Oliver Stone's, "W." [Archive] - DVXuser.com -- The online community for filmmaking

View Full Version : Oliver Stone's, "W."

Evan S

10-19-2008, 10:55 AM

Lets not make this political. Which is probably impossible for some of you.
I don't even really want to talk about the movie a lot. But, to mention somewhere publicly that Josh Brolin is an amazing friggin' actor, and he was dead on.

Oliver Stone's best movie in a while + the ending was amazingly played out.

-Evan ;)

Billy Pilgrim

10-19-2008, 04:28 PM

It was okay. I thought it dragged a bit. I was surprised how sympathetic the film was. The acting was pretty good, especially on Brolin's part, although my favorite performance has to be Jeffrey Wright as Colin Powell.

Batutta

10-19-2008, 05:29 PM

I thought this was a fascinating, well made film. Brolin went beyond mimicry and truly seemed to inhabit Bush. All the actors were spot on, especially Dreyfus and Wright. Of course it's easy to politicize this movie but the story, just as human drama, was surprisingly affecting and actually made me care about the lead character. I actually got emotionally involved in Bushie's struggle. Maybe because I too grew up with a stern father who was never much for shows of affection, and only paid attention to my screw-ups. And since there has been much discussion about Christian filmmaking around here, I think this film actually qualifies as one believe it or not. Bush's Christian conversion is played with a lot of pathos and sincerity, one of the defining moments of his life. I'll try at the end here not too veer into the political, but I think Stone's W. proves that in this reductive age of mass media and soundbites, its very easy to demonize people, but this film shows that they are just that, people, with mostly good intentions. If anything, I think Stone did a disservice to his film by releasing it now, at the height of election time, as many will dismiss it out of hand. I think if you step back and just look at it as a drama, it's a pretty good film. Not perfect, it does drag a bit 3/4 of the way through, but it's a solid piece.

Cheesesailor77

10-19-2008, 05:52 PM

This was my #1 most anticipated movie of the year, and I was pretty disappointed. Wasnt bad, but I didn't really get into it either. I felt it lacked story, I didn't think there was a great arc to it. And on just a tabloid level there wasn't much insight either.

The movie is surprisingly sympathetic, but it still obviously leans toward pity rather than admiration. The movie does make Bush out to be someone who struggles to get a complete sentence out. While I certainly won't argue the point, it didn't make for an interesting movie to me.

I was watching something last night where polls were being discussed about what are important issues for the next president to tackle, and "improve our standing with other countries" ranked surprisingly high. They listed our approval ratings from other countries, low, but mentioned that those polls were beginning to score more positively purely as a result of Bush preparing to leave office...

Now, just on a human level, I thought "Now THAT'S tragic". A character preparing for decades, becoming the most powerful man in the world, sticking his neck out there for something he truly believes in, trying to save the country and someday reach world peace!... and he leave office the least popular president in history, a joke... That sounds like a much more interesting story than the one I saw Friday night.

I know a popular criticism of Stone is his re-imagining of history and habit of "filling in the gaps", but I think that would have been the way to go, IMHO. In this movie his stuck to close to the book and it made for a rather uninteresting flick. I would have rather seen either the evil, election stealing, empire building Bush, or the strong-willed, fore sighted, warrior of God Bush, who did the right, necessary thing, and who's country hated him for it. Neither of those would be accurate, but either would be more interesting that the mouthfull-of-food talkin' Texan we got in the movie.

Just my opinion of course. :)

Batutta

10-19-2008, 06:39 PM

I would have rather seen either the evil, election stealing, empire building Bush, or the strong-willed, fore sighted, warrior of God Bush, who did the right, necessary thing, and who's country hated him for it. Neither of those would be accurate, but either would be more interesting that the mouthfull-of-food talkin' Texan we got in the movie.

Just my opinion of course. :)

I obviously disagree. I'm glad Stone took a more honest approach, and I did find it involving. In a strange way, I found I had some things in common with the guy, and I did not expect that at all.

Evan S

10-19-2008, 07:28 PM

I think it was pretty fair-handed. Not the best movie ever, but the performances IMO truly make the movie, they never seem to mimic (except condi). I also agree, a movie that could have come out in a couple of more years and may have been better received. It's not the film I would make. Mine would be much more dark. There was a lot of comedy which seemed forced. It towed the line between comedy and drama. Bush is an interesting person, and in respect to the movie - the baseball anecdotes come out pretty well done. It's hard to think of a politician with something going on in their head that isn't egoism. (which it starts out as, and finishes with the ball disappearing between the headlights and darkness.)

