PDA

View Full Version : General Politics "W"


Logical
10-19-2008, 12:57 AM
I saw the movie tonight, I would not recommend it even though I enjoyed it. Matinee or wait for DVD is the wise choice.

Josh Brolin did good.

Fraid I don't know most of the actors so I will discuss the characters

Cheney was spot on, as evil as I imagine the real one to be.
George H.W. came across as human and likeable but might have shaped Ws complex and need to prove himself
Laura and Barbara not very well done actually all the women, Condoleeza Rice especially was treated like a foot shuffling porter.
Colin Powell, not believable at all, but he had a couple of funny moments
Karl Rove IMO was also dead nuts.
The rest of the cabinet eminently forgetable, though George Tenet was IMO accurately portrayed as a victim.
Tony Blair - this was the worst IMO

1.5 stars I am afraid.

So what did others think?

Thig Lyfe
10-19-2008, 01:05 AM
I saw the movie tonight, I would not recommend it even though I enjoyed it.
...

1.5 stars I am afraid.



Huh?

Logical
10-19-2008, 01:07 AM
Huh?Awfully slow much of the time. Most of the efforts to go for laughs failed. Probably more background that was needed and finally a very strange ending, even for Oliver Stone.

Direckshun
10-19-2008, 01:16 AM
I couldn't tell what the fuck the movie was trying to accomplish. This isn't one of those situations where we're supposed to feel the ultimate gravity of the entire Bush presidency, nor is it one of those movies where it's a lighthearted skewering. It tries to mash both together and it's a clusterfuck that goes nowhere.

My main issues are twofold: the movie doesn't TOUCH, doesn't even ADDRESS the events of 2000 and 2001, two of the most important years of the Bush administration.

Second, the movie basically takes the angle that Bush is a dumb fratboy trying to impress his father, which is about as hamhanded an angle you can take in a movie that's supposed to be considered a serious examination.

Outside of a few laughs, this movie blew. I'll wait for someone else to put out a better expose on the Bush administration.

Logical
10-19-2008, 01:22 AM
I couldn't tell what the **** the movie was trying to accomplish. This isn't one of those situations where we're supposed to feel the ultimate gravity of the entire Bush presidency, nor is it one of those movies where it's a lighthearted skewering. It tries to mash both together and it's a cluster**** that goes nowhere.

My main issues are twofold: the movie doesn't TOUCH, doesn't even ADDRESS the events of 2000 and 2001, two of the most important years of the Bush administration.


Second, the movie basically takes the angle that Bush is a dumb fratboy trying to impress his father, which is about as hamhanded an angle you can take in a movie that's supposed to be considered a serious examination.

Outside of a few laughs, this movie blew. I'll wait for someone else to put out a better expose on the Bush administration.Good point about 2000 and 2001 (also the election debacle)

Taco John
10-19-2008, 01:30 AM
I couldn't tell what the **** the movie was trying to accomplish. This isn't one of those situations where we're supposed to feel the ultimate gravity of the entire Bush presidency, nor is it one of those movies where it's a lighthearted skewering. It tries to mash both together and it's a cluster**** that goes nowhere.

My main issues are twofold: the movie doesn't TOUCH, doesn't even ADDRESS the events of 2000 and 2001, two of the most important years of the Bush administration.

Second, the movie basically takes the angle that Bush is a dumb fratboy trying to impress his father, which is about as hamhanded an angle you can take in a movie that's supposed to be considered a serious examination.

Outside of a few laughs, this movie blew. I'll wait for someone else to put out a better expose on the Bush administration.


Sounds like the 9/11 commission report. Aimless. Surface piercing. Sterile.

Thig Lyfe
10-19-2008, 01:31 AM
Awfully slow much of the time. Most of the efforts to go for laughs failed. Probably more background that was needed and finally a very strange ending, even for Oliver Stone.

But you enjoyed it?

Logical
10-19-2008, 01:39 AM
But you enjoyed it?I liked being reminded of why he is such a collossal failure. That was done well IMO.

Thig Lyfe
10-19-2008, 01:53 AM
I liked being reminded of why he is such a collossal failure. That was done well IMO.

Ah, gotcha.

I think Recount did a good job of that even though it only focused on the 2000 election. The dramatic irony in that movie is just painful.

