Oliver Stone To Direct George W. Bush Biopic

[The Guard]

I don't believe this was ever meant to be a movie about George Bush's place in history. I don't believe that was ever Stone's aim.

 

[Immortalfire]

I don't believe this was ever meant to be a movie about George Bush's place in history. I don't believe that was ever Stone's aim.

Nah, Stone just got a kick out of making Bush look bad/worse.

 

[Episode29]

Nah, Stone just got a kick out of making Bush look bad/worse.

Actually, in many ways the film makes him look better... Or at least relatable and sympathetic.

 

[Captain Planet!]

I want to see if this will be as funny as I thought.

 

[Prison Mike]

I saw the movie today and I laughed quite a bit. Brolin was awesome as W. Every scene he was in where he was eating something made me laugh so much.

 

[The Senator]

When Oliver Stone first announced this film, I thought it was going to be a complete disaster. Then, as time went by, I started to see and hear good things about it. I saw the movie earlier today, and I must say I was very disappointed with the film.

It seemed like it was thrown together at the last minute in order to achieve a timely release before the election. It was very scatterbrained, in terms of continuity. While Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks and Richard Dreyfus were excellent in their respected roles, many of the other actors were forgettable, if not downright awful. Thandie Newton did a horrendous job portraying Condoleezza Rice, she seemed like she was chewing on the insides of her cheeks whenever she spoke. It comparable to an SNL imitation, more than anything. James Cromwell, while a decent actor, was not at all like the real George H.W. Bush. He didn't look like him, and he certainly didn't sound like him. While I should care more about the substance of his performance, the fact that Cromwell didn't even act like the elder Bush was sort of insulting. Bush has a very distinct way of speaking and moving, and for Cromwell to completely ignore that was disappointing to me. That's like if someone cast Robert De Niro to play Truman Capote-- it simply didn't work. Jeffrey Wright and Ioan Grufford were barely noticeable as Powell and Blair, same thing with Scott Glenn as Donald Rumsfeld.

Also, there was no coverage of the 2000 election, which should have been pivotal in a film like this. The film also ended abruptly, and with a pretty silly, obvious metaphorical scene.

Aside from that, Stone did a good job portraying Bush as a man of his convictions, though the father-son storyline didn't work, and it especially bothered me considering most of it was FALSE. It was humorous, touching at times... but in all, it was a shoddy, choppy film which is almost as forgettable as the Bush presidency itself.

4/10 from me.

 

[dark_b]

so you are saying that it is not like a real story? they made some stuff up?

 

[Episode29]

so you are saying that it is not like a real story? they made some stuff up?

There's a fair amount of factual material dressed up with fictional dialogue and actions. They get the root of the truth... But they also skip over some very, very important events. Essentially, it is a very shallow Coles notes for Kids version of what semi-actually happened.

Oh, and as I said in my review, the ending is a really stupid dream sequence. That was the penultimate flight of fancy that sealed the film's deal for me.

 

[The Man of Steel]

i liked the film.

 

[dark_b]

There's a fair amount of factual material dressed up with fictional dialogue and actions. They get the root of the truth... But they also skip over some very, very important events. Essentially, it is a very shallow Coles notes for Kids version of what semi-actually happened.

Oh, and as I said in my review, the ending is a really stupid dream sequence. That was the penultimate flight of fancy that sealed the film's deal for me.

i think it is wrong to make a movie and then change it. even if its small ....still.

i dont like bush. but make a 100% real movie

 

[Nirvana]

I was pretty surprised how much I ended up liking this movie. Josh Brolin did a pretty good job as Bush. In all the pictures and trailers and such I didn't think he looked like Bush at all, but until seeing the movie I was surprised how much he did actually look and talk like Bush. The supporting cast was pretty good, I just kind of wish Ioan Grufford was better used.

Also, I have to say the crowd I saw the movie with was hilarious. When H.W. lost to Clinton and they were showing the results people in the theater clapped. Also was Powell went on a rant about the Iraqi war and he says "Please let me finish!" a bunch of black people were applauding saying "That's right you finish". I laughed my ass off when that happened.

Over all, an 8/10, it was pretty entertaining.