Great imagery. I probably wouldn't have thought of that.

The two other notable scenes worth mentioning, when Cheney is spelling out the choke-hold in the middle east. He talks about going to war with Iran to control the oil. That scene had great tension.

The other being when bush is screaming in another board-room type situation, " whose in charge here! "

(you are!)

Cheesesailor77

10-19-2008, 09:04 PM

I obviously disagree. I'm glad Stone took a more honest approach, and I did find it involving. In a strange way, I found I had some things in common with the guy, and I did not expect that at all.

obviously this movie was made for you and not me. Which is absolutely fine, but a little disappointing since I've been looking forward to it for so long.

Batutta

10-19-2008, 09:19 PM

obviously this movie was made for you and not me. Which is absolutely fine, but a little disappointing since I've been looking forward to it for so long.

I guess after seeing Nixon I knew what to expect from Stone. He's not as far left as some people seem to think.

Joseph Stunzi

10-19-2008, 10:32 PM

I listened to an interview with Stone and Brolin (who plays GWB) on NPR and they're quite technical about the movie. Brolin studied Bush extensively and gives a great performance from what I've heard!

SPZ

10-20-2008, 02:01 AM

It hasn't gone to theatres over here (Asia), but I have to say one thing that really disappoints me with "W" is not the movie, per se, but the "timing". It comes out now obvioulsy to take advantage of the elections climate, and this only asks for trouble. The movie would have been much more enjoyable after the elections. Independently of how the movie portraits its main character- the current preisdent Bush- its stance is a way to influence voting. I do not know if it works, or not, but it does have its impact.

I'll definitely see it when it comes out: however, IMO, history can only be judged with a fair amount of distance (timewise) from the moment "it" happens.

Cheesesailor77

10-20-2008, 02:20 AM

it's hard to believe, but I honestly don't think it's release had anything to do with trying to influence the election. I think they hoped the election would influence ticket sales, not the other way around.

While the film obviously leans left, it's not a political flick, and I can't imagine it would be capable of changing ONE voters mind of who to support, and I think both Stone and the studio know that. From a business perspective it makes perfect sense to me to release the movie while presidential buzz is at an all time high rather then when it all dies down and everyone's more concerned with the new leader rather than our current one.

CallaghanFilms

10-20-2008, 06:12 AM

I guess after seeing Nixon I knew what to expect from Stone. He's not as far left as some people seem to think.If that were the case, why weren't ANY of the principle parties contacted?
Obviously, a President (as the most powerful man in the world) can't lend himself to any sort of bio.
But how about Ari Fleischer? He said that he was not contacted once.
No one depicted in W was in fact. Doesn't sound very even-handed to me.
No, instead what Stone has made a tradition of doing (for several biopics now) is to take bits
from various (un-authorized) biographies, piece them together, then call it "public domain".
That way he never has to pay for any rights.
Hey, that's his MO. If he can get away with it, good ($$) for him...
But doing so to a sitting President weeks before a major election is shameful.
I don't give a damn what political party that President happens to belong to, it's shameful.

MattinSTL

10-20-2008, 06:40 AM

I'm curious about this movie... but I don't find the concept of the content fascinating. I almost find it hard to believe that somebody wanted to make a movie "portrait" of our current president (only because it's practically become a genre unto itself, and I'm getting bored with it)... I'm sure somebody could make a good movie about any of them... clinton, reagan, etc... but just for my personal taste I kind of don't get it... when I see the trailers I just gently raise an eyebrow and purse my lips a bit... like the Church Lady. Not good or bad... just... don't... get it.

I'm hoping to hear from a hardcore republican that I know... and have him say "yeah I have to admit, it was a pretty good movie"... OR I hope to hear from a hardcore democrat that I know and have them say "it's too bad it sucked"... because in either case, I'd be refreshingly surprised.

If anybody fits one of those two criteria and prefers to not ruin this thread... please PM me with a comment. I'd love to hear that this film was great, but I don't pay much attention to anybody's political stance... even in the threads that get that way I never remember who said what... and I don't hold grudges... but if you're secretly super-republican, and you thought this was a good movie... please PM me... I'd love to hear that... but to start it in this thread would start this thread in the wrong direction.

