DHP Review: W.
Posted by Dirty Harry on Friday, October 17th, 2008
If the crowd in my theatre is any measure, as I predicted you can expect “W.” to have a good opening weekend. The place was pretty packed. Scattered laughs. Dead silence when it was over, but everyone had already paid their money, right?
“W.” is dreadful. An awful film filled with caricatures, an oppressive, schizophrenic score, claustrophobic feel (due to a low budget), laughably bad dialogue, and an overall sense that it was horribly, horribly rushed.
Sloppy and mean-spirited does not a good movie make. Sure, it looks cheap but the real failure is that ‘W.’ may well be the only film ever made without a shred of character or relationship development. And I’m not just talking about the Bush character. Nothing happens to or between any of the players. Emotionally, the film refuses to budge making for one punishing, derivative scene after another.
“W.” doesn’t bother to tell a life story or concern itself at all with a character examination of our 43rd president. Rather, it’s a hodgepodge collection of every rumor, anecdote, embarrassing moment — real or imagined — thrown into a messy narrative filled with actors whose “performances” (other than Elizabeth Banks, who’s very good as Laura Bush) never rise above impersonation. Thandie Newton’s take on Condi Rice may be the worst performance, well, ever.
Stone isn’t interested in making a film, he’s interested in humiliating Bush on his way out the door. “W.” is the product of a bitter child with a $30 million toy – an aging director with diminishing powers desperate for the last word and determined to write a history he won’t live to see played out. His movie is a hurried, lazy, flat, shallow, unsubtle blizzard of on-the nose exposition whose only subtext comes from a place it didn’t want. Hanging over the film’s entire last half is the knowledge that George W. Bush stood firm through a hellstorm of criticism and brought victory to Iraq and liberty to its 25 million people.
Josh Brolin’s plays impersonates Bush in a way that’s off the chart silly and stuck on swagger and nervous chuckle. One-dimensional doesn’t begin to describe it. How could any serious actor or director miss that one of Bush’s most impressive strengths as a politician has always been how comfortable he is in his own skin. Brolin’s playing some other man, someone tightly wound in dire need of Ritalin.
The performance isn’t bad, it’s just … odd.
In a polmic filled with forehead slapping moments of stupidity, Dick Cheney’s (Richard Dreyfus) speech in front of a Middle East map making the case for war in Iraq is the topper. All that’s missing is a white cat to stroke. Yes, Cheney’s portrayed as a Bond villain plotting the takeover of the world and its oil supplies (I wish).
Second place in the Inane Department is the normally reliable Jeffrey Wright who plays Colin Powell as an automaton of virtue. Powell’s futile but impassioned war room speech warning against the pre-emptive war (with Karl Rove in the shadows behind him) would’ve been a howler of bloated self-importance without the tinkling piano score backing it up, but with it I could’ve sworn I heard the ghost of Stanley Kubrick groan.
Stone will and has already gotten a pass from liberal critics, but had this film been about someone who hadn’t deranged the left, “W.” would be considered Alexander Part Deux.
Whether Stone likes it or not, if the next President doesn’t screw it up, George W. Bush will be remembered as the Abraham Lincoln of the Middle East. And Stone… Well, he’ll be remembered as someone who made some solid films in the 80’s and 90’s but became a hack second-guesser as his coming mortality and irrelevance crept up on him.
Filed in Movie Reviews |
poeon 17 Oct 2008 at 9:14 pm 1Case closed.
Kenn Christensonon 17 Oct 2008 at 9:15 pm 2Perhaps STONE will go down as the George Wallace of the War on Terror.
Kenn Christensonon 17 Oct 2008 at 9:18 pm 3…and, of course Roger Ebert gives 4 stars. I guess if you’re bashing Bush, the war on terror or for the environment, you’re guaranteed a 4 star review from Ebert. The man HAS lost his mind.
Kenn Christensonon 17 Oct 2008 at 9:20 pm 4“Perhaps STONE will go down as the George Wallace of the War on Terror.” - on second thought, I think that title belongs to Barak Hussein Obama
hailstateon 17 Oct 2008 at 9:21 pm 5By the clips I’ve seen it’s more DICK than it is NIXON.
