W

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oliver Stone has been a bit out of form in his latest films- Alexander and WTC, so I'm not expecting much of this in filmmaking therms. Also, historical films that are released very close to the "events" themselves tend to be poor and lacking overall "perception" of times, if you know what I mean...

Still, JFK was interesting, so, maybe this deserves viewing...
 
It would be something to tell the real story of President Bush. But it will be twisted to fit the hollywood lefts view of the president.

Same problem with all the crap Iraq was films. Why not just a good war story and there have been some darn good stories. But they try this anti war, the troops rape and torture people movies and they flop.
 
It would be something to tell the real story of President Bush. But it will be twisted to fit the hollywood lefts view of the president.

Same problem with all the crap Iraq was films. Why not just a good war story and there have been some darn good stories. But they try this anti war, the troops rape and torture people movies and they flop.

Just remember Oliver Stone made a very fair and even handed portrait of Richard Nixon of all people.
 
as a film, it looks uninteresting. a yale screwup that "chases tail" and ends up the leader of the free world. boom.

like the above poster mentioned, Alexander and WTC weren't exactly that good... were pretty much a snoozefest, i dont see any signs of this being any better.

i'd watch it on cable out of curiosity, but not go pay to see it in a theater....it's not like there's going to be any information in it we're not supposed to know...
 
It wasn't fair to the men who really fought the war. Stone seems to like people like Castro better. I put Stone in the same group as Michael Moore. But they are his movies
Maybe not all of them... might have pegged a few of them though.

Let's not get off topic. I was just pointing out that it met your criteria and it was hardly a flop.

W does look like it could be a mixed bag. I guess we'll see.
Let's talk less about WAR and more about this movie. The trailer seems to be based on his life, not war.

Mike
 
I'm talking about the movies out lately about Iraq. Not really talking about Vietnam films. This is a different time and the Iraq war movies flop.

I think they could make some good war films from it. I don't and I take it many others don't want all the political crap in a war movie.
 
I'm talking about the movies out lately about Iraq. Not really talking about Vietnam films. This is a different time and the Iraq war movies flop.

I think they could make some good war films from it. I don't and I take it many others don't want all the political crap in a war movie.
Cool. But, this isn't a war film so..... :huh:
 
I usually don't like it when celebrities play real people, they bring so much baggage to the role. Especially when the people they play are so familiar.

I agree that Stone hasn't made a good film in a long time. I actually don't remember liking any of his films except JFK, which I absolutely love. I saw Platoon and Wall Street in the theater but I cannot remember them anymore, and I might not have the same opinion as an adult that I did as a child anyway(at least I hope not!).

I bet this film will raise hell, but probably not be that interesting, but who knows...
The one thing I really liked about the trailer was Scott Glenn as Rumsfeld. He nailed it.
I think Dreyfus is probably inspired casting too.
 
Let's not forget Oliver Stone made Natural Born Killers (just bought the Blu-ray edition- Brilliant! :) )

I believe there's always place for war movies, may they be about the human drama or the events themselves. There's no such thing as "not fair" in portraying the bad side of war- its not about talking bad about the soldiers that fought- they are mere pawns in someone else's chess, if you know what I mean- but about the way the event affects someone else's life.

Appocalypse Now is brilliant, for example.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top