W. What? Why?
By Craig Kennedy - August 29th, 2008; 8:03 am
What am I not getting about this movie?
Source: Rope of Silicon
Filed under: Clips, Previews
Tags: Elizabeth Banks, Josh Brolin, W.
Related Posts: - Everyone’s Watching the ‘Watchmen’ Trailer
- Friday Filler: Lose Your Breakfast
- Clint Eastwood IS Starsky’s Car
- My city screams on Christmas
- More Loose Ends: 10/29/08
It’s still too early to tell, Craig. I have a vague idea of where Stone might be going — or where I’d like him to go — but from what I’ve seen and read, speculation would be futile.
I have to admit I’m more curious than I was at first, though.
I JUST watched that and it was disturbing…Stone apparently believes that W was once halfway charming, witty, and able to speak in a manner connoting intelligence. Either the movie has a scene where he takes a serious blow to the noggin not long after this one or the movie is a complete fantasy.
And Elizabeth Banks is WAY too hot to play Laura Bush. She’s never looked that good in her entire life. Sorry, it’s true.
No, you get it but Stone doesn’t. The film is made for the inside the Beltway crowd, not necessarily a demographic I’d be proud to attract. I have to work with them all day and read what they write, and while they often use sophisticated parlance, the chip on their shoulders often obstruct their view of reality.
I’ll leave you with this anecdote: two years ago I worked for a rather well-known pollster/consultant (now actually one of Obama’s pollsters) and for Christmas I bought everyone in the office super-hero supplies: black hole repair kits, truth serum, secret identity kits, anti-matter, etc. They didn’t get it.
However, they are all very much looking forward to W.
Yeah, but that one-sheet they released a while ago for it was pretty awesome.
Good one sheet, agreed.
I just don’t see where Stone is going with this or what the point is. I say the 8 years are almost over. Let them end and let history decide what it all means. Now is not really the time for a Bush movie, for or against.
I’ll see it. It’s a curiousity…but i don’t know.
The most unbelievable thing is thinking that George W. Bush read “The Conscience of a Conservative” (though it’s only 127 pages).
I’m getting the feeling that Brolin will be considered the best thing about the film. Every frame, every shot, every scene I see, indicates he was acting his pants off. It looks just a little like Anthony Hopkins summoning Nixon through sheer force of will. Could it be considered a bad movie with a contender for Best Actor within it? (I only bring up the prospect of the Oscars as a statement to the possible warm reception Brolin’s performance may enjoy despite what may likely be a mixed-to-bad reaction to the film.)
Actually, Alexander, there’s a 50/50 chance you’ll get four more years.
It’s difficult to imagine that W would attract Oscar recognition — the very idea seems too appalling or embarrassing right now.
The thing about Bush is that lots and lots of people find him charming even in middle age. Thirty years ago, with a little booze and coke in his system and tighter abs, he probably was considerably moreso, especially if you’re attracted to bad-boy smartasses.
And biopics are filled with performers better looking than their subjects.
This seems like one of those films where I’ll have to reserve judgment ’til I see more than snippets.
I admit I’m intrigued by Brolin, Oscar-worthy or not. That first clip that came out with him giving a speech, felt a little too much like mimicry, but this one was better.
I think Pierre, it’s the involvement of Oliver Stone that has me confused. If it was anyone else, I’d assume it was going to be some kind of hagiography and I could easily skip it. With Stone I’d obviously assume he’s going the other way and I ask, why bother?
I didn’t read the script, but is it possible he’s actually taking an evenhanded approach to this story? From what I’d heard, it reads more like a sitcom.
I seriously can’t wait to see this…it’s one of my most anticipated releases of the fall. I hope Stone doesn’t disappoint me.
For me, the least anticipated movie of the Fall.
oh, c’mon Ryan, you know you’re anticipating the heck out of seeing how bad it is. :-)
I am Jack’s complete and utter lack of interest in this.
I’m more likely to undergo unnecessary elective surgery in Argentina before I’ll bother to see this movie. Why would I want to spend any more of my time unraveling the mystery that is W?
Well, excited or not, we’re all talking about it. It is a film that begs for conversation. Whether or not that will translate to actual ticket sales, I don’t know. But if we’re talking about it, you can bet a whole buncha other people are as well.
The same reason you slow down when you pass a car wreck?
Touche. :)
The buzz factor is part of why I think he did it in the first place.
I think people are talking about this movie because they’re curious why Stone is even making it and wondering if it will be another JFK or World Trade Center.
Either way, I have no interest in seeing it. But then again, I would only slow down for car wrecks when there’s a safety issue involved. Why revel in someone else’s suffering?
Craig, the word “evenhanded” does not come to my mind when thinking of Oliver Stone. I’m one of those people who really enjoyed Natural Born Killers, and there are plenty of bits and pieces of that film that look like crap — both in and out of context.
To me, the guy and his talent are larger than life, excellence and vulgarity all rolled into one. Which way the scales tip on this most recent film is anybody’s guess right now, though to me the timing seems off — and I’m not sure the timing for this would ever be “on.”
I’ll see it, for no reason other than the fact that it’s a movie and, um, idk.
I have no idea why I want to see it actually. Just do.
Two words: Llewelyn Moss.