• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

W The Movie

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: Balt
I think it will quite possibly be a flop and have no impact at all.

If he had released it 6+ years from now or so it probably would have done better. I think people are ready to forget about Dubya for a while. :p
But just think, it leaves room for the sequel "W 2"!!!! (Tax pun)
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,704
9,914
136
I have my reservations. There is no doubt that Stone is a talented filmmaker, but he tends to take excessive liberties with the truth in his political movies. JFK, for example, while a superbly crafted film, put forward the worst of all the various conspiracy theories and then presented it with no regards to the truth whatsoever.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: Vic
I have my reservations. There is no doubt that Stone is a talented filmmaker, but he tends to take excessive liberties with the truth in his political movies. JFK, for example, while a superbly crafted film, put forward the worst of all the various conspiracy theories and then presented it with no regards to the truth whatsoever.
Oswald was a patsy.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
44,471
4,319
136
Originally posted by: Vic
I have my reservations. There is no doubt that Stone is a talented filmmaker, but he tends to take excessive liberties with the truth in his political movies. JFK, for example, while a superbly crafted film, put forward the worst of all the various conspiracy theories and then presented it with no regards to the truth whatsoever.
It wasn't a documentary, it was a Hollywood movie. Anyone who derives their view of reality and history from Hollywood movies deserves the laughable ignorance they steep themselves in.

 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: Vic
I have my reservations. There is no doubt that Stone is a talented filmmaker, but he tends to take excessive liberties with the truth in his political movies. JFK, for example, while a superbly crafted film, put forward the worst of all the various conspiracy theories and then presented it with no regards to the truth whatsoever.
It wasn't a documentary, it was a Hollywood movie. Anyone who derives their view of reality and history from Hollywood movies deserves the laughable ignorance they steep themselves in.
:criesuncontrollably;
 

rockyct

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2001
6,656
32
91
Originally posted by: Balt
I think it will quite possibly be a flop and have no impact at all.

If he had released it 6+ years from now or so it probably would have done better. I think people are ready to forget about Dubya for a while. :p
Well, it can't fail harder than that "An American Carol" movie that's about Michael Moore. It's under $6 million over two weekends. I'm sure W. will bring in decent money, but I doubt it will have any political impact.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,704
9,914
136
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Oswald was a patsy.
Garrison was a corrupt idiot who abused his power as DA, often for personal reasons. In real life, he was nothing like how Costner portrayed him.

Originally posted by: Perknose
It wasn't a documentary, it was a Hollywood movie. Anyone who derives their view of reality and history from Hollywood movies deserves the laughable ignorance they steep themselves in.
True enough, but as we both know, those people are legion.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: rockyct

Well, it can't fail harder than that "An American Carol" movie that's about Michael Moore. It's under $6 million over two weekends. I'm sure W. will bring in decent money, but I doubt it will have any political impact.
What a terrible movie that looks like. It appears, from the Wiki info, to be based on just the sort of misguided straw men about the left that the right thrives on.

They think, in the movie and all too often on the right, that the cause of 'banning the 4th of July because America is all bad' is the sort of cause Michael Moore represents.

What they really unwittingly expose is how they are the ones with the problem, unable to be patriots by recognizing problems to fix to improve the nation.

Little is more unpatriotic than blind patriotism, and that's why Jefferson said that dissent is the highest form of patriotism, a lesson lost on the foolish people behind this movie.

Having JFK step out of the screen to slap Moore, for example, shows how little they understand JFK - someone the right often misunderstands and tries to claim.

JFK was the most anti-right president IMO in the last 50 years at least - but a good enough politician not to lose the support of many right-wing voters.

It's not just any president who at the height of the cold war could hold the calls for war around the world (not one bomb was dropped by the US during his presidency), pursue peace with the Soviet Union and call on Americans to recognize our common interests for peace with them, and to complement the military build-up with the first nuclear test limitation treaty, all the while appeasing a cold war public who had no taste for softness with the USSR, just after the McCarthy era while the USSR threatened war often and loudly.

