And his father was Jewish. This unique background and perspective and his background of Yale University and his tour of duty in Vietnam make him a very interesting fellow.

[mitchum]

54. I also found the comic book level contrasts between the two sargents to be ridiculous

[ShortnFiery]

8. Yes, ever since the ultra-wealthy all call the shots, it's all just one big JOKE that they and their

kin enjoy playing on the American People.

SNL hasn't truly been funny since the late 1970s. Since then media has consolidated to such an extent that "the wealthy" are calling all the shots ... stifling creativity. Even Directors, such as Stone, et. al., have lost their shine.

They are all promoting "pablum" and we are told to LOVE IT ... well - just because these bloated ultra-wealthy bastards tell us to.

The spoiled and ultra-wealthy don't truly understand SATIRE because they have forgotten what it's like to experience hard times.

:(

[AlCzervik]

9. ny local paper gave it 2 out of 4 stars, i wasn't planning on seeing it anyhow

but i'm sure i would have rented it, thanks for the heads up.

[BrklynLiberal]

11. Too bad for those who put time and money into it...Other than that..I would not watch it if they let

me in for free.

[blue sky at night]

12. Stone said in an interview with Rachel Maddow.....

that he was looking "twenty years" down the road to warn future voters about the perils of our electorate. Sounds like he did a hack job instead, oh well....just another movie I will never see.

[ShortnFiery]

17. The once connected to the plight of humanity-type creative director, Oliver Stone, has become ...

passé and lazy. Far too many people have told him that "he's golden," therefore, Stone doesn't make an GENUINE effort ... and it shows. :thumbsdown:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. It's just too soon for this shit, honestly.

The guy hasn't even left office yet (at least officially... he's been "out of town" since at least 2006...) I don't even want to see this movie until Bush is a distant memory. 2012 would be great, so we can remind people of how much better Obama has been since "that other guy" left the Oval Office.

[pipi_k]

52. That's pretty much what I thought too

Eight years of that assclown

I don't wanna know about him, I don't wanna see his face or hear his voice or hear his name mentioned except if/when he's on trial in The Hague.

[arcadian]

16. You are full of shit.

The movie was fantastic. Don't listen to this guy. Everybody go out and see it. I guess you have never heard of satire? ZING!!! Way over your head.

[ShortnFiery]

19. It sucked pondwater. The "RICH" are not a cute and likable club ... Stone dropped the ball on this

one. He's part of the problem now. :thumbsdown:

[arcadian]

33. Cute and likeable club?

Of course they are, at least that is how they see themselves.

[Yavin4]

25. Please

That movie will be used by the RW media and their pundits as evidence of how Hollywood is ridiculously biased and unfair to Bush. Thus, spoiling the water for future, more serious, more ernest attempts to make a movie about what an incompetent asshole Bush really is. All future movies will be dimissed as made up bullshit, and they will point to this film as evidence.

Look at the movie, "Recount". That film did its best to make an accurate depiction of what really happened in Florida in 2000, and it did so successfully. That's why it won Emmys, and it's taken seriously.

All that I'm saying is do some research like Michael Moore did with Farenheit 9/11, and the movie will almost write itself.

[arcadian]

31. Who's the conspiracy theorist?

You or Stone?

"All future movies will be dimissed as made up bullshit, and they will point to this film as evidence"

Yeah, let's put all our eggs in one basket and save them for a rainy day. We'll go after Bush 10 or 15 years from now.

[Imagevision]

74. Thank you! - for a moment I was beginning to believe only one person saw 'W" - anyone else?

pleeze, more opinions?

[ladjf]

20. Stone "coped out" as we all knew that he would. By making it

appear that Bush was just an ignorant clown, the American people were masked from the depths of Bush's depravity. The man is a hardened war criminal and traitor, who should be in jail right now. Did the movie imply anything vaguely similar to that? If not, too much was left out.

[Yavin4]

27. No.

Bush was depicted as drunk who had father issues. He sobers up and begins his own political career in order to prove himself to his father.

[arcadian]

37. Gee, how about posting a spoiler warning for those who haven't seen.

But you just don't care do you?

[Dangerman]

62. Amen.

I'm not planning to watch the movie anyway.

[Lex]

26. It's satire right?

I expect it to over-blown and exaggerated for that reason alone.

[Yavin4]

29. At Times Yes

and at other times, No.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

30. Not surprising.

"Nixon" was over the top in a lot of ways, too.

[pansypoo53219]

34. i don't need to see a bio-pic of somebody i detest.

and there's my vow never to see an oliver stone movee.

[dudewheresmycountry]

35. I am sure Oliver Stone,

still has some good movies in him, however I haven't seen any in the last 10 years. Also I would never see a movie with any Bush,Raygun, or any other A hole in it....

