edited by Jonathan Doyle

Cloverfield [BLU-RAY] (Paramount Home Entertainment, 6.3.2008) Disguised under deliberately goofy, yet deliciously edible-sounding, aliases such as Cheese and Slusho, Matt Reeves' Cloverfield was produced and rushed into theaters under an equally appetizing shroud of secrecy. From last year's incredibly elusive Super Bowl ad to the film's viral marketing campaign, Cloverfield had everybody scratching their heads and drooling in anticipation. Aside from the as-yet untitled title and the Blair Witch-ian visual style, the film's biggest appeal was the enigmatic creature who was last (un)seen hurling the decapitated head of the Statue of Liberty onto the crowded streets of New York City. All we knew about the mysterious beast was that it was big and angry. Now that the highy-anticipated project has come and gone, one question has fortunately been answered: Cloverfield was a major success. (continued)

Upcoming

November 12

Slumdog Millionaire

November 14

A Christmas Tale

B.O.H.I.C.A.

Dostana

The Dukes

Eden

House of the Sleeping Beauties

How About You

Quantum of Solace

We are Wizards

November 21

The Betrayal

November 30

A Little W. Love

email this story
read comments (42)
post a comment

Say what you will about the matter-of-fact unfolding of Oliver Stone's W., about the inescapable intrigue coupled with a relatively rote approach, about the mild-mannered, low-style precision that if anything bends over backwards to be fair to our 43rd U.S. President, and about Josh Brolin's performance as George W. Bush being dead perfect but -- and this, I believe, is a crucial distinction -- appropriately hollow. Which means that on some level the performance, like the film itself, leaves you feeling a wee bit flat and wanting more. But wait.

This is part of a deceptive strategy, it turns out. You're supposed to say "this is great but why isn't it better?" Because it's about a fairly shallow man, for one thing, and the facts are the facts. On top of which cagey Oliver is holding his cards to his chest and making you wait for the turnaround of the last ten or twelve minutes, which pays off (or at least paid off for me) in a way that -- seriously, no jive -- is something close to astonishing.

So bring out all the thoughtful complaints if you want (as Variety's Todd McCarthy and the Hollywood Reporter's Kirk Honeycutt have done this morning), but you have to give it this one thing, and for me it's something that, in my eyes at least, makes W. one of the most startling and surprising films of the year.

The damn movie leaves you feeling sorry for this fucker at the finale, and that ain't hay.

Compassion for a fiendish klutz? For one of the worst guys on the planet right now? For the chief enabler and architect of this country's massive financial ruin? For the man who tarnished and shamed his country and took it on a moral and ethical downslide that will take years if not decades to turn around, if it's not too late? Yes.

Which, being a Bush hater second to none, I didn't think was possible. But that's what it does, and you have to give Stone credit for an amazing sleight of hand. I came out saying to myself, as Bush himself says to himself at the finale, "What just happened?" By the last shot you are sold because the anger is gone and you're left with this stunned and oddly tragic figure saying to himself, "This is how my life turned out?"

Stanley Weiser's screenplay is what it is -- a no-frills portrait of a sad, limited and stubborn man who was never able to climb out of what he was given and born into from the moment he took his first breath. How, Weiser must have said to himself at the beginning, do you touch people's souls with such a character? Richard III, he's not. But he is George the 2nd, and that's enough. Because all along it's been about his relationship to his father, George H.W. Bush. What a mess. What a calamity.

"I'm not sure that we'll succeed," Stone recently told a British journalist. "But this movie is not for the 12 per cent who still approve of him - it's for the other 88 per cent." (I thought Bush's approval rating was something like 26 per cent...no?) "On the other hand, I don't think there's anything in the movie that the other 88 per cent would have any reason to detest. It is a human portrait of a man, not meant to insult people who believe in what Bush believes in."

This, Stone told the Brit, is why he made W. - "to understand, to walk in the man's shoes. 'It's my job...if I'm dramatizing his life...to step above my hate,' he says.'"

This is all I have time to write because I have to see W. again at 9 am and then go to the press junket and talk to Stone, Brolin and Weiser. I'll write more about it later today and tomorrow.

