Comments on: ‘W.’ – Stone misunderestimates Dubya

By: Jim Lawrence

Jim Lawrence — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:41:53 +0000

My oldest son saw this movie and had some good things to say about it. As usual, I take my kids’ recommendations seriously and decided to check it out.

I found myself more and more dismayed the farther I got into this flick.

Performances, I thought, by Brolin and Dreyfuss, were first rate. Production values were excellent was as direction.

As to credibility of the subject matter, I just couldn’t swallow it.

I have heard Condoleeza Rice speak before and always felt she exuded an assertive air. Hard to believe she was the simpering, obsequious suck-up that Stone portrayed.

All in all, the chartacters were cardboard figures that reflected Stone’s bias, or so it would seem from his commentary.

“I stopped being a Bush hater in 2004,” he says.

Right.

It’s more like he focused every bit of hate and resentment he carried around into this project.

Every negative thing you ever read or heard about Bush is in this movie-and not much else.

If you just hate these guys in real life, and many do, you can relive it by watching this movie.
As I watched “The Doors” years ago I constantly asked the question, “Why?”

As I watched W., I asked myself the same question.

Fair treament, some say?

Imagine Stone doing a biography on Bill Clinton? Think it would be fair?

By: movie fan

movie fan — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:07:16 +0000

Josh Brolin did a convincing Dubya, though he reminded me a lot of his cowboy character from No Country for Old Men… over all, i don’t doubt that ‘W.’ will have the effect Oliver Stone desired

By: cftoto

cftoto — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:46:47 +0000

Don’t disagree, Morris, but I guess I’ve been bludgeoned by the mistruths in so many recent films (Mr. Moore, I’m talkin’ about you) that I’m almost numb to the tricks Stone pulls here.

I do think “W.” would be more dangerous if it were more entertaining … or if more people saw it.

By: Morris

Morris — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:41:24 +0000

“because Stone has the right to trash Bush all he wants.”

It’s not just about Stone stating his opinion it’s about his moral relativism and revising what actually happened. Revisionism is ABSOLUTELY dangerous. But it’s part and parcel of believers in rejecting established truths.

By: Don Sucher

Don Sucher — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 17:13:14 +0000

“Heck, the movie could have used a conspiracy or three to spice things up.”

That’s it! Thats it! A nice scene – let’s see – they could be sitting on a park bench with the Washington Monument in the background – and some appropriate actor… hmmm, maybe a Donald Sutherland type? – could explain the real truth behind the entire Bush administration. Yeah! That’s all it would take! ~

By: cftoto

cftoto — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:27:05 +0000

Thanks, Don. “W.” isn’t a train wreck. The first half is watchable, and I’ll check out any movie with Elizabeth Banks (who is adorable as a brunette). But it’s clear “W.” doesn’t move the story forward or ask us to think about Bush in a new light. Heck, the movie could have used a conspiracy or three to spice things up.

Maybe Stone can’t even properly agitate at this point in his career.

By: Don Sucher

Don Sucher — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:24:40 +0000

“Stone clearly has zero curiosity about the real George W. Bush.” Bingo! And without such curiosity even a well intentioned bio flick has no dimension.

This help explain to me why I can Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia over and over with keen fascination while I found Attenborough’s Ghandi a watch once or twice with yawns movie despite the fact that I have far more interest in Ghandi than I do in T. E. Lawrence.

Valuable observation Toto!

-ds

By: cftoto

cftoto — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 15:48:46 +0000

James, please check in when you review it … or send a link to your review. Your assessment is sound … it takes a ‘greatest hits’ look at Bush’s foibles and packs them into a meandering two-hour film.

By: James Frazier

James Frazier — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 15:44:31 +0000

The liberal critics are absolutely insisting that the film is “fair.” First off, the film really isn’t particularly obligated to fairness, because Stone has the right to trash Bush all he wants. Second, even were it to be a genuine attempt at fairness, it would have to be approached with a mentality other than telling the story of a simple idiot who bumbled his way into eight years of presidency with the help of some evil men.

It sounds to me sort of like the screenwriter and Stone searched through a ton of Bush bios, picked out every single thing that could be spun to make Bush like bad, and then filmed it all.

Will be seeing this weekend, not looking forward to it. It’s a job, right?