If Obama said he wanted to cut the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter them to the wind and that all businessmen were sons of bitches, what would the right say?
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
The ads to me make this movie look almost like a comedy, like a totally over the top attack on Bush. He is a fvcktard, but this movie by its ads just look retarded.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
3
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
The ads to me make this movie look almost like a comedy, like a totally over the top attack on Bush. He is a fvcktard, but this movie by its ads just look retarded.
I am under the impression that it IS a comedy.

 

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
9,710
3,864
136
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
:thumbsup: - :thumbsup: - :thumbsup:
(I'm a mutant)


Stone outsmarted himself.

If he would have waited he would have gotten a lot more material:

The $1 Trillion Bailout
The October Surprise
The Stock Market Crash
Felony indictment of Alberto
The Bush Pardon List

and we can only hope ...

The Last American Patriot: The Whistle-Blower Who Outs Cheney
Maybe for a special edition extended release for DVD?

The problem w/ his timing is that it assumes Bush wouldn't keep fucking up right until the end....
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Skoorb
The ads to me make this movie look almost like a comedy, like a totally over the top attack on Bush. He is a fvcktard, but this movie by its ads just look retarded.
I am under the impression that it IS a comedy.
It's a tragi-comedy.

Comedy because GWB is a buffoon and president
Tragedy because GWB is a buffoon as president


 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
2
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
The ads to me make this movie look almost like a comedy, like a totally over the top attack on Bush. He is a fvcktard, but this movie by its ads just look retarded.
I listened to an interview with Brolin. He was really serious about playing Bush properly. It doesn't seem like an anti-Bush movie. It gives him a fair shake. It just happens that GWB's story is comedic but tragic.
 

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
33,854
957
126
I just got back from watching it. It wasn't funny, and it wasn't particularly interesting. It felt very rushed and had low production value (it was filmed in Shreveport, LA and you can see the one real landmark which Shreveport has outside the window in Texas).

The acting really varried. Whoever played Rice did a horrible job. Hoffman was great as was the guy who played Bush Sr.

It seemed like it was making fun of religion as much as it was Bush. This is the first Stone movie that I've been able to actually sit though. If this is par for his work, I would be tempted to call him overrated.

It makes me like Colin Powell even more though. :p
 

BigDH01

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2005
1,627
73
91
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
I just got back from watching it. It wasn't funny, and it wasn't particularly interesting. It felt very rushed and had low production value (it was filmed in Shreveport, LA and you can see the one real landmark which Shreveport has outside the window in Texas).

The acting really varried. Whoever played Rice did a horrible job. Hoffman was great as was the guy who played Bush Sr.

It seemed like it was making fun of religion as much as it was Bush. This is the first Stone movie that I've been able to actually sit though. If this is par for his work, I would be tempted to call him overrated.

It makes me like Colin Powell even more though. :p
You didn't like Wall Street or Platoon?
 

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
33,854
957
126
Originally posted by: BigDH01
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
I just got back from watching it. It wasn't funny, and it wasn't particularly interesting. It felt very rushed and had low production value (it was filmed in Shreveport, LA and you can see the one real landmark which Shreveport has outside the window in Texas).

The acting really varried. Whoever played Rice did a horrible job. Hoffman was great as was the guy who played Bush Sr.

It seemed like it was making fun of religion as much as it was Bush. This is the first Stone movie that I've been able to actually sit though. If this is par for his work, I would be tempted to call him overrated.

It makes me like Colin Powell even more though. :p
You didn't like Wall Street or Platoon?
I actually didn't see Wall Street and I've tried to watch Platoon a few times. I just don't like it. I didn't really like Scarface enough to finish it either.
 

BigDH01

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2005
1,627
73
91
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Originally posted by: BigDH01
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
I just got back from watching it. It wasn't funny, and it wasn't particularly interesting. It felt very rushed and had low production value (it was filmed in Shreveport, LA and you can see the one real landmark which Shreveport has outside the window in Texas).