Added note: W. was shot under the gun, 46 days of principal photography, only 300,000 feet of film exposed (as opposed to the normal million) and only a bit more than two months of post-production. I'm saying this because Stone -- you do have to be fair about this -- might have had time to burnish and refine and add some English here and there, and W. might have been a bit more than it is right now. I'm not making excuses. I'm just saying that the plain-deal flatness, given the circumstances, was inevitable, and yet, as I've said, it serves a purpose in that it reflects the depth of Dubya's soul. And then along comes the ending and you go, "Oh, I see...now I get it. Wow."

Carol Truth Squad<< previous | next >>More Milk Praise

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on October 7, 2008 at 8:19 AM

comment #1

bryce_david says ...

Oliver Stone is so out of touch with reality that he should just pack it in and retire.

No one wants to see a movie about this idiot and his puppetmasters.

Posted by bryce_david at October 7, 2008 8:44 AM

comment #2

Zimmergirl says ...

See, Josh Brolin is likable no matter who he's playing.

Posted by Zimmergirl at October 7, 2008 8:49 AM

comment #3

Michael says ...

I voted for the man twice (I'm sorry! I am really, really sorry). And I'm not a Stone fan by any stretch, but I disagree that he's out of touch with reality...he was at one point, but he must have been taking his meds the past few years.

From the tone of the trailers alone, I can't wait to see this in theatres...it will be an extra joy to see it here in San Antonio.

Posted by Michael at October 7, 2008 8:50 AM

comment #4

actionman says ...

I wouldn't say that Stone is out of touch with reality and that he should pack it in and retire. The man has made some remarkable films, and is a first class filmmaker.

However, this is NOT the kind of film I thought we were in for. Now, having not seen the film yet (I will see it opening weekend like many of us), I can't comment as to what it is in the end. But this write up by Wells, and the two trade reviews posted today, suggest a totally different film than what Stone was saying he set out to make, and a different film than what I had assumed it might be based on the trailers.

I don't want to leave the theater feeling sorry for this dumb ass. This guy is an evil fuck, someone who has screwed up our country so badly, that no matter who takes over in January, it will be almost impossible to recover from his mistakes. I wanted a blistering take-down attack on Bush, or at the very least, a Strangelovian-satire of the guy and his family. What it sounds like we're gonna get is some great performances, some great scenes, and an easy-going stance to a profoundly corrupt presidential term.

I love Oliver Stone as a filmmaker. I have seen every one of his films more than once, and some, like NBK, Nixon, JFK, Platoon, and Any Given Sunday, countless times. The man is a cinematic provocateur, and while I respected his John Ford-like approach to material like World Trade Center, that was a film that felt as un-Oliver Stone as possible. Sounds like the tampering down of his style, both visually and narratively, is going to make for a dry viewing experience with W. Where is the old, razzle-dazzle Stone? I want that guy back, damn it.

But, I hope I am wrong. Ever since I heard about this project, and the casting of Brolin, and the idea that they'd shoot it this spring, edit it this summer, and release it before the election, I have been extremely excited and anxious to see it. It's a bold move on everyone's part to have been associated with this film. Saying F-you to the US distributors and producers who wouldn't go near the film and rounding up foreign coin to get the film made -- I respect that. But why take a neutral stance to such a despicable human being?

Why bother making this film if Stone wasn't going to ruffle some feathers? I don't believe him about his "step above my hate" comment. It sounds like he's made a safe film about an unsafe person, and that feels to me like he has, in essence, pussied out of what he should have done in the first place: BURY THIS FUCKING ASSHOLE into the ground.

Posted by actionman at October 7, 2008 9:03 AM

comment #5

Lars says ...

I'm anticipating this movie more than any other film this year. I can't wait.

Posted by Lars at October 7, 2008 9:07 AM

comment #6

Marcello says ...

Apology accepted, Michael. I mean, hey... no harm done!

Posted by Marcello at October 7, 2008 9:14 AM

comment #7

T. S. Idiot says ...

I'm a lifelong Nixon hater, but I cried at NIXON. But this was years after Watergate, not in the midst of the chaos. In what kind of crazy world is a fictional W worth our sympathy? Ollie's W may have depths of emotion, but there's no way I can be convinced the creep in the White House is capable of an honest emotion about anything or a deep thought about anything.

And how will Ollie feel if his next projects are stymied because the economic crisis created by this bungler?

Posted by T. S. Idiot at October 7, 2008 9:24 AM

comment #8

StoneFan1 says ...