USS Benon 17 Oct 2008 at 9:32 pm 6Good Lord! You are a brave man, Harry!
Thanks for taking one for us, your readers.
If there was a MOH type award to give to film reviewers you deserve it!
Salon 17 Oct 2008 at 9:39 pm 7Thanks, DH. Above and beyond.
and
’cause this is a movie site,
http://paxety.com/2008/10/05/obamaratu/
USS Benon 17 Oct 2008 at 9:49 pm 8Ha ha! Funny link, Sal!
That’s how I see him.
mjkon 17 Oct 2008 at 9:52 pm 9I liked “JFK” - it was long and pretentious. And by the end, I kind of wanted to shoot JFK myself, but it was actually an unintentional character study of what drives people to believe asinine conspiracy theories. Like Oliver Stone undoubtedly does.
I laughed my arse off during “Alexander” - that may have been the gayest movie ever. Even topping “Brokeback Mountain.” Of course, Angelina Jolie with her Rocky and Bullwinkle Russian accent was cheese-tastic.
I couldn’t stand “World Trade Center.” It was manipulative and, well, boring. “Flight 93″ was incredible. “World Trade Center” was a pale, pale pretender to the throne.
Clearly, for me, Oliver Stone is completely hit and miss. Lately he’s been more “miss” than “hit.”
And like I said before, all the previews of this movie makes me want to do is go party with George W. Bush. He looks like he’d be in for a fun time. I’d rather think that sort of misses the point. I’ll be going dancing this weekend instead. Seems like a more productive time than watching this asinine movie.
Zundfolgeon 17 Oct 2008 at 10:08 pm 10Wow, a whole star!
Stone outdid himself on this one.
Amyon 17 Oct 2008 at 10:11 pm 11No, seriously Harry, don’t hold back.
What do you really think?
Scotton 17 Oct 2008 at 10:15 pm 12Harry,I don’t know why you’re wasting time with Oliver Stone’s latest bowel movement
Jack Marinoon 17 Oct 2008 at 10:20 pm 13This is just more proof that people like Stone and all this cast never had talent and when you have millions and millions you can cover things up. Stone has been exposed as a no talent. When you have success in a business that will support your work as long as you make films that promote their ideology the system will make you look good and award you and create this illusion of real talent. But when you make a film like W then Stone’s talent is now naked to us and it isn’t pretty. That is why this film will tank. This won’t reach the grosses of block busters.
hailstateon 17 Oct 2008 at 10:24 pm 14If you want a chuckle you should read Ebert’s review. It’s hilarious and sad at the same time.
“there’s not a line of dialogue that sounds like malicious fiction.” Wow. BDS at its worst.
pageivon 17 Oct 2008 at 10:34 pm 15I’m sure they’ll give Obama the same treatment.
Johnny Ed's Babyon 17 Oct 2008 at 10:35 pm 16Harry:
Thanks for taking one for us. Not that I was going to see it, but at least our fears were realized.
Gritzon 17 Oct 2008 at 10:47 pm 17Y’know, if Stone just came out and said that this is a bonafide smear piece, I may have had more respect for him. Stone has just cemented what a piece of shit he really is.
JimmyCon 17 Oct 2008 at 10:58 pm 18“Thandie Newton’s take on Condi Rice may be the worst performance, well, ever.”
With the possible exception of Newton’s other performances.
whiskeyon 17 Oct 2008 at 11:21 pm 19One of the sad things about all the Bush bashing liberal films is that Bush’s real weaknesses are not explored.
While Obama rather than Bush sets up a thugocracy, complete with “California Uber Alles” meets “Holiday in Cambodia” philosophy (the Dead Kennedys merely mistook Jerry Brown for Barack Obama), all the smears of Bush as a Dictator or thug are laughable. It’s Barack Obama and his Jonestown crowd that meets that criteria.
Instead what is lamentable is that Bush’s real weaknesses, that were disastrous for the nation, were not exposed, and remain yet unexposed.
