W.

Why not Timothy Bottoms?

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Heres the poster for it...



Heres the trailer:
http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/w/teaser-trailer

That trailer is HILARIOUS.

"What do you think you are? A Kennedy?"

I will definitely see this. Good to have that crazy bastard Oliver Stone back.

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

This is somthing I am definatly not going to see what a pile of crap!

__________________

~In the event of a Zombie Uprising, remember to sever the head or destroy the brain!~

This is a comedy movie, which makes fun of Bush, which also has my interest. Bush doesn't look like Josh Brolin in the trailer, but he does play him. Can't wait for this to come out, it's going to be hilarious.

Thanks for the trailer!

I have no idea what to make of this! One the one hand, it does strike me as a comedy, but on the other, I'm not so sure. (I also have trouble imaging Oliver Stone making an intentional comedy. Note the word: intentional.)

I said earlier here that I would never watch this. My reasoning is that I hate the man with such a visceral hatred, the idea of watching a film about him makes my skin crawl. But if they're making fun of him....maybe?

But you know, think about this. How sad is it that our sitting president, the president of our country, has a film about him where he's satirized? What does that say? I am flat out amazed that this film is even being made. Is it because so many hate him as much as me?

I don't know that I grant the premise; from what I've read of the script, this doesn't sound like a satire at all, even though the trailer makes it seem that way. Naturally, we won't know for sure until we see the thing.

Probably. Whatever the existence of this film says, however, I think it tells us as much about the people who hate him as it does about the man himself.

I wish I could say I was similarly amazed that the film is being made, but I'm not. W's critics have almost unanimously decided up to this point that absolutely no distance or historical perspective need be applied before judging his decisions, so why start now? It's actually quite fitting that a President who has been met with instantaneous condemnation for so long have a film about his life made before he's even left office. It's a near-perfect microcosm.

Where to begin...I love the trailer. I have heard Stone say that he just wants to make an honest film about a man and that his personal views are just that, personal, and so they won't be infused into the film.

But c'mon. After seeing that trailer a few times, Oliver is out to get him. And after that female reporter read excerpts from the script, she basically said Anti-Bushies will love it while Pro-Bushies will hate it.

In that case, I'll love it. I have always said, Bush is the last guy on Earth I would ever want running this country. But he is one of the first guys I would like to sit down and have a few beers with.

__________________
"All the confusion of my life... has been a reflection of myself! Myself as I am, not as I'd like to be." - Guido, 8 1/2

LOL no way Man...Jack Nicholson in the first Batman movie looks more like her...

Of course Oliver is out to get him. Oliver is a nutcase.

I think I'm going to be sick.

The IMDB lists as plot keywords both comedy and crime.

Crime seems about right.

I couldn't think of anything more Boring

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

See, that's just it. Is it a satire or isn't it? I don't know what to make of that trailer.

What does it say? What do you mean, yoda?

Did I read you right? "Instantaneous condemnation?" The man made decisions over time that were criminal, irresponsible, dangerous, and inane. He was given a great chance by this country and the world after 9/11 and he blew it. I disagree that there has been any "instantaneous condemnation" at all. Much the opposite.

I'm not sure where you are coming from, but of all the presidents I've seen in my life, this man deserves not only the critics he has, but even more.

I'm actually trying to say that it says A LOT about Bush that a film is being made like this while in office. Although, once again, the nature and tone of the film is in question for me.

And if there are "pro-Bushies" left out there, then, I'm sorry, they just haven't been paying attention.

So is anyone who is "out to get" Bush a nutcase?

I'm not assuming you don't like Oliver here, but your comment made me wonder a bit... I think Oliver Stone, even though he did create Alexander, is a very interesting director, (Platoon, JFK just to name two). No matter what, I can find something intriguing about his films even if they don't always fully succeed.

Dunno. I read some purported excerpts from the script, and they seemed serious enough. But almost everything I read could be made to "feel" like satire in subtle ways.
Well, I was half-kidding, but the other half was meant to suggest that a lot of people have lost perspective in their fervor.
I don't see how that follows. The fact that people gave him the benefit of the doubt after 9/11 is true, but only speaks to that period of his Presidency. Things have changed quite a bit, and I think that, since just before his reelection, the phrase "instantaneous condemnation" is quite appropriate. Surely you've seen how kneejerk partisanship has been the last several years. I'm surprised this is even considered debatable.
I'm not sure what sort of response you're hoping for here. I can't argue with simple statements of disagreement, nor would I see the point in doing so. Nor is there anything about really, really forceful language and strings of adjectives that is particularly persuasive.
Right, I understand perfectly well what you mean. If such a film exists, it can exist for two reasons: a) the President is really THAT bad, or b) some people dislike the President THAT much. It can say either -- or both. The mere fact that someone was angry enough to do this doesn't inherently justify that anger. It's entirely possible for someone to spark an unreasonable (or disproportionate) response. That's what I'm suggesting has happened.
I hope you rethink this statement, because it's pretty insulting. I pay a good deal of attention to what's going on in the world, and spend an inorindate (and possibly excessive) amount of time analyzing what I believe and support, and why. Yet miraculously, I've still come to disagree with your assessment of this President.

If you've ruled out the mere possibility of reasoned disagreement, then I guess there's nothing left to say, except to thank you for making this clear early on, so we can avoid wasting time.

On an unrelated note, if this conversation is going to continue in any form (though I'm already doubting the wisdom of the idea), I'll probably have to split it off into a separate thread.

Yoda -- I don't need to "rethink" my statement. I meant every word. And to be honest, I'm surprised there is any debate at all about Bush's legacy. I could write pages and pages and defend my opinion, list the corruption, arrogance, mistakes, irresponsible behavior, but it seems that information is already out there. I can't really add to it.