Actionman's comments are the prime example of why Oliver Stone can't win in this current age of Hollywood. He isn't given the time, nor the money, nor fthe reedom to truly be himself, so he has to do what he can and people attack him for that. He doesn't have a choice. It's either work for no money in 46-days or don't work at all. I think he should tackle the whole war on terror head on, but then who would dare give him the money to do it? Dexter Filkins recent book "The Forever War" is just waiting for somebody to make a film out of it. Based on his "Salvador" experience, it would be perfect for Stone. And, yet I sense he couldn't even get the project even if he wanted it. Hollywood hates him and that's all there is to it.

Posted by StoneFan1 at October 7, 2008 9:33 AM

comment #9

arturobandini2 says ...

actionman ... right on, Brother.

How's the makeup look? I thought it looked uncanny back in the Vanity Fair pictorial, but every still and clip that's cropped up recently looks like SNL on a rushed night. Seriously, if the makeup is laughable and the filmmaker pussies out, then we've basically got MOMMIE DEAREST here.

Posted by arturobandini2 at October 7, 2008 9:36 AM

comment #10

StoneFan1 says ...

T.S. - Since Hollywood isn't giving him money anymore, I doubt he'll care. Stone can just get some more money from China to make his next film, just like he did with "W."

Posted by StoneFan1 at October 7, 2008 9:37 AM

comment #11

StoneFan1 says ...

"Filmmaker pussies out" How so? I guess he just should've made a HATE filled piece of crap for all you Bush-hating liberals to watch, huh? WRONG! He's an actual ADULT (unlike YOU) and has to deliver something worth his effort as an artist. Stone is the ONLY director in the WORLD that avoided turning this film into something that you could tell how it was going down from the freaking Moon!

Posted by StoneFan1 at October 7, 2008 9:41 AM

comment #12

actionman says ...

StoneFan1: all Hollywood cares about is cash. That's it. Stone has made more successful movies than unsuccessful movies. In fact, I don't think there is one film that he's made that could be labeled as an outright financial failure (Alexander and U-turn included, as both made money overseas and on video/dvd/cable sales).

He'd be able to secure financing if the studios wanted to make the films he wants to make. He was able to make WTC because Paramount had a patriotic script and Stone must've agreed to tone down his assaultive visual style and just make a straight-ahead drama...no conspiracy theories, no conjecture, just the facts.

By stepping outside of Hollywood with the production of W., Stone had the chance to rip into Bush and tear him a new asshole. I don't believe that anyone who gave money to the W. production had any creative input on the film in question. This film, from what I have read, was cobbled together from a variety of sources, and the low budget (apparently $30 million), should have given him even more freedom within his narrative and in his visual style. He should have taken more time and not rushed to get it out before the election. Who's idea was that, anyways? It seems like something Stone was up too, not one of the foreign based money men behind the film. It's a strategic release meant to impact the election in any way that a movie could possibly impact an election. And in the long run, it's not going to have any real effect on what voters do at the polls.

Again, I haven't seen the film, so I am just going on what I have read and seen from the trailers. And aside from a "I can't wait to see this" or "This looks like shit" statement, I normally don't like discussing movies that I haven't seen yet. It's just that I am a huge fan of Stone's, and I love the way he operates as a filmmaker. His movies, like Mann's or Scorsese's or Scott's (both of 'em) or Malick's or Herzog's, are events for me. I expect a lot from him as a storyteller and filmmaker.

Some people in Hollywood may in deed hate Stone, but the moment the studios feel that he'll bring in the dollars, then all is forgiven.

Posted by actionman at October 7, 2008 9:47 AM

comment #13

Chapman Carruthers says ...

Stonefan1,

Will you go to lunch? Go to lunch. WILL you GO to LUNCH?

Posted by Chapman Carruthers at October 7, 2008 9:48 AM

comment #14

actionman says ...

StoneFan1: first of all, I am NOT a liberal. I have no political leaning one way or another. And sorry to inform you, but yes, I am actually an adult, contrary to what you may like to believe. I am interested in filmmakers making the best possible film that they can. So color me disappointed when I hear that a fire-ball filmmaker like Stone has made a "conventional" and easy going biopic of someone who is easily the biggest thief, liar, and imbecile to hold office of my generation.

Stone has made no bones about his hate for Bush; why make a soft-ball movie? Again, haven't seen it, so I feel almost stupid making all of these comments, but from what I have read, the ballsiness that Stone brought to his previous projects is absent in W. Which is a shame, because when Stone wants to unleash some cinematic demons, he has done so with smarts, style, and gusto.