They are … weakness and laziness in confronting a hostile, mulish Press and Democratic Liberal establishment, and forcing them to confront reality, and …
Sharing many of their PC assumptions. Bush is FILLED with PC, it would be remarkable if he were not, and his ready capitulation to the Beltway/State/CIA crowd and their PC/Multicultural assumptions make this clear.
Bush is not and never was a conservative, which is why Liberals hate him so. He’s one of THEM, merely a Scoop Jackson conservative since so many of that breed were pushed into the Republican Party from the Democrats Jonestown Kool-Aide extravaganza.
whiskeyon 17 Oct 2008 at 11:23 pm 20One thing about Condi Rice. When she meets with the Russian Foreign Minister in Moscow (or DC) he routinely insults her with the most ugly and nasty racial comments.
She lacks the spine to simply walk out.
Racism really does exist. But in nasty places where people rise to the top over dead bodies.
Scuffleon 17 Oct 2008 at 11:31 pm 21George W. Bush stood firm through a hellstorm of criticism and brought victory to Iraq and liberty to its 25 million people… George W. Bush will be remembered as the Abraham Lincoln of the Middle East
Bush Derangement Syndrome Class II, ladies and gentlemen.
I’m not a pessimist on Iraq, by the way. There is indeed a chance that, within the next decade or two, the people of that country might be able to enjoy the same degree of liberty that they did before the invasion. Not now, though. Not just yet. The Bush administration turned a peaceful country into a hellhole, without even being able to settle on a justification for doing so. He will indeed be remembered for this.
Johnny Ed's Babyon 17 Oct 2008 at 11:38 pm 22Scuffle:
My nephew was in the 82nd Airborne and served 3 tours in Iraq. If you think that was a peaceful country before 2003, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I am willing to give you at a reasonable price.
Hussein was not some benevolent dictator that was only concerned with keeping the peace. If you think it is a hell hole now, you are clueless about what it was like before.
You have to get your news form other places besides the Huffington Post.
Thomas Talionison 18 Oct 2008 at 12:15 am 23I screened most of ‘Che’. If you think W. is bad . . .
It reminds me of the A-Team where every fires machine guns but nobody get shot. (only Che’s men)
Over 4 hours and I only recall seeing one government soldier killed. And only ONE ‘traitor’ shot in a firing squad. But Che gave him a few shots of whiskey and gave a romantic speech before shooting him.
Absolute GARBAGE.
The Almighty Turtleon 18 Oct 2008 at 12:17 am 24Scuffle:
“Thee Bush administration turned A PEACEFUL COUNTRY into a hellhole, without even being able to settle on a justification for doing so.”
Pardon me, but WHAT THE F*CK?
What is you definition of “peaceful” anyway?
And no, you cannot use the copout that it was happening without military force. Why?
The Al-Anfal Campaign began in 1986 and saw over 200,000 (more soldiers than took part in the first battles of WWII’s North Africa Campaign) attack roughly 4,000 Kurdish Peshmerga in the hopes of wiping the Iraqi Kurds off the face of the Earth. By all accounts, over 4,000 villages, cities, and towns were destroyed, AT LEAST 100,000 Kurds died, and it got so bad that much of the population fled INTO TURKEY. And, if you know ANYTHING about Kurdish-Turkish “relations”, you would know that THAT is an act of desperation and a LAST choice, NOT a first one.
However, the Al-Anfal Campaign was only a larger part of the larger Iran-Iraq War, which started when Saddam invaded Iran. Anywhere from half to three-quarters of a million people perished, many of them civilians. While Saddam was far from the only force responsible (the Iranians were no humanitarians), his use of poison gas on civilian targets, terror bombings that would put the much-maligned bombing campaigns of WWII to shame in terms of needless cruelty fully three quarters of the damage sustained by both sides from air campaigns was NON-MILITARY and largely unconnected to the War effort).
Oh yes, and that is BEFORE he invaded Kuwait. What was his grand, almighty accusation? Was Kuwait an Iranian puppet state? No. Was Kuwait massing hundreds of thousands of men against Iraq? No. His “justification” amounted to this: 1. Kuwait is damaging the Iraqi economy by drilling in territory that is “rightfully” Iraqi. 2. Kuwait is rightfully part of Iraqi anyway.