I should also say my response concerning 9/11 had to do with your use of the words, "instaneous condemnation." So I gather I misunderstood you?

I gather you can split this into another thread, but we should probably end it here because after reading your post, Yoda, the only emotional response I can have is one of frustration and probably a bit of anger. And since you're a great guy, run a great site, and I respect you, I don't want to argue with you. I do wish, however, you would rethink your defense of this man. He is not worth it.

I don't think Yoda is so much "defending" Bush as he is urging an attitude of moderation and seeing all the shades. (Don't get me wrong here, I think that Bush is one of the worst presidents in our history.) And I think he has a pretty valid point. One of the greatest problems in society today is our addiction to extremism and sensationalism---in other words in our tendency to blow things way the hell out of proportion. This can lead to careless errors in factuality as well as greater room for personal bias. If we are to take the current presidential race as any indication of our direction in regards to extremism, then it is my verdict we may as well doff our caps and forget for ever the age of reasonable debate. So while the Bush Administration is far from easily defensible, it is best to avoid demonizing it. Such sensationalism only leads to your argument looking immature and irrational, and if your opinion comes across that way then there's no reason to have a debate to begin with. You're not going to change anyone's opinion, so it's essentially just yelling. Loudest = winner.

Not at all -- I'm not a fan of Bush, but I know of Oliver's feelings towards him. I don't care for his films, either -- so I doubt I'll be seeing this.

I just think he isn't the right choice for this type of project. A person interested in making a film on Bush should not dislike him or like him; he should be completely unbiased (if that is truly possible). Otherwise we get biased, nigh propaganda films. It really runs both ways.

Well, not sure my post here will help people to understand my viewpoint here, but hey, I'll try anyway. First, I'm not yelling. I'm speaking my mind. I do really believe that people cannot defend this man anymore and if they do, I honestly believe they have not paid close enough attention to what is going on and what this man has done. Someone can argue that it is insulting to say such a thing, and I understand that, but I believe there comes a time when something can get to such a point that it is no longer defensible. I believe that is where we are.

I was going to wait to see if Yoda responded before I respond, but I would like to address another point that you bring up: "extremism." You don't really know my political views, so the argument can be made that my strong viewpoint is extremism. It isn't. It's anger.

I'm angry. I find that in our society as a whole, anger is not allowed. It is a basic human emotion that can create change. I'm so angry that I believe we should be marching in the streets. I'm so angry I nearly cried when I visited the Jefferson Memorial and read Jefferson's quote on the ceiling (about how we can never allow the "tyranny of the mind"), I'm so angry because for the last 8 years we've had an Administration that has promoted the very thing you talked about -- extremism. I believe Bush is guilty of creating the very environment you describe.

Anger doesn't have to be immature or irrational. Absolute statements aren't always immature. Sometimes they should be said. I think we've been silent too long, allowing this President to remain in office. His being able to remain leaves a legacy for the future that scares me. I'm afraid for my country.

In the end, I also don't hold to the belief that there is always two sides -- sometimes, one side is right.

Sawman, I also don't agree that simply because someone has strong feelings that it then becomes an exercise in yelling. What frustrates me on boards such as this is that sometimes you can say something and it comes out a way you didn't realize, or you say something that you think about later, and if people don't respond or the discussion dies, then people are left with an opinion that may or may not be exactly what you intended. I'm not a fan of "well, you'll never change her mind...." because I often pick something out of a discussion that is valuable. And I like to try to explain myself further because I really don't like being misunderstood. You know?

And after reading this post, it's pretty strong again! I see that. I hope I didn't take too many liberties with what you said, and if I did, tell me. I've thought long and hard about extremism and my particular point of view regarding Bush, and your post just rather fed into that.

I would like to support what tramp has posted here. It is well thought out, reasoned, rational. It is not a strident or a knee-jerk response nor do I find anything in it that is intended to insult anyone. If there are any insults it has been from this President to the people of our nation and to the Constitution of this great country.

I am a child of the sixties and a Vietnam veteran who served there in 1970. This country was nearly torn apart by that war and by the actions of President Nixon in the aftermath of Watergate. Thousands of Americans marched in the streets of American cities and Washington D.C. to protest that war. Today you would hardly know that our troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US House of Representatives voted to impeach Nixon for his actions in the cover up of the Watergate burglary and the illegal wiretapping of 6 citizens.

This President has authorized the illegal wiretappings of thousands of US citizens.
This President has launched a pre-emptive war against another country that was not a direct threat to this country, an action unprecedented in American history.
This President and this administration have sought to justify the use of torture, calling it by the Orwellian phrase ‘enhanced interrogation’.
This President and this administration arrested an American citizen (Jose Padilla), held him in a military prison without charges and without the right to consul for more than five years.
This President has permitted CIA interrogators to torture, in foreign countries, captured Al-Qaeda suspects who were directly responsible for the attacks of 9/11, thus insuring that they can never be brought to trial in our justice system.

These actions are utterly indefensible and should anger all Americans. They stand against our very core beliefs.

There is abroad in this land a notion that everybody has an opinion and that all opinions are of equal import. I am sorry but there some things that have a moral certainty to them. The condemnation of torture and the unwavering belief in equal justice for all under the law are among them.

The idea that Hollywood can make a movie about Bush, be it satire, drama, comedy, or merely Oliver Stone venting his rage against a President he dislikes and sell it as an entertainment to generate a buck is reprehensible to me. It cheapens and degrades the cost that has been paid by those who have suffered from these crimes.