W.

[Jeritron]

There may have been a thread for this before but it's long gone so here we go.

Who's going to see this? I'm going tonight. Pretty excited.

Anyone seen it already?

[Champion of Europa]

Seeing this tomorrow. So psyched.

[Loose Cannon]

yea, didn't even realize this was out. woah, Josh Brolin is playing Bush? the brother of Mikey from Goonies

[thedamndest]

I like the cast and of course Oliver Stone, but I think I will probably wait until after Bush is out of office and the election buzz dies down before I see it. I feel like I will go in with less of a bias.

[DrA]

A piece of shit.

[Boondock Saint]

Looks like crap. Stone hasn't made a good movie in 15 years.

[Jeritron]

Looks like crap.

I thought the same, but recent trailer and promotion showed more promise and I began to get excited.

Stone hasn't made a good movie in 15 years.

I'd agree with you on this as of yesterday, but that streak is over. I thought it was excellent. Brolin's performance was epic as well.

[Triple A]

It was good. I liked it. It is pretty much centered around the Iraq war though but I guess that is to be expected because Oliver Stone makes anti-war movies. I kinda hoped to see more about Bush's life since it jumped from point to point but I don't blame it since it wasn't REALLY a biopic. It's pretty much about his relationship with his dad and trying to prove himself, which coincided with invading Iraq.

It was 2 hours 10 mins and still felt kinda rushed for some reason. It was good though, I would recommend it.

[DrA]

This movie should not have been made, at least not right now. It mostly seemed like it was a parody of itself. The dialogue was simplistic and formulaic, the plot was poorly organized, there were many factual errors (he choked on the pretzel during the Super Bowl, not a Texas game, the whole fool me once line, etc). There was no apparent realism in the way they handled most of the scenes. It was rushed. You could tell that Oliver Stone and company based most of the movie too much on what they thought happened, rather than doing some actual research into the way things were handled in the White House, more depth into his earlier life that that digs deeper than the apparent. Instead it seemed like the screenplay was written based off of a third party biography of him. They wanted to make this movie quickly so it would be released before election time. The result was a very poorly made film that resembled more of a skit you would see on Saturday Night Live.

Which is a shame, since the whole concept of this story could have been made into a decent film if done correctly. Hopefully in the future, when more information is gradually gets put out there/it becomes more retrospective, a more well developed movie will be made about Bush's life and his presidency.

[Jeritron]

the pretzel was during a Miami vs Baltimore game, but it hardly matters either way. I don't see how you can fault it as a movie for that. I also respectfully disagree with the other criticisms.

[Triple A]

Yeah it definitely could have been much much better. But about the little inaccuracies, it is not like Oliver Stone didn't know when exactly he choked on a pretzel and all that. That does take away some credibility from the movie, but it really shouldn't realistically have any in the first place. It wasn't a factual biopic of his life. It was pretty much a fictional character created by Oliver Stone strongly based on George Bush, and he was called George Bush. The overall point he was making throughout the movie was that Bush was a fucking idiot who lived in his father's shadow and this is why he sent innocent young Americans to die in a pointless, wrong war in Iraq. And that main point is all very true. The other little things were just done for storytelling purposes, like Karl Rove being an evil sidekick who lurks in the shadows and Colin Powell being some sort of hero.

[Jeritron]

I think it's a creative liberty. It is a movie after all. The only reasoning behind changing it to a Texas college game is to fit better with the aspect of his personality they were conveying.
The bottom line is that it showed him choke on a pretzel during a football game. Maybe it's just me but if changing what football game it is floats the directors boat for some reason, it's not really an issue.
To me it's the same to complain that he's drinking an O'Douls when in actuality you're aware that he was drinking a Coors Cutter (non alcoholic). Or that when he hit the bottle he preferred Jim Bean over Jack Daniels.

Maybe it's harder to secure NFL's rights to show their material than it is to work that out with the NCAA. That's a strong possibility also.

I don't see the need for it to be completely to detail since it's not a documentary.
Like George H. Bush. He played the role of who he was in W's life, but he wasn't up there acting like George H. Bush. He was acting like James Cromwell.
It didn't hinder the movie for me.


Another example, the baseball you see close up behing hit to W is a MLB baseball. However, they didn't make "MLB" brand baseballs back then. That started in 2002. Before that there were National and American league balls of seperate design.
I noticed this, for whatever reason because I know that miniscule detail.
It doesn't mean fuck all though.

As for the bigger creative liberties, I don't mind because I'm viewing it as a movie and not a 100% accurtate documentation. I mean how the fuck does anyone know about his dreams and things that went on with his wife or father behind close doors? They simply don't, and I doubt they'd claim to. It makes for stronger character development and fleshes out the conflict, which is neccesary to making a good movie.

[Innovator]

Stone should have waited a year or two before making this

[DrA]

It wasn't just the pretzel thing. There were many, many innaccuracies in the movie that were just blatantly wrong. Yes, there is such a thing as creative license, but when you just go seeminingly out of your way to make a movie so apathetic to even the more apparent factual occurances, then it ruins your credibility.

I don't know though. The more I think about it, this movie was so bad it was good. I think this film represents his presidency accordingly.

[DrA]

Even as a movie loosely based on him it wasn't good. Factual accuracy aside, you have a movie made of an array of undeveloped scenes that center around this vague ambition to start a war. The fact of the matter is that if you are going to make a movie about a real person and real events, then it should at least have attempts to make what happens in the movie somewhat realistic. If not, then at least the movie should be good in the way it is presented, which this was not.

And of course you can't get a 100% accurate account of what really happened. If you've ever read Gore Vidal, specifically his historical novels, he bases all of what he wrote and his dialogue on thorough. Even though he was not there, he at least attempted to make what happened in his stories to be plausible. Oliver Stone made this movie entirely on over-the-top dialogue and characterizations, which does nothing but reveal his arrogance to think he could pull it off efficiently. He did the exact thing with JFK.

[DrA]

"Hey dad, I know I am in jail, but I wanted to call you because I know you were a good baseball player at Yale."

"Yes Junior, we won the championship that year. And yes, I will bail you out...this time."


ok this is the last post I am making in this thread because if I keep on going I will never be able to stop.

[Triple A]

Everything you are saying is true. It was still relatively entertaining as a movie though, IMO and like I said, the overall idea of it was accurate. But yes, it is kinda messed up to have a movie based on a real person and just blatantly hyperbolize, which is why I took the movie more as entertainment than fact.