Still... the point is that I'll be surprised if reviews aren't divided by political affiliation.

Batutta

10-20-2008, 07:33 AM

Zim

10-20-2008, 07:45 AM

I won't bother to see it but one review I saw said Will Farrel would have played the part better of "W"

Sunday, October 19, 2008

A Quick Review of 'W' [Kevin D. Williamson]
A few quick thoughts on Oliver Stone's new W:

I went into the theater prepared to like this film, hoping for some of the same cracked genius that made Nixon such a great piece of work. Unfortunately, W. is dreadful: badly written, poorly acted, boring, with a sense of drama that's as lost as last year's Easter eggs.

No Country for Old Men is one of my favorite American movies of the past several years, and Josh Brolin was first-rate in it. Oliver Stone would have been better off casting Will Ferrell, though, since Brolin's performance as the president feels like an impersonation of an impersonation. Truly awful. For comparison, Anthony Hopkins didn't look or, really, sound much like Richard Nixon, but his performance didn't have the quality of a Rich Little impersonation, either — his character transcended the limitations of playing a man whose career is part of fresh, living memory. Brolin fails to achieve that. One fully expects Tina Fey to pop out of a closet or the actor playing Rumsfeld to shout, "Live from New York, it's Saturday Night!"

Much of the George W. Bush story is tied up in language, in his use of words, the timber of his voice, his accent, and his oddball malapropisms. But nobody in this movie sounds right. I've rarely heard a convincing West Texas accent in a movie (not that you get the chance very often to judge) but the actors in W mostly fall into the trap of going Deep South, sounding like they're from Georgia or Kentucky. Elizabeth Banks couldn't sound less like Laura Bush; she sounds like Jessica Simpson as Daisy Duke. And if the real George H.W. Bush had one tenth the fierce charisma of James Cromwell, he'd not only have been re-elected, he'd still be president. Everybody else is in a farce; James Cromwell is in Julius Caesar. Toby Jones cannot be taken seriously as Karl Rove (where's Phillip Seymour Hoffman when you need him?).

The local color is pretty pale, too. Little things jump out: Rep. George Mahon's name gets mispronounced /mah-HONE/ as though he were some Irish-American mob boss missing the last syllable of his surname, instead of /MAY-hon/. Kent Hance, the Democrat (later a Republican) who gave George W. Bush his only electoral loss, is portrayed as a Jeebus-invoking fundamentalist hick; the real Kent Hance is a slick business lawyer and university chancellor. There are way more cowboy hats in evidence in this movie, about 50 times more, than one would see in the real 19th Congressional Distriction of Texas — or in a western-wear store, for that matter. Stone touches on the fact that W. sees himself as more of a Reagan than as his father's political son, but he never even mentions the issue that probably cost W. his congressional election, that of taking a principled Reaganite stance critical of farm subsidies. In the movie, W. complains that he got out-Christianed and out-Texaned, and there's something to that, but he also got out-farmered. It could be ignornance or politics, but that fact remains invisible. (And it's still an unfortunate fact of life; the present representative of the 19th, Randy Naugebauer, is a 99-percent conservative who is slightly to the left of Karl Marx on farm subsidies.)

Missing the psychedelic charge of Nixon, W. feels like a not-especially-convincing docudrama interrupted by overextended Saturday Night Live skits. (Is "overextended" redundant in that usage? Probably) The characters aren't real enough to carry the historical weight of the story or unreal enough to be pure entertainment.

Never mind for now the tententious politics of the movie, and we can certainly set aside the question of historical accuracy, this being an Oliver Stone production. The biggest mistake the film makes is the mistake that Bush's critics have always made: It condescends to its subject. Whatever else he is, Bush is not some frat-boy simpleton who just Forrest Gumped his way into the White House. There's more to Condoleezza Rice than nasal scorn. Dick Cheney is a lot of things, but he's not the Dr. Strangelove that Richard Dreyfuss gives us here. It's tempting to condescend, because to the condescender it feels as though he elevates himself, even though he doesn't, and it's a handy substitute for argument when he doesn't have one. Scorning high-and-mighty officeholders is a great republican virtue, of course, but the project to reduce Bush and his colleagues to a coterie of imbeciles — a "league of morons" to quote another disappointing film — is an intellectually dishonest exercise. And it shows in this film, which leaves one with the impression that Stone believes that there is something deeply wrong with the Bush administration but isn't quite able to understand it. Understanding it would mean taking account of the complexities that have shaped American politics in the past decade, which would also mean letting go of some of liberals' cherished myths, especially the myth of Bush as oedipally driven naif surrounded by oil-mad Svengalis.