And sadly, for whatever reason, it seems like he's backing down from working on his 9/11 conspiracy film that would have directly implicated Bush in lying to the public about why we got involved in Iraq. He had made numerous statements that WTC was his "nice" 9/11 film, and that pretty soon, he'd be working on a harder, more aggressive story about our government and the handling of the country directly after 9/11. I believe he was supposed to be working with screenwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh on the project.

Maybe he's softening with age. I don't know. I just know that I want the old Oliver Stone back.

And regardless of what any critic, blogger, commenter, or talking-head of the media has to say about W., I am still very excited to see it. It's just that now I am really looking forward to the performances, more than the actual movie.

Bush is a fucking phony. Stone should have slaughtered him.

Posted by actionman at October 7, 2008 9:58 AM

comment #15

arturobandini2 says ...

StoneFan: "He's an actual ADULT (unlike YOU)..."

Or YOU, from the sound of it. I haven't seen W yet (neither has actionman) which is why we framed our comments with the conditional "IF."

As a director, Stone has lost his way just as often as he's found it, so I go into this movie with trepidation. If he is truly the artist you say, then he will convince us 100% that George W. Bush is a human being worthy of our sympathy. If (IF!), on the other hand, Stone has copped out in the name of "balance" (as the news media defines it), then it'll probably be the last time I take a chance on one of his movies. It's been a long comedown since the passion he showed in SALVADOR.

Posted by arturobandini2 at October 7, 2008 10:02 AM

comment #16

Michael says ...

Stone has made no bones about his hate for Bush; why make a soft-ball movie?

actionman, I think the argument is that making a film that destroys Bush IS the soft-ball move. Almost literally, any director in Hollywood could have made a destroy-Bush film. Stone is showing a huge pair in making a film that evokes sympathy for him...it is totally against the conventional wisdom, which is what I expect from Stone.

Posted by Michael at October 7, 2008 10:15 AM

comment #17

Michael says ...

Also, @ Marcello:

Considering where I live, it wouldn't have made a difference...but I'm sorry all the same.

Posted by Michael at October 7, 2008 10:17 AM

comment #18

actionman says ...

I guess I have no empathy for the guy and no interest in a sympathetic look at one of the biggest fools elected to the most important job in the country. Sorry.

Posted by actionman at October 7, 2008 10:20 AM

comment #19

Joshua Mooney says ...

StoneFan1: I take it you are unaware of how much cash the U.S. government, under the "leadership" of George W. Bush, currently gets from Red China? How much fucking money we owe them? Idiot. Wake up and get real.

I'm not surprised to hear that Stone's film is lacking in crucial ways, but I'll be on line to see it when it opens.

Posted by Joshua Mooney at October 7, 2008 10:28 AM

comment #20

Movie Watcher says ...

He was on Larry King last night, and he made some good points. I am interested in seeing the movie. I am sure the right/conservatives will complain, but hey, if Obama wins, let Zucker make a movie about Obama!

Posted by Movie Watcher at October 7, 2008 10:28 AM

comment #21

Mark says ...

"But why take a neutral stance to such a despicable human being?"

How irrational. It's like those who protest any film that alludes to Hitler as a human being who I'm sure masturbated in his teens and sometimes painted. He wasn't, in fact, created in the devil's basment out of iron and decaying trees.

It's easy to simply point, and say evil, and dismiss it at that while learning nothing. It's get's a little more complicated to try and empathize, and maybe learn something about yourself from a man who got in way over his head.

Posted by Mark at October 7, 2008 10:29 AM

comment #22

actionman says ...

Nothing irrational with anything I have said, Mark. I have been completely rational. When the facts can't be ignored or denied, I become suspicious of a once politically charged filmmaker like Stone apparently going soft and easy. And I hate writing that, because I truly believe that Stone is one of the best and most important American filmmakers to ever pick up a camera.

There's more to it than just "a man who got in way over his head." Bush was never fit to be commander in chief, he stole an election, lied to the public repeatedly, and has fucked us up financially and ethically in a way few President's have. I think he's a disgrace.

And with that, I am done with all my ranting and raving. The film will be what it is, I still hope and expect to be entertained, at least by the performances, and I am still very much looking forward to seeing the film next week.

Posted by actionman at October 7, 2008 10:40 AM

comment #23

Josh Massey says ...

The fact that reviews aren't over-the-moon leads me to believe this film really sucks.

"...a movie about Obama!"

