Holds Turf
The New York "Vulture" guys were right, of course, in reporting yesterday that the first reactions to Oliver Stone's W. -- the reviews by Variety's Todd McCarthy and the Hollywood Reporter's Kirk Honeycutt -- weren't so hot. But the reaction among junket journalists I spoke to yesterday was mostly approving. Really.
They weren't exactly Redbull-ed by it, but then neither was I. My reaction was one of intrigue, engagement and finally sadness, having been moved by the tragic aura around this poor dope. The film is brisk and mordantly funny as it rushes along, but it's finally a sad story about an unhappy man. It's not a firecracker madball thing as much as a smartly designed, souped-up Corvette with a purring engine that you almost need to see twice get the full boost. I saw it again yesterday morning and there was no diminishment. I felt just as stimulated, tickled and satisfied as I did the first time, and just as affected by the ending.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on October 8, 2008 at 2:50 PM
comment #1
BurmaShave
says ...
Where to you stand on Brolin as Best Actor?
Posted by BurmaShave
at October 8, 2008 4:04 PM
comment #2
nelson37
says ...
Not a chance. It's Pitt's year.
Posted by nelson37
at October 8, 2008 4:11 PM
comment #3
nelson37
says ...
Anyone find it ironic that Jeff was "affected by the ending" when there hasn't been an ending? The fool (Bush, not Jeff) has three more months.
Posted by nelson37
at October 8, 2008 4:15 PM
comment #4
arch451
says ...
Wells, I'm pretty opened minded but I really don't want to see a movie that you say made you feel compassion for Bush.
Posted by arch451
at October 8, 2008 4:21 PM
comment #5
TheJERMSguy
says ...
The end can be how the first stimulus bill failed, when he realized he had no credibility with the people, with Congress, with anybody, but then he gets a smirk on his face when he sees that despite his low popularity of 28%, Congress is at 12%.
Posted by TheJERMSguy
at October 8, 2008 4:58 PM
comment #6
StoneFan1
says ...
Look, these guys are going after Stone yet again. It's the same story since "JFK" and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
In fact, one reviewer today attacked Stone for always making the White House seem so dark, then he said perhaps Stone was trying to cover up his "cheap sets." WAIT A SECOND! In 99% of most cases these critics LOVE cheap, low-budget Indie films for doing a lot with little, but they can't stay the course with Stone. Plus, I've seen pictures of those situation rooms and they're pretty damn dark other than the conference table in the middle and some huge TV screens on the walls. These critics don't even know what they're talking about, which isn't too surprising.
I wonder how much "The Queen" cost? Or how many shooting days it had? These guys are changing the rules right in the middle of the game. It's unfair, but not shocking.
Stone clearly isn't going to get respect or even fairness from critics until he makes ONE OF THEIR FILMS. So, I say Stone should get the movie rights to Dexter Filkins book "The Forever War." and go to town. Maybe then the critics will support him.
Posted by StoneFan1
at October 8, 2008 5:11 PM
comment #7
BurmaShave
says ...
I would prefer either PINKVILLE or JAWBREAKER, especially since I think this will do moderately well with audiences, certainly make back its budget.
Posted by BurmaShave
at October 8, 2008 5:21 PM
comment #8
Kristopher Tapley
says ...
The amount of apologist assessments coming out of this film is becoming staggering...
Posted by Kristopher Tapley
at October 8, 2008 6:29 PM
comment #9
StoneFan1
says ...
You'd have to pay people to see "Pinkville." The last thing people want is to see something about Vietnam. "Jawbreaker" would be too much like "Body of Lies" to play well for the Oscar crowd. Trust me, it's "The Forever War." for Mr. Stone. End of story.
Posted by StoneFan1
at October 8, 2008 6:30 PM
comment #10
BurmaShave
says ...
Yeah because when I imagine THE FOREVER WAR on a marquee I see dollar signs.
Posted by BurmaShave
at October 8, 2008 7:12 PM
comment #11
StoneFan1
says ...
"The Forever War." could be a much easier sell because it wouldn't be an epic war film, but a personal search for truth. It also could be done pretty cheaply with only one principal character. I'd say it wouldn't have to cost as much as "W." did and if it get awards attention...$50-70 million would be within reach. In addition, it's a pretty "down the middle," let the audience get it sort of book. It sells in Middle America in other words. It wouldn't be too left-wing or liberal.
Posted by StoneFan1
at October 8, 2008 7:40 PM
comment #12
alynch
says ...
Regarding Pinkville, someone would basically have to repay United Artists for all the pre-production money they spent on it prior to pulling the plug before it even has a chance of getting made. I doubt it'll ever be made.
Posted by alynch
at October 8, 2008 7:54 PM
comment #13
StoneFan1
says ...
Stone has said the figure is $6 million and I doubt that'll be repaid anytime soon.
Posted by StoneFan1
at October 8, 2008 10:08 PM
comment #14
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
Posted by janee
at May 18, 2011 5:07 AM