As for W., I'm torn. On one hand, I think it's way too soon to have any decent perspective on his presidency. On the other hand, I think Josh Brolin looks hilarious in it. I haven't decided on whether I'll make an effort to see it.

Logical
10-19-2008, 01:56 AM
Ah, gotcha.

I think Recount did a good job of that even though it only focused on the 2000 election. The dramatic irony in that movie is just painful.

As for W., I'm torn. On one hand, I think it's way too soon to have any decent perspective on his presidency. On the other hand, I think Josh Brolin looks hilarious in it. I haven't decided on whether I'll make an effort to see it.If you want something that is fair and perfectly accurate, this is not your movie.

DaneMcCloud
10-19-2008, 01:57 AM
Sounds like the 9/11 commission report. Aimless. Surface piercing. Sterile.

Sounds even more like an Oliver Stone movie from the past decade.

He's lost "it".

Logical
10-19-2008, 02:00 AM
Sounds even more like an Oliver Stone movie from the past decade.

He's lost "it".Pretty much, sort of sad.

Ultra Peanut
10-19-2008, 02:02 AM
a very strange ending, even for Oliver Stone.That sounds pretty appropriate, actually.

J Diddy
10-19-2008, 02:19 AM
That sounds pretty appropriate, actually.

An appropriate ending for the true "w" is choking on alphabet soup.

Ultra Peanut
10-19-2008, 02:20 AM
I really want to see this, if only to see Brolin's performance. He's scary good in the trailers and clips.

Otter
10-19-2008, 03:30 AM
1.5 stars on what scale? Just curious.

Oliver Stone is my least favorite steadfast director. He's pretty David Lynch without the surrealism or symbolism. Gah, I hate his movies.

Baby Lee
10-19-2008, 05:39 AM
about as hamhanded an angle you can take in a movie
Did I hear the line correctly on TDS?
When W and Laura meet she says "Hi, I'm Laura, I like to smoke."

keg in kc
10-19-2008, 05:43 AM
Second, the movie basically takes the angle that Bush is a dumb fratboy trying to impress his fatherThat sounds about right. He's a life-long failure in every enterprise he's ever dabbled-in, including his tenure in the White House. He'd be nobody without the family money.

Programmer
10-19-2008, 06:49 AM
I saw the movie tonight, I would not recommend it even though I enjoyed it. Matinee or wait for DVD is the wise choice.

Josh Brolin did good.

Fraid I don't know most of the actors so I will discuss the characters

Cheney was spot on, as evil as I imagine the real one to be.
George H.W. came across as human and likeable but might have shaped Ws complex and need to prove himself
Laura and Barbara not very well done actually all the women, Condoleeza Rice especially was treated like a foot shuffling porter.
Colin Powell, not believable at all, but he had a couple of funny moments
Karl Rove IMO was also dead nuts.
The rest of the cabinet eminently forgetable, though George Tenet was IMO accurately portrayed as a victim.
Tony Blair - this was the worst IMO

1.5 stars I am afraid.

So what did others think?

Disappointed that it wasn't a blockbuster that would bury W? With the display of hatred you have for him that's the only conclusion anyone could come to with your lack of a rating for the movie. Maybe Stone should have had MM help him out.:rolleyes:

J Diddy
10-19-2008, 01:41 PM
Disappointed that it wasn't a blockbuster that would bury W? With the display of hatred you have for him that's the only conclusion anyone could come to with your lack of a rating for the movie. Maybe Stone should have had MM help him out.:rolleyes:



ROFLROFLROFL

I think Bush has long since been buried in the public eye.

DaneMcCloud
10-19-2008, 02:01 PM
Disappointed that it wasn't a blockbuster that would bury W? With the display of hatred you have for him that's the only conclusion anyone could come to with your lack of a rating for the movie. Maybe Stone should have had MM help him out.:rolleyes:

Were you expecting a fluff piece?

Programmer
10-19-2008, 02:04 PM
ROFLROFLROFL

I think Bush has long since been buried in the public eye.

Who cares? Bush is not running, plus the movie is basically a propaganda flick.

Programmer
10-19-2008, 02:04 PM
Were you expecting a fluff piece?

I would expect nothing.

I'll wait for the Bill Clinton xxx rated movie for his time in public office.

Reaper16
10-19-2008, 02:28 PM
"W." was a decent movie, I thought. Two and a half stars sounds about right.

