'W'---the movie

[huisache]

not a Bush fan, never voted for him, but this is a very bad film. Oliver Stone usually has a pretty good narrative grip but this one is not only simple minded but out of focus. I think they must have rushed it because it runs like it is in second gear the whole time.

The performances are decent enough but one dimensional pictures of the characters diminish the acting. Best performance is Cheney imitation by Richard Dreyfus.

Worst characterization of somebody I have met: the guy who plays Kent Hance, the only person to ever beat W in an election (West Texas Congressional race in '78) does not come across as the superior political talent that Hance was. He did not beat him just by cornpone. Hance is one of the most talented Texas politicians of the last fifty years and deserved better than a HeeHaw impersonator.

My advice: if you want to see it, save some money and wait for it to be on television.

 

[Y Sanchez]

I voted for W twice and would do so again given the minor league talent he was running against. Having said that W has been a dissapointment to me. Having said that I would not piss in Oliver Stone's ears if his brains were on fire. Stone is nothing more than Michael Moore with a pedicure and no gravy stains on his shirt.

 

[Austintxusa]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[ADMIRALSTOCKDALE]

i want to see it, but i expect it to suck. i just can't imagine it's very objective. like if sean hannity made a film about bill clinton.
i thought jfk was very entertaining despite its inaccuracies and liked nixon alot, but mostly because of anthony hopkins.

 

[RomaVicta]

Stone has a thing about Texas. In Nixon there is the weird Texas meeting that Nixon goes to and in JFK, again, you have this cabal of Texans.

The ads for the movie look funny. Stone has a real gift for using the film medium but his huge Achilles heel is that he believes he knows the truth about everything. It kills his films that he has to grab you by the ears and shout into your face whatever it is that he believes the truth to be.

Films should portray things as truthfully as possible. Truth itself is determined by the audience member. JFK would have been so much better without the Donald Sutherland scene and without the heroic courtroom speech. Garrison was corrupt. The movie would have been so much better if Stone had recognized that and recognized what that meant about the story.

Nixon was a better effort and even sympathetic to its subject. In Nixon, Stone sticks with what we know happened and does an interesting study of the soul of RM Nixon. He's human.

I'll go see W, but I don't have high hopes for it being very good.

 

[North Beach Horn]

Rushed is the best description. It seems very poorly put together & is boring as hell.

 

[Austintxusa]

I'm a Democrat but I would not contribute a penny for Oliver Stone's benefit.

I abhor extremist of either party.

Yeah, I support Obama and he is not an extremist IMO so you right wingers can save your venom.

 

[North Beach Horn]

Keep in mind that this is not really an anti-Bush movie. It's neutral to the extent of pointlessness.

 

[eflow24]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[El_Oso]

Oliver Stone making a neutral movie? GTFO?

 

[BattleshipTexas]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Horn-N-LA]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Murphy'sBoy]

The movie portrayed him fairly as the well-meaning god-fearing dumb *** that he is.

 

[ruidosomike]

I don't watch movies by people w/ agendas who claim not to have an agenda

 

[Knoxville-Horn]

Yeah, and even if I leaned politically to the Left (which I don't) it just seems a bit tired. We get it. Eight years of the "Bush is dumb" cariacature on SNL, late night talk, Daily Show, etc... is enough for me.

I'm not mad that it does not portray him in a positive light. I just don't see the thrill of watching a 2-hour movie of agenda.

 

[CanaTigers]

I can't stand anyone that makes a career of politics for it should either be volunteer or not at all. All offices should have a 1 term limit to help keep out the squatters too.

That said, I would not waste time going to see this movie. But it only takes a few moments of watching Bush speak to know it's not really a caricature.

 

[huisache]

austintxusa: If you know all the inside details, which I trust you do, your post probably makes perfect sense. I don't and so it doesn't.

I dealt with Hance some in the '70s and the initial impression I had was that he was a dumb *** local celebrity. I watched him work for a few years while living out there and came to see him as a master of working the electorate while making himself viable to others. He was useful to his constituents while pursuing his larger ambitions.

I think that is the mark of a good politician. I don't know squat about what you were talking about and so can't evaluate it properly.

I saw him as a half a loaf kind of guy and wanted to throw up when Doggett got the dem nod over him because I knew Doggett had no chance of winning a statewide race.

I further think this state has paid a huge price for the dems having chunked their conservatives overboard with the assistance of Delay.

As for the movie, like I said, save your money and wait for television. It has good actors and some nice comedy.