After the invasion, massive looting campaigns and executions which we STILL haven’t gotten to the bottom of, yet, but obviously are larger than 20,000 dead. And, when the Iraqi military collapsed, Saddam decided to light up Kuwait’s oil fields AND EVEN SEVERAL IRAQI ONES in an attempt to deny them to the enemy. The full damage these caused have yet to be ascertained.
In addition, following the war, in 1991, he crushed a small attempt to unseat him, and than promptly killed 60-100,000, most of whom were civilians.
And, keep in mind that the “justification” that the Bush Admin didn’t establish (according to you) included attempted assassinations (Bush 41 wasn’t the only one), attempts to both stockpile and produce WMD (BOTH of which were explicitly forbidden under the ceasefire), funding and sheltering of terrorists (Abu Nidal, donations to the families of Pali Suicide Bombers etc.), AND violations of the No-Fly Zones.
By any objective account, Nazi Germany from 1933-1937 was far more “peaceful.”
Bu
USS Benon 18 Oct 2008 at 12:20 am 25Scuffle is immune to reality, and proud of it.
Johnny Ed's Babyon 18 Oct 2008 at 12:32 am 26Ben:
Scuffle is living the reality of an alternative universe. The one where thugs like Hussein are only interested in giving puppies and unicorns to the peons.
It’s not Hussein’s fault people are not receptive to his generosity just because the puppies have bombs strapped around their bellies.
The ingrates.
Snarfblatton 18 Oct 2008 at 12:48 am 27“‘there’s not a line of dialogue that sounds like malicious fiction.’ Wow. BDS at its worst.”
I had always hoped that BDS sufferers secretly knew that their image of the President was a load of crap, and that they were just trying to be cute with their ridiculous characterizations of him. From hearing about this hit piece of a film, and then seeing critics trying to pass it off as fair, or even sympathetic, I see that they really are that deranged. I’m sure it’s very sympathetic if you view the man as Hitler. When has Bush EVER behaved like Josh Brolin’s portrayal of him? After 8 years, sure, he’s said some silly things (though none sillier than “I smoked but I didn’t inhale”). I suppose the elitist snobs dislike the accent, or his ability to speak to the people in terms everyone can understand. But how has this view of him as a barely functional idiot managed to become some sort of accepted fact? It’s just not in keeping with reality. He’s won four difficult elections, and governed through extremely turbulent times.
God bless President Bush. 9/11 happened shortly before my fifteenth birthday. I, along with everyone I knew, was terrified. My mom didn’t want us going to concerts or tourist attractions, because she was afraid they would get blown up. Every time I turned on the TV or the radio, I expected to hear about the next big terrorist attack. It seemed inevitable…but then, it never happened because the President kept us safe. No one cares about that now. It’s not fun to think about.
People in Iraq didn’t live in “peace” by any reasonable definition of the word. Saddam killed millions. He used mustard gas, with its disgusting, slow, and vicious effects, on his own people, including women and children just to scare them into silence. He lobbed people into wood chippers feet first. His crazy son had an iron maiden he threw under-performing athletes into. Women were raped freely. This is of course in addition to the funding and shelter he provided for terrorists, his violation of no-fly zones, and the fact that he was obviously trying to get WMD, as well as his many other misdeeds. But all this is ignored by the msm.
Bush came into office right when the the tech bubble burst. Clinton got all the glory of a bubble, and Bush got all the mess of its aftermath. Bush grew the economy for years. He cut taxes. He had record low unemployment under his watch, and a record high stock market. No attention was paid to this. He asked Congress over, and over, and over again to regulate Fannie and Freddie, and Democrats turned him down over, and over, and over again. Now that Democrats’ love affair with Fannie and Freddie has led to the financial crisis, who’s getting the blame? Bush, naturally. I swear, if Obama is made of teflon, Bush must be made of rayon. Additionally, and this is extremely important to me, he has done a stellar job fighting for a culture of life. The media, in turn, portrays him as a religious fanatic, and exaggerates any perceived scandal or failure, real or imagined. How much hysteria did we hear about Plamegate when they were trying to paint it into some horrifying conspiracy? How much did we hear about it when they were discovered to be wrong?