Batutta

10-20-2008, 08:32 AM

Oliver Stone would have been better off casting Will Ferrell, though, since Brolin's performance as the president feels like an impersonation of an impersonation. Truly awful.

Anyone who thinks Brolin gave a bad performance in this doesn't know anything about acting and loses credibility for me. He is the best thing about the movie...The only actor who I wasn't crazy about was Thandie Newton. Her performance was just bizarre. I think it's a case of a Brit trying to play an American and going overboard into caricature.

MattinSTL

10-20-2008, 09:25 AM

Brolin is 95% of the reason I wanted to see this in the first place... aside from that I don't find Bush all that interesting, good or bad. It'm feeling *yawn*... "whatever."

So if Brolin is good in it... I could get into it... if he's bad in it... then I most certainly couldn't.

I will say however... since Ferrell was brought up... that's probably a better judge of whether or not I'd agree with an opinion on this. If you think Ferrell does a good Bush, or that Ferrell is funny in pretty much anything... we probably won't agree on too much about movies :-)

Jim Klatt

10-20-2008, 09:35 AM

After watching Frontline's incredible Bush's War, I feel like the bar has been raised. (By the way, it is available free to watch at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/.

There will be many more films about George W. Bush in the future, doc and non-doc; I might watch this at some point if it's on tv or something, but if I am going to be compelled to see something about Bush I want to know that it's not going to be so broad and politically constructed.

Now that someone cut and pasted a dogmatic review of a film where a conservative reviewer presents a case that the film is too liberally dogmatic I feel like this thread is complete, lol.
Oliver Stone and Kevin Williamson deserve eachother. In the meantime, I will wait for
a George W. Bush film that has a little more detachment from its subject.

Cheesesailor77

10-20-2008, 01:42 PM

If anybody fits one of those two criteria and prefers to not ruin this thread... please PM me with a comment.

PM sent ;)

Cheesesailor77

10-20-2008, 02:07 PM

After watching Frontline's incredible Bush's War, I feel like the bar has been raised. (By the way, it is available free to watch at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/.

"Bush's War" is absolutely amazing! I watched when it first came online and have it on dvd now. And I actually feel it's part of the reason I was disappointed with W.

Anyone not sated with W. should definitely check out "Bush's War" (and at 4 hours you better clear a whole evening)

Kubrick71

10-20-2008, 03:54 PM

I personally thought he was great as Bush, now I can't say for sure someone may or may not have done a better job but it's a stretch to start calling out any names.

I'm always annoyed when people dislike a movie because of what they expected. I like to look at a film under the terms of what the filmmakers were going for, not what I may have imagined or would rather see.

Overall I thought the movie was good and enjoyed seeing it a a lot. I never thought it dragged on or was boring, which is probably due to the intercutting of different time periods, and the performances stand on their own, no explanation needed. The fact that the movie wasn't left or right wing was interesting to see too, considering how prolifically Stone has treated issues in the past.

I'll need to see it again before I can form a full opinion on where it stands.

If that were the case, why weren't ANY of the principle parties contacted?
Obviously, a President (as the most powerful man in the world) can't lend himself to any sort of bio.
But how about Ari Fleischer? He said that he was not contacted once.
No one depicted in W was in fact. Doesn't sound very even-handed to me.
No, instead what Stone has made a tradition of doing (for several biopics now) is to take bits
from various (un-authorized) biographies, piece them together, then call it "public domain".
That way he never has to pay for any rights.
Hey, that's his MO. If he can get away with it, good ($$) for him...
But doing so to a sitting President weeks before a major election is shameful.
I don't give a damn what political party that President happens to belong to, it's shameful.

I'm not sure I get this dude, why would Stone need to contact the real people to make an even-handed movie? Perhaps W. isn't even-handed, Ill have to watch it again to make sure because there were times when Bush's speaking ability and credibility as a president came into question. Stone wasn't going for a historical drama piece and I don't see any reason why he would should have contact real people. Especially when I think about the scenes/events of the film I just don't think it would have added anything.

