Stone scores big with W-- Ebert "contains no revisionist history. . . is not malicious"

I found it to be confusing on what was covered, its editing and its abrupt conclusion.

It is not however a typical Stone production filled with strong ideological or historical points of view that are in dispute.

All of the major scenes will be seen as familiar either from watching the TV or by the books that have come out with insider accounts, for example Bush telling Cheney not to speak in cabinet meetings.




Here are somethings that I think everyone should be able to agree upon about the movie:


1) It really is the story of W's troubled relationship with his father and his need to achieve acceptance.

2) It doesn't take cheap shots of W. For example it doesn't have W snorting cocaine. It does have a lot of drinking. It also has some scenes that show his religious 're-awakening'. Surprisingly these are not patronizing, superficial or cartoonish.

3) While the overall presentation of Bush, Cheney, Rove and Rice are unflattering they are done in a 3 dimensional and not in a cartoonish way. Cheney and Rove in particular are shown understated but still putting their real words in their mouth and they come out as unlikeable people but not cartoonish monsters.

4) Brolin's acting is somewhat uneven but there are times where he is absolutely on in voice and mannerisms


William Arnold's opinion here

And Brolin's sure-to-be Oscar-nominated performance carries the movie nicely. Though Stone and scenarist Stanley Weiser fail to give the man his due as a political animal, Brolin looks and sounds uncannily like him in some scenes, and he gives the character a tragic sympathy that lingers long after the fade-out.


5) Dryfuss's Cheney is surprisingly sympathetic and well done showing Cheney not as a monster but just a guy who is unlikeable and wrong on just about everything.


This link http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810026489/critic

takes you to yahoo's critical reviews - 11 out of 14 are giving it a B- or higher.


I think that the problems on the movie have to do with editing, scope, use of flashbacks or rather skipping story line.

Surprisingly Stone does not take a heavy ideological hand in this movie.

It was well made and the acting was good. But it glossed over 911. It also placed quotes at wrong times. He did not say 'is our children learning' when he was running for governor. I also wanted Cheney and Rove to get more screen time.

The one thing I liked was it spent a lot of time on the lead up to the war. And that will surely go down in history as his gravest error.

I think that because I despise the man so much it was really hard for me to enjoy his story on a big screen.

Funniest scene was the dream scene with Poopy. Also his decision to run for governor seemed to occur to him while sitting on the toilet.

I never thought I'd use the word subtle to describe an Oliver Stone film but that was my take. The incredulous look on that preacher's face when Dim Wit tells him God spoke to him was sweet.

A cautionary tale about those whom we'd most like "to have a beer with".

I had to smile at that.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

no connection there lol

next time buy an ad.

when I read Garrison's book back in the 1970's. I think his s Stone's JFK really captures the book's spirit rather than the media "reality" and it left me with a lot of uneasy feelings.
There is just so much odd shit that happened around the assasination, so many unanswered questions, and so much official indifference to most of it... I don't believe any of the theories, but I still wonder about it all.
Waiting to see W in a few weeks.


mark

Or when Bush is in the Hague