It’s started to really annoy me lately when some Republicans aggressively throw him under the bus. Not the legitimate criticisms. He hasn’t effectively defended himself or his policies lately, he spent too much in his first term, he’s loyal to people who don’t deserve it (hey there, McLellan), and he should have been more flexible dealing with Katrina. But some conservatives seem to use him as a whipping boy for policies many of us support, like Iraq, and that’s cowardly and unacceptable. He’s done far more good than he has bad, and we shouldn’t be eating our own for political points.
It’s really a shame Stone couldn’t control his hatred and arrogance, because Bush has an interesting life story. Another case of BDS getting in the way of everything else.
Snarfblatton 18 Oct 2008 at 12:50 am 28“‘there’s not a line of dialogue that sounds like malicious fiction.’ Wow. BDS at its worst.”
I had always hoped that BDS sufferers secretly knew that their image of the President was a load of crap, and that they were just trying to be cute with their ridiculous characterizations of him. From hearing about this hit piece of a film, and then seeing critics trying to pass it off as fair, or even sympathetic, I see that they really are that deranged. I’m sure it’s very sympathetic if you view the man as Hitler. When has Bush EVER behaved like Josh Brolin’s portrayal of him? After 8 years, sure, he’s said some silly things (though none sillier than “I smoked but I didn’t inhale”). I suppose the elitist snobs dislike the accent, or his ability to speak to the people in terms everyone can understand. But how has this view of him as a barely functional idiot managed to become some sort of accepted fact? It’s just not in keeping with reality. He’s won four difficult elections, and governed through extremely turbulent times.
God bless President Bush. 9/11 happened shortly before my fifteenth birthday. I, along with everyone I knew, was terrified. My mom didn’t want us going to concerts or tourist attractions, because she was afraid they would get blown up. Every time I turned on the TV or the radio, I expected to hear about the next big terrorist attack. It seemed inevitable…but then, it never happened because the President kept us safe. No one cares about that now. It’s not fun to think about.
People in Iraq didn’t live in “peace” by any reasonable definition of the word. Saddam killed millions. He used mustard gas, with its disgusting, slow, and vicious effects, on his own people, including women and children just to scare them into silence. He lobbed people into wood chippers feet first. His crazy son had an iron maiden he threw under-performing athletes into. Women were raped freely. This is of course in addition to the funding and shelter he provided for terrorists, his violation of no-fly zones, and the fact that he was obviously trying to get WMD, as well as his many other misdeeds. But all this is ignored by the msm.
Snarfblatton 18 Oct 2008 at 12:51 am 29Sorry, I’m a bit long-winded!
Bush came into office right when the the tech bubble burst. Clinton got all the glory of a bubble, and Bush got all the mess of its aftermath. Bush grew the economy for years. He cut taxes. He had record low unemployment under his watch, and a record high stock market. No attention was paid to this. He asked Congress over, and over, and over again to regulate Fannie and Freddie, and Democrats turned him down over, and over, and over again. Now that Democrats’ love affair with Fannie and Freddie has led to the financial crisis, who’s getting the blame? Bush, naturally. I swear, if Obama is made of teflon, Bush must be made of rayon. Additionally, and this is extremely important to me, he has done a stellar job fighting for a culture of life. The media, in turn, portrays him as a religious fanatic, and exaggerates any perceived scandal or failure, real or imagined. How much hysteria did we hear about Plamegate when they were trying to paint it into some horrifying conspiracy? How much did we hear about it when they were discovered to be wrong?
It’s started to really annoy me lately when some Republicans aggressively throw him under the bus. Not the legitimate criticisms. He hasn’t effectively defended himself or his policies lately, he spent too much in his first term, he’s loyal to people who don’t deserve it (hey there, McLellan), and he should have been more flexible dealing with Katrina. But some conservatives seem to use him as a whipping boy for policies many of us support, like Iraq, and that’s cowardly and unacceptable. He’s done far more good than he has bad, and we shouldn’t be eating our own for political points.
It’s really a shame Stone couldn’t control his hatred and arrogance, because Bush has an interesting life story. Another case of BDS getting in the way of everything else.
Snarfblatton 18 Oct 2008 at 12:52 am 30Sorry, I’m a bit long-winded and it won’t all post at once.
Bush came into office right when the the tech bubble burst. Clinton got all the glory of a bubble, and Bush got all the mess of its aftermath. Bush grew the economy for years. He cut taxes. He had record low unemployment under his watch, and a record high stock market. No attention was paid to this. He asked Congress over, and over, and over again to regulate Fannie and Freddie, and Democrats turned him down over, and over, and over again. Now that Democrats’ love affair with Fannie and Freddie has led to the financial crisis, who’s getting the blame? Bush, naturally. I swear, if Obama is made of teflon, Bush must be made of rayon. Additionally, and this is extremely important to me, he has done a stellar job fighting for a culture of life. The media, in turn, portrays him as a religious fanatic, and exaggerates any perceived scandal or failure, real or imagined. How much hysteria did we hear about Plamegate when they were trying to paint it into some horrifying conspiracy? How much did we hear about it when they were discovered to be wrong?
Snarfblatton 18 Oct 2008 at 12:52 am 31It’s started to really annoy me lately when some Republicans aggressively throw him under the bus. Not the legitimate criticisms. He hasn’t effectively defended himself or his policies lately, he spent too much in his first term, he’s loyal to people who don’t deserve it (hey there, McLellan), and he should have been more flexible dealing with Katrina. But some conservatives seem to use him as a whipping boy for policies many of us support, like Iraq, and that’s cowardly and unacceptable. He’s done far more good than he has bad, and we shouldn’t be eating our own for political points.
It’s really a shame Stone couldn’t control his hatred and arrogance, because Bush has an interesting life story. Another case of BDS getting in the way of everything else.
Snarfblatton 18 Oct 2008 at 1:21 am 32It’s really a shame, too, because this could have been a really interesting movie. He’s had a fascinating life, and it’s very inspiring to see someone turn his or her life around the way that he did. Alas, maybe a few decades from now, when everyone has some perspective.
Capt. Nemoon 18 Oct 2008 at 3:48 am 33Any chance at a Razzie?
They could use W. to make up for what they did in 2004.
Sharon Fergusonon 18 Oct 2008 at 5:06 am 34Snarfblatt - you go get ‘im!!! You said far more eloquently what I wanted to say to Snuffle. What an egregious jerk.
And LOVE the Bloom County name…
Sharon Fergusonon 18 Oct 2008 at 5:08 am 35Erm…I meant SCUFFLE…*need. coffee. now.*
RufusTon 18 Oct 2008 at 5:09 am 36Jack Marino,
Great summation in your comment.
TROon 18 Oct 2008 at 5:20 am 37“The Bush administration turned a peaceful country into a hellhole, without even being able to settle on a justification for doing so. He will indeed be remembered for this.”
Peaceful? Peaceful? Well, I suppose when you are ruled by a dictator which leaves you no choice but to go along to live it would be relatively peaceful.
Of course, I can see the draw in that for liberals. Obama has all the promise of being the same.
wanketteon 18 Oct 2008 at 6:19 am 38“the people of that country might be able to enjoy the same degree of liberty that they did before the invasion.”
Wish I’d been here earlier to answer this, but others have done well, plus I notice our troll hasn’t responded. quel surprise! What’s your authority on those statements, you moron?
I was living there before Big Sid (as we called him) invaded Kuwait. The heaviest of the travel restrictions on Iraqis had been lifted by then, and you could find Diet Coke in the Baghdad markets, and that was “the degree of liberty”. Full stop. The choice of rape or spying on your expat friends was the “degree of liberty” offered to many young women. And sometimes they could get both! Woohoo! liberty!
No foreigner could move into a house until it had been wiretapped. Every roll of film developed locally had a set of prints sent to the government for inspection (I always wondered what they thought of the photos from my “Rocky Horror Picture Show” party). There was an omnipresent tension — one you just learned to live with — knowing that anywhere, at any time, someone in a uniform could detain you for any reason, or no reason. Those are the years I developed into a chronic jaw-clencher, and drank more, and smoked more, than I ever had before or since.