The thing about doing a picture about a sitting President before a major election (which the current President isn't even a part of) being shameful is also something I don't understand. I think it's liberating that nowadays we have the freedom to make such projects when we want to and especially make them when they are pertinent to today and now. Shameful is a pretty strong word, its not like he was glorifying suicide terrorists or making fun of the tragedy of the World Trade Center attacks, that may be shameful. But otherwise, off the top of my head I can't think of a single film thats shameful, but maybe I'm not thinking hard enough.

dougspice

10-20-2008, 05:29 PM

I think that Oliver Stone has become a hack director, and I wonder suddenly if he always was. Must rewatch JFK soon. Because there's some good material here, but I felt like it was really one-note and really poorly directed.

I did actually find that W. (the character) was really likeable when he wasn't in a scene that made his drama seem laughable, and on that criteria alone I'd say the movie succeeds. Brolin is very good. Dreyfuss is amazing. Thandie Newton is some weird combination of excellent and laughably horrible that I can't even explain. I personally was really bothered by James Cromwell, who in sharp contrast to all of the other actors made no attempt whatsoever to imitate H.W. in any way. It felt really out of place, and I expected more from an actor I generally respect and admire. The other supporting characters are for the most part terrific... but Stone's directing is so lazy and on-the-nose that it essentially sabotages their contributions.

Ultimately the movie felt mostly like a pointless exercise to me. At times Stone seems to go to great lengths to make us empathize with George, and then he tears down all that hard work with a goofy music cue and a just-for-laughs edit.

Unfortunately I think this movie ultimately suffers from being too close to its material, and therefore too lacking in perspective. I bet the 2012 version of this movie is way more powerful and insightful than the 2008 one, but unfortunately I guess we'll never know.

Batutta

10-20-2008, 05:47 PM

I personally was really bothered by James Cromwell, who in sharp contrast to all of the other actors made no attempt whatsoever to imitate H.W. in any way. It felt really out of place, and I expected more from an actor I generally respect and admire.

I was more bothered by the fact that he seemed to be the same age in 1972 as he was in 2002. He didn't try at all to impersonate Bush 1, but I thought his performance was good.

Kubrick71

10-20-2008, 10:28 PM

Thandie Newton is some weird combination of excellent and laughably horrible that I can't even explain.

Couldn't be said any better

Cheesesailor77

10-20-2008, 11:55 PM

I think that Oliver Stone has become a hack director, and I wonder suddenly if he always was. Must rewatch JFK soon. Because there's some good material here, but I felt like it was really one-note and really poorly directed.

I will certainly come to the defense of Stone's previous work. I haven't seen anything he's made post Nixon and so can't speak to that, but his '89-'95 era I find AMAZING! Born on the Fourth of July, The Doors and JFK are each examples of some superlative filmmaking (IMHO) and the fact that all three of these HUGE projects were filmed and released in a 3 YEAR PERIOD I find astounding. Add Natural Born Killer and Nixon to that era and you have what I have only recently realized is one of my absolute favorite filmmakers :) But like I said, W. didn't do it for me.

Thandie Newton is some weird combination of excellent and laughably horrible that I can't even explain.

lol agreed

Wrathborne

10-21-2008, 02:53 PM

I've always seen Oliver Stone as a director who blew his load after 1990 and has been making more crap cinema than anything, lets face it Alexander pretty much confirmed that he's just running on fumes, I cant imagine anyone spending 12 years writing a script and having it suck harder than a hole in space, then claiming the reason the film failed in America is because Americans dont have any sense of history.

Cheesesailor77

10-21-2008, 03:11 PM

SPZ

10-21-2008, 09:36 PM

Alexander was terrible. And I'm not american!

Oliver Stone's best, for me, was Natural Born Killers. More and more i see him as a competend director but also as an average scriptwritter.

It would be interesting to see an Oliver Stone film penned by Kaufmman (from Eternal Sunshine of the...; Adaptation). Stone seems like he's at his best when working with the leading edge screenwriters.

J.R. Hudson

10-22-2008, 12:12 AM

Platoon and Wall Street are my favs from Oliver.

Alexander was unreal bad.

Batutta

10-22-2008, 06:03 AM

KyleProhaska

10-26-2008, 07:53 AM

Ok I knew I would enjoy the movie...and I did.

Did exactly what I thought, which was tell the more personal story. They took shots at him in spots as I expected, and showed a different side of things a lot more.