The acting really varried. Whoever played Rice did a horrible job. Hoffman was great as was the guy who played Bush Sr.

It seemed like it was making fun of religion as much as it was Bush. This is the first Stone movie that I've been able to actually sit though. If this is par for his work, I would be tempted to call him overrated.

It makes me like Colin Powell even more though. :p
You didn't like Wall Street or Platoon?
I actually didn't see Wall Street and I've tried to watch Platoon a few times. I just don't like it. I didn't really like Scarface enough to finish it either.
Stone's more recent work has definitely been "meh" in my opinion, but you should really watch Wall Street sometime. It's one of my favorites anyway.
 

ranmaniac

Golden Member
May 14, 2001
1,939
0
76
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
I just got back from watching it. It wasn't funny, and it wasn't particularly interesting. It felt very rushed and had low production value (it was filmed in Shreveport, LA and you can see the one real landmark which Shreveport has outside the window in Texas).

The acting really varried. Whoever played Rice did a horrible job. Hoffman was great as was the guy who played Bush Sr.

It seemed like it was making fun of religion as much as it was Bush. This is the first Stone movie that I've been able to actually sit though. If this is par for his work, I would be tempted to call him overrated.

It makes me like Colin Powell even more though. :p
Hoffman? Which character did he play?

Considering I live in the middle of "Bush" country, in Texas, a lot of the audience was laughing at many of the "funny" moments in this film. I thought the movie was good and fairly even handed considering the amount of material that could be used to pin Bush in a very negative light. "W" wasn't nearly as sensationalistic as JFK, and the acting performance of Dreyfuss as Cheney was chilling, Cromwell as Bush Sr. was decent, and Toby Jones as Karl Rove was spot-on.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
44,471
4,319
136
Originally posted by: BigDH01
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Originally posted by: BigDH01
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
I just got back from watching it. It wasn't funny, and it wasn't particularly interesting. It felt very rushed and had low production value (it was filmed in Shreveport, LA and you can see the one real landmark which Shreveport has outside the window in Texas).

The acting really varried. Whoever played Rice did a horrible job. Hoffman was great as was the guy who played Bush Sr.

It seemed like it was making fun of religion as much as it was Bush. This is the first Stone movie that I've been able to actually sit though. If this is par for his work, I would be tempted to call him overrated.

It makes me like Colin Powell even more though. :p
You didn't like Wall Street or Platoon?
I actually didn't see Wall Street and I've tried to watch Platoon a few times. I just don't like it. I didn't really like Scarface enough to finish it either.
Stone's more recent work has definitely been "meh" in my opinion, but you should really watch Wall Street sometime. It's one of my favorites anyway.
"Nixon" was also a fabulously well done movie.

 

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
33,854
957
126
Originally posted by: ranmaniac
Hoffman? Which character did he play?

Considering I live in the middle of "Bush" country, in Texas, a lot of the audience was laughing at many of the "funny" moments in this film. I thought the movie was good and fairly even handed considering the amount of material that could be used to pin Bush in a very negative light. "W" wasn't nearly as sensationalistic as JFK, and the acting performance of Dreyfuss as Cheney was chilling, Cromwell as Bush Sr. was decent, and Toby Jones as Karl Rove was spot-on.
Bleh, sorry, I mean Richard Dreyfuss. :eek:
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: Arkaign
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810026489/info

Oliver Stone delivers a political film right before an election.

Does this look pro or con for Bush? Watching the trailer, it looks like it reinforces stereotypes (truths?) about Bush and this administration.

I know everything in the news right now is either market meltdowns, bailouts, and Sarah Palin, but does anyone have a thought on this?

My prediction = modest box office hit, little to zero voting/political impact.
entertainment...modest but I wouldn't use the word hit.
I watched An American Carol last week funny in spots but about the same.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,063
495
126
This movie got beat by Beverly Hills Chihuahua and The Secret Life of Bee's.

Stones ego just got shot point blank with a 12 gauge double barrel shotgun.
Ill be surprised if this remains in the top 6 after next weekend.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY