And now the first reviews are slewing in through the press.
Jeff Wells reports that:
The damn movie leaves you feeling sorry for this fucker at the finale, and that ain't hay. Compassion for a fiendish klutz? For one of the worst guys on the planet right now? For the chief enabler and architect of this country's massive financial ruin? For the man who tarnished and shamed his country and took it on a moral and ethical downslide that will take years if not decades to turn around, if it's not too late? Yes.
Which, being a Bush hater second to none, I didn't think was possible. But that's what it does, and you have to give Stone credit for an amazing sleight of hand. I came out saying to myself, as Bush himself says to himself at the finale, "What just happened?" By the last shot you are sold because the anger is gone and you're left with this stunned and oddly tragic figure saying to himself, "This is how my life turned out?"
Ohhh yeah. Can't wait! Watch the trailer here...
ONE LAST NOTE:
I'm just gonna say it. Alexander was AWESOME.
I don't care what you think.
I may be taking this one to my grave.
6 comments:
Ridiculous. This whole movie is a just a cheap publicity stunt, a cash in to make money off all the suckers that will go to watch it!
To make a movie like this right now is so unnecessary. If people are so interested in George Bush, why not just watch a real documentary on him or US politics(there are many!) or just watch the news? He isn't even out of office yet but they've made a film on him! And its been timed with the US election to get the film publicity. This whole movie is about making money off the suckers that are foolish enough to pay money to be part of Oliver Stones pretentious ego trip.
If anyone was genuinely interested in George Bush they'd actually pay attention to politics or watch a REAL documentary, not a Hollywood movie.
This movie is for all those stupid people who don't pay any attention to what's going on in the world, but still pipe in with "I hate Bush, what a fool blah blah blah" when they don't even know what they're talking about. They'll be flocking to this in droves, discussing it over a wine with dinner, their opinions based on no real facts whatsoever.
Even that reviewer is a fool.
For one of the worst guys on the planet right now? For the chief enabler and architect of this country's massive financial ruin? For the man who tarnished and shamed his country and took it on a moral and ethical downslide that will take years if not decades to turn around, if it's not too late?
Everybody knows Bush doesn't even do anything, Cheney was the one who was giving the orders and fucking nearly everything up. Bush was just a chump who managed to get elected by cheating, which is something he's done his whole career.
I'm surprised Angelina Jolie isn't playing the first lady.
Okay.
Firstly, you shit on Oliver Stone but I have a feeling you've never seen any of his films.
Secondly, of course they're timing the film to coincide with his release from office. It just makes sense! I don't see how that detracts from the quality of the film.
Thirdly, so you are saying that any film based upon real-life current events are pointless as we could just turn on the news and see it for ourselves? That would then assume that watching a news broadcast and watching a film provide us with the same insight and information. They do not, they serve very different purposes.
Lastly, to say that Bush is a chump, implying this is a reason to not make or watch W. is perhaps missing the enture point of the film. Did you ever think that this was an issue Oliver Stone was looking to explore?
Also, your Jolie snipe was crass, Stone has more class than that.
Stone already cast Jolie in the critical flop 'Alexander'.
I don't think serious issues like the Bush administration, which has been responsible for the war on terror which has killed nearly 100 thousand civilians in Iraq alone, should be turned into a big budget Hollywood blockbuster for entertainment. If we want some entertainment go and watch Miami Chihuahua 7.
My point about it being released at the same time of the election is not the fact that it makes sense from a promotional point of view, but that the whole movie is about exploiting people to keep a bunch of fat cat LA producers in the money.
Bush IS a chump. He's a fool and everybody knows that, you can see it by turning on the news or watching a doco. I don't need to watch him bumble and blunder around on screen for 2 hours.
Judging by the trailer this movie won't show us anything we didn't learn in Fahrenheit 9/11 or other docos and exposes that have come before it. All it's going to do is make it easier to digest for the mainstream.
Your whole argument rests on the assumed fact that the only type of movies people are interested in seeing are those with talking dogs.
Your critiques are not on W. but film as a medium. Don't go watch the movie! Don't go watch ANY movies except ones with talking dogs. That's fine with me, just don't shit on other people who'd like to see something a little more challenging and thought provoking.
W. might be a bad movie. I haven't seen it. But to imply that it is undeniably a bad movie from the outset is ludicrous. It might not make any huge new statements, but the form of film will communicate things a doco or news broadcast never could. Film is subjective, spoken by characters, whilst the formers are objective (well, hopefully) and based on facts.
Finally, my critique was not on Jolie herself (who as I state in another post IS hit and miss but can do good work) but on you saying Stone would have cast her as the first lady. She would not have suited that role. She suited her role in Alexander.
My argument has nothing to do with talking dogs. My whole point is that W isn't intelligent and thought provoking, its disaster movie but disguised better. I'd rather see something communicated by something real, rather than a big shot Hollywood directors version. And you can't use the "You haven't seen W" point because you haven't seen Chihuahua, and neither have i, or any of those spoof movies so it's no different.
The difference between Chihuahua and W is Chihuahua is obviously just a silly kids movie, where W is just unnecessary blah blah read my previous posts, but disguised as something intellectual. I'm sick of these shitty blockbusters. I renounce Hollywood!
*Goes upstairs and throws away all his DVD's and Hilary Duff posters*.
I'm going to uni! Jokes:P
films like w are important because it acts as a snapshot of the lowest common denominators opinions and views of a particular era or person. whether its good or not is another thing, but they didnt make a film about clinton (because no one would have gone to see it)
Post a Comment