[Fleshdancer]

36. the previews don't look all that great to me

I'll probably rent it, but I don't plan on seeing it in the theater...which isn't saying much because I rarely go to the movies these days anyway.

[On the Road]

38. The Ads Didn't Look Good

I don't think the timing was good either. After eight f'ing years, the last thing I want to do is spend two more hours on GWB in any context.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

43. I'd like to see a completely over-the-top uproariously funny comedy about Bush/Cheney

similar to the comedy about Nixon and Agnew entitled Another Nice Mess. I saw it in a theater many years ago. It was a film that proposed to be about reality, but just went for the laughs at the expense of Nixon.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0362411/



This was one of the funniest things I've ever seen. Made in 1972, it featured Rich Little doing a Nixon impersonation and Herb Voland as Spiro T. Agnew. But on top of that, they were Nixon and Agnew doing Laurel and Hardy schtick. The film was made by Bob Einstein (aka Super Dave Osborne) who wrote comedy for the Smothers Brothers show. There were incredibly funny scenes in this film, involving smoking grass, farts, and physical comedy. The film was shown nationwide in the theaters for only a few days and it completely ridiculed Tricky Dick like nothing else. Then, Nixon and the Republicans protested it and it suddenly disappeared and I don't think it has ever been shown on network tv or on cable. I've even looked for it in video stores but this little gem has completely disappeared.

One of the scenes had Rich Little as Nixon looking at himself in the mirror as he shaved in the morning, mugging and looking at his face side-to-side while shaking his jowels. You had to see it to see how funny it was. I nearly collapsed to the theater floor in laughter when I saw that. Priceless.

I'd love for example to see George Bush milking his horse at the ranch after getting completely stoned on cocaine.

[Hardrada]

44. Stone would have made a better movie out of American Carol

however.

[mudesi]

45. I bio-pic? It's a comedy (nm)

[Liberal_in_LA]

47. The movie looked bad from the ads.

[yardwork]

49. A lot of Oliver Stone films are just plain boring. Is this one?

[Raine]

50. That's kind of what I figured

THANKS for letting us know. :-(

[Lydia Leftcoast]

51. Well the Minnesota DUers are seeing it tonight

If it's bad, we'll all be groaning together.

[mitchum]

55. Why didn't he cast Wilford Brimley as Barbara Bush?

[Forkboy]

61. It should have been a one man show, with Wilford just playing everyone.

Like Eddie Murphy with diabeetus.

[Better Believe It]

56. Thanks! Now I will definitely see the movie this weekend!

You're helping to boost ticket sales!

Unintended consequences?

[Enrique]

57. that sounds like what I heard about "Nixon"

then I went and saw it and loved it.

[illuminaughty]

71. Loved "Nixon" too

Anthony Hopkins brilliant

[dysfunctional press]

58. we just lived thru over 7 horrible years of that little puke...

why would ANYONE pay money to re-live it in a movie theatre...? :shrug:

once was MORE than enough for me.

[lynettebro440]

59. Has anyone seen Religious

I want to go see that one but if it sucks also I'll wait to rent.

[leeroysphitz]

60. I want too have a beer with this movie. n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

65. Now that I'm back from seeing it with the Minnesota DUers, here's my review:

It wasn't fantastic, but I thought it was worth seeing for the performances of Josh Brolin, Richard Dreyfuss (downright creepy as Cheney), and Thandie Newton as Condoleezza Rice. As much as I like James Cromwell, he didn't even come close to capturing Poppy Bush as well as Josh Brolin captured "Junior."

It had its moments, but it was choppy, with the transitions between the sequences not well managed.

However, I'm not sorry I saw it, and the crew of four DUers who saw it made little comments to one another.

[Suji to Seoul]

66. Notice how people are bad mouthing "W," but "An American Carol"

gets a pass.

Go to Yahoo. . .nothing on the release of "An American Carol," but "W" gets front page treatment and gets lambasted.

bias, anyone?

BTW. . .Olver Stone hasn't done shit since JFK. I avoid his crappy movies like the plague.

[grantcart]

67. I was astonished that anybody on DU would see the film W and think it over the top

It did not for example show Bush snorting cocaine.

Here is Eberts' description

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.








There are plenty of reasons to criticize W for its editing and the confusing way it jumps back and forth and its ending but it will not be perceived as "over the top" as the OP suggests.

[goodgd_yall]

70. You confirmed my suspicion

What I saw some scenes from it, it look like a POS.

[Joe the Liberal]

72. The movie just the like president its based off of is awful!!! n/t

[litlady]

73. Mediocre movie with some funny lines and some pretty bad scenes - portrayal of Condi unbearable! nt