You'll never see a movie about Obama. It won't happen because any feature-length film will have to look at the ups and downs - and too many people aren't willing to recognize the man might have (gasp!) floss.

Its why we haven't seen a movie about MLK Jr. Any criticism or character flaw displayed would be seen as racist or even blasphemous at this point. Sainthood is a bitch.

Posted by Josh Massey at October 7, 2008 10:44 AM

comment #24

Sean says ...

"... but I'll be on line to see it when it opens."

Freudian slip of the day!

Posted by Sean at October 7, 2008 10:49 AM

comment #25

bluefugue says ...

"Why bother making this film if Stone wasn't going to ruffle some feathers? I don't believe him about his "step above my hate" comment. It sounds like he's made a safe film about an unsafe person, and that feels to me like he has, in essence, pussied out of what he should have done in the first place: BURY THIS FUCKING ASSHOLE into the ground."

What kind of a drama would it be if you just go on about how you hate someone? Go back to Richard III. It's a portrait of a detestable human being, but Shakespeare still takes us inside him, makes us almost sympathize with him. If the creator doesn't make that attempt, the result isn't drama at all -- it's polemic. Which is usually not very interesting at 90-120 minutes in length.

I am also surprised that you are surprised Stone would take this approach. His portrait of Nixon was almost tender.

Posted by bluefugue at October 7, 2008 10:57 AM

comment #26

bluefugue says ...

"It's why we haven't seen a movie about MLK, Jr. Any criticism or character flaw displayed would be seen as racist, or even blasphemous at this point. Sainthood is a bitch."

It's bedeviled the limited cinematic portraits we've seen of Lincoln, too. What a man he must have been -- opportunistic, ambitious, fiercely intelligent, politically devious, prone to deep melancholy, the architect through blood and iron of the modern Union. What we usually get in pop culture portrayals is a folksy aw-shucks guy in a top hat. I'm curious to see how Spielberg will tackle it (if he ever does), but I'm not optimistic; intelligence and rich characterization are not Spielberg's fortes although he is a magnificent filmmaker in his way.

Posted by bluefugue at October 7, 2008 11:01 AM

comment #27

StoneFan1 says ...

Okay, I'm back from lunch!

Now, I don't think Stone has "gone soft" (whatever that means), but I do feel people are giving him the SHAFT just because they can. It's unfair!

As far as money goes, Stone has NEVER had a streak like he's on now. "Any Given Sunday" $100 million worldwide, "Alexander" $167-173 million worldwide, and "World Trade Center" $162-163 million worldwide. Hollywood didn't want to touch "W." with a ten foot pole. Shame on them!!!!!

Stone needs to get on "The Forever War" and make that baby into a masterpiece.

Posted by StoneFan1 at October 7, 2008 11:01 AM

comment #28

arturobandini2 says ...

It's hardly brave to take a sympathetic stance toward Shrub. The American electorate felt sympathetic toward his lack of intellectual acumen and voted for him in 2000. The Supreme Court had sympathy for his family and appointed him C-in-C. The news media showed him a ridiculous amount of sympathy, from his first do-nothing year in office, through 9/11 (some foolishly equated him with Prince Hal) and his re-election (who but Dan Rather even went after his National Guard records?). Once in power, the sympathetic Democratic Congress assured him that impeachment was "off the table."

I'm tired of everyone feeling sorry for this colossal fuck-up. When George W. Bush apologizes to the 97.5% of Americans whose lives he's made infinitely worse off (not to mention others on this planet), I might be in the mood to see a sympathetic portrayal of his biography.

Posted by arturobandini2 at October 7, 2008 11:13 AM

comment #29

actionman says ...

"I am also surprised that you are surprised Stone would take this approach. His portrait of Nixon was almost tender."

I found nothing "tender" about his depiction of Nixon. But that's just me.

Posted by actionman at October 7, 2008 11:22 AM

comment #30

Josh says ...

The movie is a turd and Wells has to waste his credibility finding ways to drum up support and defend it.

Lame, Wells. lame.

Posted by Josh at October 7, 2008 11:50 AM

comment #31

SmilingPolitely says ...

Another review for W, this time from a brit.:

http://www.screendaily.com/ScreenDailyArticle.aspx?intStoryID=41273

Mini-Review from David Poland, you have to scroll down a bit::

http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/

Posted by SmilingPolitely at October 7, 2008 12:02 PM

comment #32

MDOC says ...

