Dispute
"Oliver Stone gets points for speed and efficiency -- he shot the picture over 46 days this spring and summer on a tiny $30 million budget and gave it a rich, polished look -- but not for the scope of his vision," writes Time's Richard Corliss. "W. isn't tragedy or farce; it's illustrated journalism, based mostly on extant Bush biographies and memoirs of early Bush appointees. All the incidents are there but not the insight. What's missing is the one thing Stone films have never lacked: a point of view."
W. says Bush is a mediocre Oedipal figure (i.e., driven by father issues) and therefore, as repugnant as he may be in straight-up political terms, to be finally pitied. This isn't a point of view? Sure seems like one. It never really sank in before I saw W. that George W. Bush is a fundamentally sad and trapped fellow. However accurate this view may be, it's now with me and that's the doing of Oliver Stone. The certainty of mind I've had all these years in simply despising Bush is, for better or worse, no more.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on October 14, 2008 at 8:12 AM
comment #1
TheJERMSguy
says ...
Can't wait to see it.
Posted by TheJERMSguy
at October 14, 2008 8:58 AM
comment #2
actionman
says ...
"The result is that rare Oliver Stone film that is not exhilarating, or enraging, but boring, because the director doesn't have a fresh take on Bush."
This has been my fear with this movie.
Interesting that Corliss called Brolin good but not great.
And since when is $30 million a "tiny" budget. Tiny would have been a $3 million budget.
Still want to see the film but not rushing out this weekend.
Posted by actionman
at October 14, 2008 9:07 AM
comment #3
Joshua Mooney
says ...
I agree, actionman, that 30 million isn't "tiny," even these days. If we take 30 mil today and translate it into 1976 dollars (start of filming for "Apocalypse Now") it comes out to about 8 million. If we take those 30 mil in '76 dollars and translate them to today, it's less than $150 mil. I understand that the comparison is inexact, even crude, and other factors come into play. But $30 million today isn't "tiny," no matter how you slice it. "Far less than Stone's usual," or "modest," would have been more accurate.
Posted by Joshua Mooney
at October 14, 2008 9:55 AM
comment #4
StoneFan1
says ...
Actually, the production budget was $25.1 million
$30-40 million would've been top of the line back in the late-70's and throughout the 80's.
Once again, these critics seem to be asking more from Stone than other directors. ANY film has a point of view, so this review doesn't wash with me. He clealy wanted Stone to say he was either evil or a saint. Stone did neither, so now it's time to trash him. I HATE CRITICS!
Posted by StoneFan1
at October 14, 2008 10:07 AM
comment #5
actionman
says ...
StoneFan1: did you see that Ridley is doing The Forever War. You were right that it was gonna get made soon...
Posted by actionman
at October 14, 2008 10:17 AM
comment #6
BurmaShave
says ...
Wasn't StoneFan referring to the Dexter Filkins book about Iraq and Afghanistan?
Posted by BurmaShave
at October 14, 2008 11:06 AM
comment #7
actionman
says ...
That's very possible. I must've gotten confused with the two.
Posted by actionman
at October 14, 2008 11:11 AM
comment #8
Majorian99
says ...
Can't wait for W to reach Sweden... Oliver Stone is a remarkable filmmaker in my view -- I recently watched NIXON again, and I despise Tricky Dick's policys as much as many others -- but I found the film to be very good and it surprised me that the tragic aspects of this president actually brought tears to my eyes. That Stone, who's not a Nixon-fan by any means, had the talent and insight to create such a nuanced and moving portrait of Nixon's character...
And another thing in the film -- in that big speech that Nixon gives a the GOP convent in 1968 -- sounds almost exactly like the points that Obama and McCain endlessly repeat during the debates: restoring an economy that's going haywire, cutting the defense budget, ending idiotic wars "in a satisfying way", giving priority to the environment, giving free healthcare to the american people (like the system we have here i Sweden) and uniting the country...
And we all know now how much truth there was in those pormises...
Chilling... I hope history doesn't repeat itself... But as someone wiser than me said long ago: "The only thing we seem to learn from history is that we don't learn from our history"...
Posted by Majorian99
at October 14, 2008 12:57 PM
comment #9
StoneFan1
says ...
It isn't the same "Forever War" book. The one Ridley's doing is from the 70's and is some sci-fi thing. I think. The more recent one is about the war on terror from '98 through '06.
Posted by StoneFan1
at October 14, 2008 1:09 PM
comment #10
moviesquad
says ...
I'm sure the studio will be happy to see all those ad buys are paying off for them.
Posted by moviesquad
at October 14, 2008 2:08 PM
comment #11
Pelham123
says ...
Ridley Scott is adapting Joe Haldeman's "The Forever War" which was written in the '70's and is, basically, Vietnam in space. It's an incredible book.
Posted by Pelham123
at October 14, 2008 2:11 PM
comment #12
janee
says ...
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability server
Posted by janee
at May 18, 2011 5:42 AM