Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:27 pm
Page 8 of 10
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 9:20 pm
Fascinating interview, Fletch. Sad to read about how Pinkville was done in by the studio.
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:52 am
New TV spot is pretty hilarious.
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:03 am
Best use of that song, ever.
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:40 am
I like how George Sr. is Poppy Bush.
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:10 am
Indeed. Brilliant. Even if this is shit, I'm getting more and more excited to see it.flyonthewall2983 wrote:Best use of that song, ever.
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:18 am
PG-13? Is that a first for Stone?
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:20 am
Actually, a 2nd. World Trade Center is as well. Wait...this is PG-13? I know it said so in the Huffington trailer, but I can't quite believe that.
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:31 am
...and just like that, I'm less excited. 
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:46 am
Drug use alone should've pushed this to a hard R.
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:49 am
People under 17 can't vote, why would they be courting kids?
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:22 am
I'm sure Ollie will say shit like he wants to teach the kids something about history. 
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:08 pm
I'm definitely getting more of the satire vibe that Stone was speaking of in that interview with this new TV spot. Looks promising!
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:35 pm
Here's the new trailer inexplicably cued to the Talking Heads. Seems more like a farce than a satire.
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:46 pm
Isn't that was linked a few posts up?
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:55 pm
Nope, it's basically an extended version of that TV spot.
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:54 pm
Did anyone else notice that the new trailer uses all of Maureen Dowd's cutesy nicknames for the Bushies? It's amazing that her writing has reached that level of cultural saturation, and it's ironic that her nicknames are being used to sell this farce in light of the epic, hilarious takedown of Stone's Nixon that she wrote 13 years ago.
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:58 pm
Tom Hagen wrote: the epic, hilarious takedown of Stone's Nixon that she wrote 13 years ago.
BrilliantBob Woodward observed, "I guess everybody gets the psychoanalyst they deserve, and Nixon got Oliver Stone."
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:36 pm
Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 1:27 am
Bale as Bush? I hope those screen tests make it onto the DVD...LQ wrote:An oscar for Brolin?
Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:19 pm
The Guardian interviews Stone.
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:18 pm
Todd McCarthy of Variety posts his review and it's not good.
Stone and Weiser make no attempt to cover historical bases; Major episodes, including political campaigns, business alliances and elections, are completely omitted. Most scenes are devoted to illuminating particular aspects of George W. examined in pithy interludes are his recklessness, people skills, insecurities, reliance upon Laura, impatience, belief that good will prevail and unwillingness to deviate once he's made up his mind. Stone stands back as if to strenuously avoid the appearance of judging his subject even as he pigeonholes him psychologically.
Docu-like feel of the latter stretch is emphasized by the sudden use of extensive real footage of Iraq, the "Mission Accomplished" aircraft carrier stunt and a Bush speech before the joint Houses of Congress, with the actors blended in with actual politicos. Pic thus enters TV territory, to its detriment, and Stone has no choice but to end on an ambiguously fanciful note that can mean anything you want it to mean.
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:10 pm
Is there such a thing of as a good review in Variety? I don't read them unless it's in a link from here, really, and I can't recall ever being sent to a positive review.Antoine Doinel wrote:Todd McCarthy of Variety posts his review and it's not good.
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:56 pm
To be honest, that review isn't too bad. McCarthy certainly doesn't come across as a Stone-basher, which is refreshing, and he does concede a handful of positive points. So I suppose it could have been worse.
Still, there does seem a distinct lack of trademark Stone-isms in the film, both thematically and aesthetically. A trade-off for Middle American bums-on-seats perhaps? Personally, I can't see it. Not from Ollie the perennial maverick.
Whatever the reason, and however positive/negative the reviews, I'll watch the film and judge it for myself.
Still, there does seem a distinct lack of trademark Stone-isms in the film, both thematically and aesthetically. A trade-off for Middle American bums-on-seats perhaps? Personally, I can't see it. Not from Ollie the perennial maverick.
Whatever the reason, and however positive/negative the reviews, I'll watch the film and judge it for myself.
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:29 pm
I have found with any Stone film that is political in nature, this is the only sensible course of action.foliagecop wrote:Whatever the reason, and however positive/negative the reviews, I'll watch the film and judge it for myself.