Wells watches W. and walks away with sympathy for Bush. Behold my friends, the power of cinema.

Posted by MDOC at October 7, 2008 12:14 PM

comment #33

actionman says ...

I will be curious to hear what Wells has to say after his second viewing.

Posted by actionman at October 7, 2008 12:40 PM

comment #34

iamjoe says ...

I am a huge critic of the tyrant administration as anyone, but I don't think that was Stone is going for in this movie.
I think this is going to be about what happens when you put an average fuck up in the most important job in the world. Simple as that.

Posted by iamjoe at October 7, 2008 1:10 PM

comment #35

scooterzz says ...

the consensus among my circle of friends after this morning's screening was that stone was too kind to bush and none of us were pleased with feeling sympathetic towards him....
it seemed a reflection of stone's budget and shooting schedule that the film looked and felt more like an hbo presentation than a theatrical experience....
and (as action mentioned earlier) this is far more about the performances (and there are some amazing performances here) than it is the film ...

Posted by scooterzz at October 7, 2008 1:24 PM

comment #36

duck dodgers says ...

"It's why we haven't seen a movie about MLK, Jr."

Also because NBC did a TV miniseries with Paul Winfeld that was much better than any movie would likely be.

"Dexter Filkins recent book "The Forever War" is just waiting for somebody to make a film out of it."

Too bad than that people who's only idea of the war was warmed-over Vietnam cliches killed the market for Iraq War movies forever.

"Wells watches W. and walks away with sympathy for Bush. Behold my friends, the power of cinema."

Line of the day MDOC. As with Che just show him a movie about something and no matter how evil and he melts.

Posted by duck dodgers at October 7, 2008 2:38 PM

comment #37

dobbsy says ...

London calling...

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/film_reviews/article4903206.ece

Posted by dobbsy at October 7, 2008 4:01 PM

comment #38

p.Vice says ...

I would have loved to chime in earlier but when I started to read Jeff's take the 10 flashing W. ad banners sent me into a massive grand mal.

Posted by p.Vice at October 7, 2008 6:29 PM

comment #39

StoneFan1 says ...

Gee, people LOVED "The Queen" for the some reasons their attacking "W."

You can't tell me that "The Queen" didn't look like a TV movie of the week. Very basic visuals and cinematography.

Once again, these jerks are picking and choosing what they like and what they don't based on which director they like, or in this case, don't like.

Posted by StoneFan1 at October 7, 2008 6:48 PM

comment #40

duck dodgers says ...

Am I, the only one whose not suprised, that Stone wild and crazy Yalie, son of east coast money, found a sympathetic protagonist, in the tale of W. vs. his father?

Posted by duck dodgers at October 7, 2008 8:01 PM

comment #41

D.Z. says ...

bryce: You know, the worse the economy gets, the better chance of W. making money as a form of collective payback against the guy.

actionman: I know how you feel, but maybe this is for the best. Stone one-upping all those apologists takes away their ammunition, and makes it harder for them to deny reality, as a result. All those caricatures of Nixon over the years since Watergate only made it harder for us to take the situation seriously.

Mark: "It's like those who protest any film that alludes to Hitler as a human being who I'm sure masturbated in his teens and sometimes painted. He wasn't, in fact, created in the devil's basment out of iron and decaying trees."

Well, the problem with those "Hitler wasn't so bad" movies is that he *was* a caricature. He had few motivations, other than to fulfill his delusional fantasy version of Germany and Austria which never existed. In fact, he even was *diagnosed* with mental illnesses. So trying to suggest he was "normal" is like claiming that we're not that culturally different from people who stone women who get raped.

Bush, on the other hand, is simply an incompetent buffoon born with a silver spoon in his mouth. So giving him more "depth" is simply a lesson for future generations not to buy the hype.

Stone: "Gee, people LOVED "The Queen" for the some reasons their attacking "W."'

I'm guessing it's because people think it's hypocritical for the British public to be attacking Liz over Di, when they were the ones funding the tabloid frenzy over the Royal Family which ironically led to her death...

Posted by D.Z. at October 8, 2008 3:06 AM

comment #42

StoneFan1 says ...

I was simply making a point that everybody fell over themselves praising "The Queen" yet it had a very TV movie of the week visual look, yet now they're attacking "W." for the very same thing. These people are just out to get Stone. End of story.

Posted by StoneFan1 at October 8, 2008 3:52 AM