I can see plenty of people not enjoying it because it didn't meet their expectations as to form. This is not a hatchet job to the Bush administration, this is not so much a revalation into the inner workings of the Bush WHite House (though we certainly see that).

This movie is almost completely a character study. Period. It is attempting to look at GWB, the person; the way he understands things, the motivations behind his decisions. It's pretty damn nuetral -- there are times where the movie is very sympathetic, and of course there are times where critical commentary is being made. The only real aspect of the Bush administration that the movie covers is the war in Iraq -- the decision to have it being portrayed as a mix of rebellion against Dubya's father and the influece of Cheney's worldview.

This is not a movie about politics, per se. Its a movie about people in politics.

Programmer
10-19-2008, 02:51 PM
"W." was a decent movie, I thought. Two and a half stars sounds about right.

I can see plenty of people not enjoying it because it didn't meet their expectations as to form. This is not a hatchet job to the Bush administration, this is not so much a revalation into the inner workings of the Bush WHite House (though we certainly see that).

This movie is almost completely a character study. Period. It is attempting to look at GWB, the person; the way he understands things, the motivations behind his decisions. It's pretty damn nuetral -- there are times where the movie is very sympathetic, and of course there are times where critical commentary is being made. The only real aspect of the Bush administration that the movie covers is the war in Iraq -- the decision to have it being portrayed as a mix of rebellion against Dubya's father and the influece of Cheney's worldview.

This is not a movie about politics, per se. Its a movie about people in politics.

It's a hatchet job based on the hate index regarding GWB, noting more nothing less.

Count Zarth
10-19-2008, 02:55 PM
It's a hatchet job based on the hate index regarding GWB, noting more nothing less.

Serious question: Was Bush a good president?

Donger
10-19-2008, 03:00 PM
It all went downhill after Conan, although Platoon and Wall Street were more enjoyable to watch than the 2008 Chiefs.

Reaper16
10-19-2008, 03:01 PM
It's a hatchet job based on the hate index regarding GWB, noting more nothing less.
I disagree. I found the film's complete focus to be a study of GWB as a character. In no manner is this movie catering to hateful sentiment towards him; in fact I think that most people that do hate him might walk away from the movie disappointed at how sympathetic the movie is towards him at times.

Ari Chi3fs
10-19-2008, 03:45 PM
This movie was one of the WORST STEAMING PILES OF SHIT that I have EVER seen.

I shit you not, I heard at least 6-7 people snoring during it. I feel asleep for a bit. Both of the people I went with fell asleep at different times.

Horribly slow... pointless and factually inaccurate.

It didn't blow the cover off anything... I was hoping that they would question Skull and Bones, the Good Ol Boy network... Halliburton and Cheney... something... Rumsfeld and Monsanto... nothing.

This movie was utterly pointless. Its almost as if W wrote it himself...

FAIL.

Logical
10-19-2008, 03:50 PM
1.5 stars on what scale? Just curious.

Oliver Stone is my least favorite steadfast director. He's pretty David Lynch without the surrealism or symbolism. Gah, I hate his movies.On a 5 star scale

Logical
10-19-2008, 03:52 PM
Disappointed that it wasn't a blockbuster that would bury W? With the display of hatred you have for him that's the only conclusion anyone could come to with your lack of a rating for the movie. Maybe Stone should have had MM help him out.:rolleyes:First of all W is already buried, this movie did not need to accomplish it. I would agree with Ari Chiefs that this is so ham handed Bush himself could have wrote it.

Programmer
10-19-2008, 04:32 PM
Serious question: Was Bush a good president?

Serious answer: doesn't matter what anyone gives for your question, you already have a very large case of hatred for him so there is no good answer.

I would say that he had some good decisions as well as some bad ones.

Direckshun
10-19-2008, 04:36 PM
Serious answer: doesn't matter what anyone gives for your question, you already have a very large case of hatred for him so there is no good answer.

I would say that he had some good decisions as well as some bad ones.

Above average president, average president, or below average president?

SoCalBronco
10-19-2008, 04:55 PM
Above average president, average president, or below average president?

Clearly well below average. In the same category as Kennedy, Reagan and Carter so far as recent presidents go.

Programmer
10-19-2008, 06:29 PM
Above average president, average president, or below average president?

I'll wait for history to tell us. Revision seems to be the #1 pasttime for tracking what went on. When Nixon left office he was said to be the worst we ever had, now he is not held in the same light.