Here's the thing, lots of people I know don't want to go see it because they think its nothing but a punch in the face the whole movie, or they'll go see it because they think its nothing but a punch in the face the whole movie lol....one guy when it was over (along with all the others who we're there groaning at the end) said "wasn't this supposed to be a comedy?" He was joking when he said it but I knew there would be people like him. Unfortunately people are too dense to read past the marketing and see the movie for what it is.

I also enjoyed seeing less about 9/11 and more of the aftermath. The aftermath is really what angers people right now so he was smart to have included that more openly. Also it showed that Government makes mistakes, and bad ones. The war in Iraq is NOT THE FAULT OF ANY ONE MAN. There is a whole group of people responsible for the influencing of decisions, making decisions within those decisions, bad intel (which makes bad decisions), and on and on it goes. People in the theater HATED that they didn't show the War and the lack of WMD's found to be a soley Bush decision and mistake. Friggin idiots, learn about how things work.

If you want to go see this movie to see GWB shown as a sideshow clown, you got the wrong movie. His personality is "unique" lol and yes you can chuckle quite a bit at him (he EATS A LOT), but regardless of whether or not you like who he is...he's still got some guts. I guess its the doom of every president to have everyones bad choices and decisions including your own dumped on your head. But at least a film like this showed a bit of what it might be like to deal with all that pressure, decisions, etc....and what happens when those decisions are bad.

The ending shot of the baseball hit and the ball not falling was an interesting ending, I liked that.

I will throw in too that J. Brolin did an incredible job at Bush. He really hit a homer on this film...I hope he get some recognition. People we're talking about Oscar nominations and now I can understand why...phew.

Evan S

10-28-2008, 02:58 AM

I hope he at least gets an oscar nod. It was great performance. Like a weird hybrid of two people.

Although I do think they portray Bush as a sideshow clown. Remember the line, "Remember, Cheney, I'm the decider!"

Batutta

10-28-2008, 06:57 AM

Although I do think they portray Bush as a sideshow clown. Remember the line, "Remember, Cheney, I'm the decider!"

Yeah, because he never actually said that--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slOWroJlmbs&feature=related

Evan S

10-28-2008, 01:03 PM

In the film, in that particular scene, cheney was undermining him.

David Jimerson

10-28-2008, 01:23 PM

I wouldn't move out of the movie itself and into the real world events. This will lead to the thread being locked pretty quickly. :)

Michael Anthony Horrigan

10-29-2008, 12:51 PM

Richard Dreyfuss Slams "W" movie! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/28/richard-dreyfuss-slams-w_n_138548.html)

When asked why he made the film, he said he did it for "money." Dreyfuss also said, "I think it's 6/8ths of a great film."
Asked how it was to work with Oliver Stone, he said "imagine working for Sean Hannity... you can be a fascist, even when you're on the left."

OUCH!

Not trying to get the thread closed. Maybe we can focus on his comments regarding the movie and Oliver Stone.

Batutta

10-29-2008, 01:11 PM

Richard Dreyfuss Slams "W" movie! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/28/richard-dreyfuss-slams-w_n_138548.html)

OUCH!

Not trying to get the thread closed. Maybe we can focus on his comments regarding the movie and Oliver Stone.

Well, Oliver Stone is not known for being a kindly director. He and James Woods used to get into actual fistfights on the set of Salvador.

Kubrick71

10-29-2008, 06:47 PM

Batutta

10-30-2008, 08:44 AM

Wow funny stuff about Stone, what a tard, and thanks for the decider youtube clip, it certainly does have to do with the movie and now puts that scene in another light. I wonder how much other stuff is inspired by real events that I am just not aware of.

The film website has a page that references all their sources, pretty interesting--

http://wthefilm.com/guide/

KyleProhaska

10-30-2008, 09:22 AM

I was like 10ft away from RD about a year ago...it kinda scared me because he looked so old and brittle. Seeing that video and the movie gave me confidence he wont die too soon lol.

Great clip by the way I had read his quotes on the film but seeing him speak about them was better :P

Zim

11-10-2008, 09:33 PM

It bombed

armisiano

11-10-2008, 10:40 PM

Josh Brolin ROCKED in "Goonies".

Luis Caffesse

11-11-2008, 08:28 AM

This thread has already had one warning -
You can talk about the film without throwing in your own political 2 cents.