I know you haven't been here very long, but Matt has never claimed to have voted for Bush. I know that its a difficult thing to think about when you are so partisan it hurts, but some people actually vote for who they think will do the best job.
I don't think a lot of people would have "Claimed" to have voted for Bush these days. No one wan't to be seen as that ****ing stupid. It's the partisans who voted Bush into office that "really" hurt... the country. If Matt says he didn't, then I will stand corrected.
Even better than W: Will Ferrell to play Dubya on Broadway. http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/politicalinsider/2008/10/bush-goes-to-broadway.html
Scotty McClellen, film reviewer. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-17/my-w-and-oliver-stones/1/ Its a surprisingly interesting read.
Well got to admit that the Newsweek was right, the movie was entertaining but it was "Lite"...No substance at all, Stone chickened out. What made it worse was Thandie Newton's performance. Had to be the worse excuse for acting I've seen in a long time. Definately Raspberry worthy. Still it was a good afternoon away from the office with dinner and a couple of beers at the Red Robin, so, all in all "A Grand Day out" Out of 5, I'd give a 2.5
Saw it! I think the movie is a crude caricature of Bush. In fact, I'd say it's a fantasy of how Bush's life must have been according to somebody like Oliver Stone. Brolin plays GW well, but let's be serious. I understand that as far as US presidents go, the consensus is that Bush is probably not among the brightest, but there's no way in hell even his political opponents can realistically believe that he can be as much of an idiot as portrayed in the movie. And that is what makes the whole thing seem a bit fake. The same is true of Condy. I was very dissapointed in the way she is portrayed. On the other hand, I thought Cheney, Powell and most of the other characters were very well portrayed. With a bit more complexity for GW and a more realistic portrayal of Condy, it could have been a serious political movie. All in all, it was mostly well acted, and somewhat interesting, but the main character was too over-the-top to be able to take the movie seriously. Ironically, on a psychological level, taking the movie as fictional drama, I enjoyed very much the strained father-son relationship between Oliver Stone's GHB and GW. But, if we look at the movie as a serious documentary it does seem contrived. So, I'd say it's not a great effort by Oliver Stone, but a fun time at the movies nonetheless, mostly because we lived through these tough times, and for all the flaws, at the very least it's interesting to watch good actors acting out the drama of the Bush administration. Those who dislike GW and the members of his administration should get a kick out of it. I think the only one who gets a less than completely damning portrayal is Colin Powell, and just barely. I'd give it a C+, but in spite of its flaws I would probably recommend it to people who enjoy following politics.
I saw it today, and I don't think he's portrayed as an idiot. At all. I thought there are huge amounts of drive, tenacity, political savvy and emotional intelligence in the character that overlap with his various flaws (God knows he has quite a few). I really don't understand why you think the movie portrays him asan idiot. On this I agree with you. However, her character never fits in with the dynamics of the movie (not as much as Powell, Cheney, Rove, Tenet or even Wolfowitz do), and you couldn't just eliminate it, so she was scaled down to the level of an unintrusive caricature for artistic reasons... I'm sure it's not the first time a historical movie does this. To be fair, no one really knows what she did in Bush's first administration, other than be a mouthpiece and school Bush on international issues (she is a prof, and that is IMO one of the reasons she was hired). You look at any journalistic account of 2001-2004, and she is far less prominent than even underlings like Rove, Card or Wolfowitz. This is why the Discovery Channel is only good for inducing Sunday afternoon naps... of course it's contrived, that's what happens when you need to tell a story within 2 hours.
She was actually hired as a result of a talent competition on how many times you can say "Weapons of Mass Destruction" the most amount of times during a TV briefing, without missing a word or spitting on the interviewers. That was later changed to "Saddam is a Madman" in which she still hold the record for. It's rumored that she was the speech coach for Gov. Palin, helping her try not to sound so folksy when using the phrase "Pallin' around with a terrorist" Palin says that sounding the 'g' is unamerican and that her name is really spelt Paling. Still claims that she, Condy, could have done it better.
Saw it and my thoughts were that Stone made Condy look like an idiot. However I agree with whats been said, I'm not sure she did much during the first years or at least wasn't formative then. I didn't think Newton did a bad job with it her voice and mannerisms were right on Brolin was great as Bush and I think other than the Bush quotes that were inserted this was more complimentary of him than I expected. The best scene was Powell vs. Cheney and Rumsfeld convincing Bush to go to war. I so wanted Powell to stand up for what he thought and just wish he would have had the balls to resign if he felt as strongly as has been reported. I guess hes made some amends today.
In honesty I can believe that Matt didn't vote for Bush. He's always struck me as someone of independent mind. Out of his fecking tree a lot of the time but nevertheless, of independent mind
Saw it on opening night. Not exactly sure I can say it's entertaining. I don't think any of the portrayals of Cheney, Rove, Condi, 9/11, or much of anything beyond W were meant to be fleshed out or to exist as anything but one-dimensional props. IOW, I think Stone set out to make a film as self-centered as the subject of his movie, and as self-absorbed as Stone obviously believes Bush to be. In this, he succeeded. Events happen, connected sometimes without any context or explanation, and since we know they happened in real life, that's all the backdrop we need. As far as this movie is concerned, all that matters from these global events is how they involved W and how he saw himself (and his relationship with his dad) through the lens of these events. It's a weird character piece, whereas most biopics showcase a man's life and what makes his life significant through a recollection of his actions, there are no "actions" that W himself engineers. Stuff just, well, happens to him. He only has interest and can only react to the things as they happen to him, unfortunately the things happening to him just happened to include 9/11 and the decision to stay in the Middle East forever. You know, things that affect people on a global scale, not just W. Ultimately the movie doesn't care about the global impact of W's presidency, or the side effects on the bit players in his life. It only cares about being an intimate account of how W acted in these significant, historical times. Apparently, a lot of the time he was standing on the warning track, losing the fly ball in the lights.
I always said he never quit being a dependent personality and simply traded booze for Jesus. Never knew just how true it is.
Cut to the chase: "My guess is the most vocal Bush critics will view Stone’s account as too soft on Bush and his top advisers, while Bush’s chief advocates will ignore and dismiss it."
Yup, whether you or with him or against him, you won't find much in this movie to further your agenda. On the bright side, if W ever was curious enough to watch this (and let's be honest, he won't be) but if he ever did, the movie would still piss him off.
Belated post about an article from two weeks ago, but Oliver Stone is interviewed and explains why "W." turned out the way it did. Throwing Incaution to the Wind, Stone Paints Bush - N.Y. Times