2 movies about Republicans.

[Enigma]

I had some interesting viewing tonight.

First I watched a documentary that followed the McCain campaign for the year 2008 and interviewed McCain voters.
Now, to avoid the notion that I'm suggesting this is how the bulk of the right operated, let me point out that the movie absolutely went out of it's way to find hard core fringe right wingers, who were basically nuts, and who used every word in the book for Obama, including racist comments that I won't repeat here or anywhere, compared him to Hitler, accused him of being a terrorist and even having personal links to Osama Bin Laden. It was nothing short of frightening. I mean bone chilling scary. I've never seen so many paranoid, maniacal, hateful, ill informed people commited to tape in one setting. Ugh, chills.

Now, while I hate that I have to fill threads like with this disclaimers, but such is life in this enviroment, ...yes, you could make the same movie about the fringe/crazy left.

Then, I watched Oliver Stone's "W."

It was crap.

i mean, it was really, really bad. It left me liking the real W. more than I did before. Never mind that it was incredibly innacurate, as all of Mr. Stones renditions of history are, (see JFK) ....I've made no secret about my dislike for Mr. Bush, but this movie was mean. It was just mean spirited, and it couldn't hide it. It reveled in Mr. Bush's suffering over dead American kids, it couldn't contain it's own joy at the failures in Iraq, and, equally distasteful at least to me, was that I think it stepped way over the line on it's no so subtle comments about Bush's personal relationship with his father.

*Spoiler* - But it ain't worth seeing anyway....

There is a dream sequence scene in which W. is sitting in a chair in the Oval, while his Father circles him telling him he has ruined the Bush name, he is a disgrace, he has thrown 200 years of family legacy down the toilet, etc, etc, etc.

Regardless of my own opinions on these matters, I found it hard to watch. I found it unneccesarily cruel. I think Oliver Stone should be ashamed of it, and himself. You could tell this story, and still be hyper critical of Bush if that is your stance, you could include all the failures, all the blunders, all the back ground, all the reasons that you feel W. was a disgrace, all the blood on the hands, without taking it to such a level in which it's obvious that the film maker takes pleasure in the suffering of the Bush family. I don't see the value in that. I think it's cheap. And I think these people, and all people, should take a lesson from the old school mafioso. Family is off limits. Anyone that takes pot shots at the Presidents wife, kids or parents because he or she disagrees with that Presidents policy has no place at the big boys table.

Off soap box.

The only good thing about W.? Dreyfuss absolutly nails the role of Dick Cheyney. It's almost scary....

[Skybird]

I did not watch "W" when it was on TV over here, but feedback to the movie as well as the critics said that it was surprisingly tame and painted him as a human being and suffering from that damn psychological issue between him and his Uber-father. They said it was no must-see, but praised Stone for having resisted the temptation to blindly demonize him. All voices agreed in Dreyfuss playing magnificent.

So I am a bit surprised. Yours is the first comment I ever heared of or read accusing Stone of having depicted Bush even worse than he was in reality.

Wanted to watch it, but I could not get myself embarked on it. Maybe in the future. Whenever I saw Stone's movies, I found them so very banal, and often even boring. That "Platoon" won two Oscars, I cannot understand. Maybe it was a weak year for movies, I do not remember what was shown in that season (the porblem with movie awards in general: if the season was weak with good movies, you nevertheless celebrate a winner, and if you have a good season with several top movies, all but one loose although not deserving it, as if it were the sprinting finale at the Olympics. Nonsense.). The Oscar for "4th July" also escapes my understanding.

[AVGWarhawk]

First I watched a documentary that followed the McCain campaign for the year 2008 and interviewed McCain voters.
Now, to avoid the notion that I'm suggesting this is how the bulk of the right operated, let me point out that the movie absolutely went out of it's way to find hard core fringe right wingers, who were basically nuts, and who used every word in the book for Obama, including racist comments that I won't repeat here or anywhere, compared him to Hitler, accused him of being a terrorist and even having personal links to Osama Bin Laden. It was nothing short of frightening. I mean bone chilling scary. I've never seen so many paranoid, maniacal, hateful, ill informed people commited to tape in one setting. Ugh, chills.

