Posted on 10/17/2008 8:51:05 PM PDT by holy joe
“W.” is a “fair and balanced” movie, says its creator, Oliver Stone.
“I think in this present political state, the real George W. Bush might not approve of this movie,” Stone told the Chicago Sun-Times. “But this movie tries to understand George W. Bush: the good, the bad, and the ugly.”
Stone definitely puts the emphasis on the “ugly” in the film, which opened in theaters Friday. He basically acts as cinematic shrink and psychoanalyzes the parent-child relationship between elder George H.W. Bush and junior George W.
Stone presents the son as a twisted foul-mouthed drunk with a daddy complex who becomes a religious zealot and accidentally ends up being leader of the free world.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Interesting observation.
To Oliver Stone this is fair and balanced, hey he didn’t have anything in the movie about Bush plotting 9-11 or blowing up levees in New Orleans.
I saw Josh Brolin, Oliver, and Charlie Rose just laughing their asses off about Bush with some serious conversation about his evangelical believes that Stone believes he violated.
Of course the Brolin’s step-mother is Barbara Mega-Streisand and his father played Ronald Reagan in a more dispicable movie about the Reagan’s.
No liberal can understand George Bush. Liberals don’t even understand the country they’re living in.
I find it amazing that people bother to watch this guy’s films at all.
On a happy note : Josh Brolin and some more of these PUKES
got their asses kicked Good in a bar in downtown
Shreveport,Louisiana,,,
Then got thrown in Jail!!,,,
This Ca. Trash is always in the way...
He probably makes plenty of money from distribution to America-haters around the world.
I think Nixon was Stone’s last good movie. If this was Stone at the peak of his talents it might be worth seeing, purely for the spectacle, but from the reading of the reviews it looks like Stone shot this straight down the line, not much flair.
But even if this was a masterfully directed movie, what is the point of seeing it. We know Bush’s life story, this movie is not bringing anything to the table. It is like a television movie of the week. There is no point.
Forget about Stone’s politics for a second, the early part of his career, he made great movies, I don’t know what happened to him but his recent movies have stunk, even with flawed screenplays, a good director can sometimes make it interesting, but Stone’s recent movies bring nothing, they don’t even have the quality, the cinematography, the interesting techniques that Stone started his career with.
If you want to see a good movie, check out Appaloosa, nothing great but a satisfying Western, a little slow at times but very well made.
Something happened in the 90’s, Hollywood used to make entertaining films, now they are few and far between.
There’s a reason that Hollywood is so Liberal. It’s because most of the people in the industry are so self-absorbed with themselves that they can’t stand anyone who either disagrees with them, or, who can’t help them get into a movie or a 3-picture deal to help further their pathetic careers.
I think that Milli Vanilli has had more hits than Oliver Stone.
I have lived through every President since Roosevelt [don't remember him but do remember Truman] and if you take all the hate, anger, vitriol and vilification of all them added together, it would be just a fraction of what has been levied on President Bush.
I don't believe that history, which is often kinder to unpopular Presidents, will lessen the HATE felt for this President.
The nadir disrespect and hate of a sitting President is reached when there is a movie about his assassination and another which depicts him as a stupid, evil, autocrat drunkard!!
That’s not true, his recent spate of bad movies that have done horrible at the box office has him out of favor.
World Trade Center was made with controversy because it was his chance to get back in the good graces of Hollywood, if I’m not mistaken he had a tough time getting the nod to direct it.
There are other reasons that I have forgotten but Stone is definitely not someone who can get big budgets from a studio.
“Liberals don’t even understand the country they’re living in.”
So very true. That is the crux of the problem.
I meant to say that WTC was a NON controversial movie because Stone knew it was his chance to prove he could make a movie that would appeal to the masses.
Holy Joe, how about Nixon’s presidency, how was the environment then???
Also what about LBJ during the heart of the Vietnam War, from what I have read and seen you actually had protesters burning the images of LBJ and Nixon at protests, I don’t quite think we have seen that in this country directed at Bush, but I do agree that the Left hates Bush with a fury.
Technically Bush won in 2004 by about 140,000 votes in Ohio, I think it was the closest re-election in history.
Most of the funding for “W” came from overseas, including about $3.5 million from some Chinese company.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122368662544925207.html?mod=todays_us_weekend_journal
me either. Toyko Rose Media is betraying this country. whispering lies and blaring false images into our minds. dangerous pysch ops against the good by the evil.
Fox News has this commercial every 10 minutes. Back away from Fox News regain your peace of mind. Be strong and right with a mind free from propaganda.
Mr. Stone:
“The man who does not love is still in the realm of death.” 1 John 3:15.
Hollywood doesn't love Oliver Stone? Since when? LOL Not just anyone could have gotten funds to make "W". Stone is the activist film maker.
Never said anything about big budgets. Although his heyday is over, Stone will always be able to get funding for his films. Btw, Alexander had a huge budget and it turned a profit.
But Stone was unable to find funding for W from a major Hollywood studio, so he resorted to independent financing. He and his producers aim to have the movie in theaters before this November's presidential election and maybe as soon as October
And “technically” Al Gore won in 2000. You know, if you throw out the electoral votes.
Bush won handily in 2004.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.