 

[Matt]

It was okay. Stone should've waited though. The second term is ignored and that makes the movie feel incomplete. Plus the whole daddy issues subplot which dominates the movie just didn't do it for me. The performances of Dreyfus and Brolin make the movie. The rest is just filler. Stone rushed this out (47 days of shooting?) in order to keep it relevant while Bush was still in office. That was a mistake, in my opinion.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

i think it is wrong to make a movie and then change it. even if its small ....still.

i dont like bush. but make a 100% real movie

I don't think it's possible to make a 100% real bio pic. Especially when Oliver Stone is involved in them. He has never been shy about taking dramatic license.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I also give this an 8/10. The woman playing Rice was horrible and the film was slow at one or two points. It does skip the second term, but I don't really think that was an issue to me, since the tail end of term one covers what Stone was going for with the film.

Now, I really enjoyed Brolin, Dreyfus, and Cromwell. All amazing in the movie. I actually liked how this was not a straight forward bio-epic, and it made it feel different from a typical bio-epic. I liked the dream sequences, and while the end scene is odd, it makes a great deal of sense in context, and I liked it more and more as I left the theater.

All in all, I quite enjoyed it. It was funny, serious, and entertaining.

 

[Matt]

I actually thought the baseball scenes were great. Bush, from day one, has wanted to be a Roosevelt or Truman or Lincoln. One of the greats, one of the beloved Presidents. Yet that end scene was sort of his realization that he never will be.

 

[Frodo]

I consider the film the Rise of W as opposed to a Biopic of the Adminstration and it's ultimate downfall. I too thought Brolin was great along with Dreyfus, Cromwell, Wright and Banks . I didn't have a problem with Newton myself since Rice is kinda of a quirky character in real life anyway. Overall 8/10 .

 

[Spider-Fan]

I consider the film the Rise of W as opposed to a Biopic of the Adminstration and it's ultimate downfall. I too thought Brolin was great along with Dreyfus, Cromwell, Wright and Banks . I didn't have a problem with Newton myself since Rice is kinda of a quirky character in real life anyway. Overall 8/10 .

Agreed. I'm not going to say I enjoyed the movie less cause it left out controversial aspects of his Presidency, cause that is not what the movie was about IMO.

 

[StrainedEyes]

I liked the movie. I would not have minded it being a little longer or having a wider focus on more parts of his term and not just the invasion of Iraq.

As I was leaving, an older couple was walking in front of me. The elderly man said "I thought there was supposed to be balance, I didn't see any balance." I couldn't figure out what he was talking about. The movie didn't outright bash Bush, nor did it outright praise him either. I thought it was pretty balanced.

 

[Eros]

Loved the movie, makes you see the president in a whole new light. It was funny, and very entertaining, Bush is no different from any of us, thats what I think this movie try to say, and it said it well.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

He's different from me. I don't want to be compared to Bush anymore than I'd want to be compared to Dahmer.

 

[cabel]

Great interview with James Cromwell:
http://my.spill.com/profiles/blog/show?id=947994:BlogPost:672380

 

[DACrowe]

Well I saw it last night and thought it was a surprising biopic. I'm honestly going to say it is probably the best movie Stone has made in probably 15 or so years. While it is not as good as his last "presidential" movies JFK and Nixon), it is easily his most historically accurate film based on real people, save for WTC (which I never saw) to date.

When I first heard Oliver "I lost my mind the mid-90s" Stone was going to make a biopic on Bush, I heard the sirens go off saying "disaster." When I heard the cast for the first time only Brolin made sense, and seeing Cromwell, Banks and Dreyfuss in the trailer was really disconcerting. I simply didn't see the characters in them.

But then I saw the movie:

It was pretty darn good. This is not a definitive take on Bush's life. Rather it is Stone's research on the man and his speculation of what causes this man to tick and how it affected his presidency. While at first it seemed illogical, the decision to keep it focused on his first term made a great deal of sense.

There is simply too much to tell of any presidency (especially an eight-year one) in a film. Add on that Bush is still in office which means most of the information about his second term has not been revealed yet and that it is unconcluded, it makes sense to go back to the first term.

Thanks to many disgruntled Bush and Republican aides as well as great books by Bob Woodward and the like, we have a fairly decent idea of what the first term of the Bush presidency was. And this movie hits the nail on the head. While stylized and simplified for a film, sitting in on cabinet meetings and war room sessions really felt like you could see how it was going down.

The war room scenes were truly the best parts of the movie, imo. I also think Jeffrey Wright is going completely unsung for his great performance as Colin Powell. I don't understand the complaints that we don't get enough of this character. We see him featured prominently and you can always tell what he is thinking right below the surface.

What is most interesting to me is his battle with Dick Cheney. Cheney and Powell were once friends before Iraq drove them apart and that is subtly told in this movie and both are so good in their roles. I especially love the moment when Cheney says "You could have been president you know," and Powell responds "**** you." The hostility that grows between the two men as the movie goes on I thought was a great, subtle and compelling subplot.