Agreed, there are quite a few that have 'gone over the edge' shall we say? Both camps had those that were out there a bit to far. This is the point were we say, "You, out of the gene pool."

I liked JFK, if for no other reason then for the very tense atmosphere and a good thriller that it is. It's not really meant to be a historical document or 100% real so one should not view it as such.

Haven't yet seen W, might catch it on a DVD.

As for Platoon, I liked it when it dealt with the stuff that Stone had really experience in Vietnam, for example the scene when he is a guard and the VC attacks. However the morality tale between Barnes and Elias was a bit contrived.

[U-84]

never was a oliver stone fan...Platoon seemed very realistic when it came ot the combat scenes, but I hated how it portrayed soldiers. Seemed almost as a slap in the face. But was still a poweful movie none the less. JFK was very inaccurate, Alexander was a complete dump, and im not lookin forward to seein W, even though im a repub, i dislike George Bush.

[AVGWarhawk]

Never liked Platoon. I did like Full Metal Jacket as a Vietnam representative movie.

[Enigma]

I liked JFK

Me too!

Stone also made a lesser known movie called U-Turn that I love....

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I did not watch "W" when it was on TV over here, but feedback to the movie as well as the critics said that it was surprisingly tame and painted him as a human being

As opposed to the ailen puppet master he really was? :rotfl:

[August]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

I liked JFK, if for no other reason then for the very tense atmosphere and a good thriller that it is. It's not really meant to be a historical document or 100% real so one should not view it as such.

Then why make the movie about a real person then? Stone deliberately attempted to blur the line between fantasy and reality. Something he does in all his movies. There are going to be people who will believe that's what happened and that's wrong imo.

Originally Posted by August

Then why make the movie about a real person then? Stone deliberately attempted to blur the line between fantasy and reality. Something he does in all his movies. There are going to be people who will believe that's what happened and that's wrong imo.

Do you have a problem with movies that do the same but might be seen to convey a conservative/republican message instead? There is plenty of US made war films that do that and more. Are you saying that you can't handle one measly film about JFK but can handle, say, Rambo I, II, III & IV etc.?

[Enigma]

Then why make the movie about a real person then? Stone deliberately attempted to blur the line between fantasy and reality. Something he does in all his movies. There are going to be people who will believe that's what happened and that's wrong imo.

I know what you mean, because it sucks that there's an entire generation who seems to think Stone's JFK is what happened. At the same time, all "true" stories take artistic license and present someones views of events. Also, Stone made no bones about that. He never said it was historical document, but demanded quite the opposite. Not in defense of what Stone does, just that it's kinda par for the course.....

JFK is still an incredibly entertaining film, imo. Well shot, good acting, great cast. I really enjoy that movie. W. just had none of those qualities, besides dreyfuss....

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Do you have a problem with movies that do the same but might be seen to convey a conservative/republican message instead? There is plenty of US made war films that do that and more. Are you saying that you can't handle one measly film about JFK but can handle, say, Rambo I, II, III & IV etc.?

I didn't think Rambo was based on a real person or actual events.

Originally Posted by Aramike

I didn't think Rambo was based on a real person or actual events.

Vietnam war never happened? The war in Afghanistan never happened? The muhajadeen of Afghanistan (read: Taliban, Al Queda) never existed?

Interesting 'logic' you got going there.

[Morts]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Vietnam war never happened? The war in Afghanistan never happened? The muhajadeen of Afghanistan (read: Taliban, Al Queda) never existed?

Interesting 'logic' you got going there.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: is this a real arguement ?

[August]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Vietnam war never happened? The war in Afghanistan never happened? The muhajadeen of Afghanistan (read: Taliban, Al Queda) never existed?

Interesting 'logic' you got going there.

Just because there is a real New York city doesn't mean there are Aliens preparing to blow it up ala "Independence Day".

You're confusing the movie character with the movie setting. Rambo is a fictional character whose fictional exploits are obviously, just that, fictional.

JFK was a movie about a real person which falsely portrays the facts surrounding that real persons life and death.

Even you can see the difference, can't you?