Which brings me to Dreyfuss's Dick Cheney. What an amazing performance. We're talking Oscar nomination come next year if they are fair at the Academy (albeit this won't come close to what Ledger did as Joker, still). His Cheney was scary, quieted, whispery and completely menacing. When he lays it all out for his plans for Iraq he is completely evil and mezmorizing. If you want to see biased look no further than this character. It is really the most compelling scene of the movie as Cheney and Powell are fighting for Bush's soul but he is already owned by Karl Rove, imitating his iconography in the back of the room.

The rest of the cabinet is rounded out pretty well, Scott Glenn is great in his small role as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and George Tennet are well represented. Thandie Newton's performance of Condy is that of a loyal airhead. While I don't know if Condy is an idiot and thinks she may actually be quite smart, I do think she is the spineless yes-woman the movie depicts, hence Bush's like of her.


However, while all these things are interesting, they are not the main reason Stone made this movie. He wanted to explore what makes Bush ticks and offers a very compelling argument. Seeing Bush quit drinking cold turkey, discovering God and meander through life until Laura and moving on is very interesting. Brolin really gives a star-making performance with this role, IMO.

And his whole family is well acted, even by the somewhat miscast Banks. The real surprise though is James Cromwell and that whole subplot. The idea that his relationship with his father drove him may be somewhat overstated, but it is not unfounded. It is well known that Bush was a screw up and that the family favored Jeb Bush. When they found out that W. planned to run for governor they really did react in disdain and dismay and Barbara Bush really did storm out. They thought this would ruin things for Jeb. There is also likely some resentment by W. as he never asked his father for advice and in fact refused to hear it and made sure his father never spoke politics with him. According to his aides he saw himself politically more akin and related to Ronald Reagan than George H. W. Bush.

So, there is some founding for this relationship developed in the movie by Stone, and while again it may be overstated I think there is a good deal of truth to it and I did appreciate it. As for Cromwell, he was really good. He may not have the voice or mannerisms of Bush Sr, but he had his quiet dignity and poise. The movie really makes the case that Bush Sr. was a good president who was underrated and ignored in his time for doing an amazing feat with Iraq. And when juxtaposed with what his son does Bush Sr. comes out looking a hero with a good temperment and judgement his son lacked.

I agree with this assesment and found myself surprised to be actually upset when Cromwell's Bush lost the presidency. In reality, I of course supported Clinton and think it was very much for the best of the country. But the movie, an Oliver Stone movie, made H.W. being rejected by the American public poignant.

Now there were other things I liked about the movie, the subtly building sleaziness of Karl Rove and his dirty politics, Bush's fratenizing, etc. But there were some obvious problems. While I understand the glossing of the 2000 election as with Rove they covered Bush's dirty politics already and we just had Recount this year, I felt it should have at least been mentioned some. However I disagree it should be the centerpiece of the movie. The election is not the centerpiece of what defines Bush. Rove, yes. The Iraq War defines Bush.

With that said the dream sequence at the end of Bush almost fighting his father was cheesy and too heavy handed and while I thought the movie was relatively even-handed in its portrayal of Bush in a surprisingly sympathetic light...there were some scenes or lines just added to make fun of the president at some times. If you have 2 1/2 hours or less to describe Bush's rise to power and first term as president (which defined his legacy) do you really need to take a minute or two and devote it to him choking on a pretzel? Wasted screentime to SNL-ize Bush.

But overall, a surprisingly respectful and fair movie. If you think Bush still comes off looking bad in this movie...maybe it is because his policies REALLY ARE BAD. Because the man is very likable and sympathetic in this movie.

7.5/10. Can't wait to see the Obama movie already cooking in Stone's head in future years,

 

[The Guard]

I thought this was a very good film. It didn't go anywhere, but then, it didn't really have to. The actors were all fantastic. I won't be surprised if Brolin is nominated for an Oscar. Every single one of them was great, disappearing into their roles entirely, although I do think that Laura Bush may have been miscast. The movie doesn't show you anything new, but it does show a new angle of it, that most people haven't considered, that of a relatively average person in the White House, and the "pressures" as such. It is what it is. I'll give it a 8/10 because it's just a well made, well acted film all around.

 

[dark_b]

theatrical realese 17 October 2008

http://www.prosieben.de/spielfilm_s.../movies/11739/W.---Ein-missverstandenes-Leben

am i drunk or what?