But, yes, sure: “liberty” everywhere.
Stephanieon 18 Oct 2008 at 6:34 am 39I call to order the House Committee on Film Reviews to discuss the award of a Congressional Medal of Freedo to John Nolte for bravery above and beyond the call of duty in taking it upon himself to waste 10 dollars of his hard earned kwan to see this awful travesty and insult to humanity’s intelligence, in order that he could save the brains of his fellow Americans. As Chairman of the committee I am submitting a citation to award this medal to John Nolte.
Johnny Ed's Babyon 18 Oct 2008 at 6:45 am 40wankette:
I think scuffle’s comment is proof of what a great blog this is.
The only person that could ever think pre-2003 Iraq was peaceful is Saddam Hussein. And we know he’s dead.
Harry is the only blogger to have a comment from the afterlife. I bet Instapundit can’t say that.
Bennett Marcoon 18 Oct 2008 at 6:47 am 41But it was peaceful. I saw a movie where they were flying kites.
Moon 18 Oct 2008 at 7:00 am 42I cannot even let myself think about this movie.
It makes me so furious that it is socially acceptable to let our President be humiliated in this way - and my God, he’s still in office!
Don’t these filthy people have any shame at all? It’s sickening!
TROon 18 Oct 2008 at 7:06 am 43When and where do you find last nights box office receipt results?
Ronon 18 Oct 2008 at 7:27 am 44Gotta ask………does he (Stone) repeat the whole “plastic turkey” thing? If so, then this might very well be, in it’s own unique way, a perfect example of movie making.
wanketteon 18 Oct 2008 at 7:36 am 45JEB:
A dead contributor! this Internet thing, truly, is cooler than I thought.
p.s. is this what is meant by a “ghostwriter”? *rimshot*
Salon 18 Oct 2008 at 7:50 am 46Snarfblatt,
you’re making me feel good about some of the yoots.
Thanks!
(If you wait a bit, your post will magically appear. There’s a problem with the filter.)
You can’t have character development of a caricature- and that’s all Stone can see him, and anyone around him, as. That’s the defining thing about the Left- there’s no gray, ever. If it’s not perfect- and the definition of ‘perfect’ is the eternally moving goalpost- then it’s a failure. If someone’s a failure, then there is no reason to treat them with fairness, or dignity.
Which is why I like that ‘Obamaratu’ poster. The One let it slip that his plan for us is blood-sucking. He said it, not us.
Stephanieon 18 Oct 2008 at 7:59 am 47I was thinking Sniffle probably thinks Saddam Hussien’s Iraq paradise. I mean think about Hussien didn’t do anything wrong ever to be invaded, captured and hung. The stories of Rape rooms, people being dumped feet first into plastic shredders, Quesay Hussien marching stoically down a line of Shiite men and taping them each in the head once aer total bullshit. The thousands of Iraqis who suffered these barbarities were all US Agents according to Scuffle. In reality the peace Sniffle’s talks about was a socialist paradise. I mean come on……..wouldn’t it be awesome to live in a place like that? Wow……..Sniffle we should all just bow down to the stunning display of intellect and correctness of your statements. How wrong Jefferson was. How wrong Adams was. How wrong Smith and Locke were. Saddam Hussien and his hero Josef Stalin RAWKED!
(this post brought to you by the sarcasm company of Mount Vernon Virginia)
Johnny Ed's Babyon 18 Oct 2008 at 8:17 am 48Steph:
The Obama supporters all think if the USA becomes like Husein’s “peaceful” Iraq, we will have reached Nirvana.
A peaceful USA is one where we all love “Dear Leader”.
JimmyCon 18 Oct 2008 at 8:20 am 49Actually, Scuffle makes an excellent point. After all, we found alot of people in Saddam’s mass graves who are feeling very peaceful now.
Hardradaon 18 Oct 2008 at 8:48 am 50A peaceful USA is one where we all love “Dear Leader”.
Sadly, things become decidedly un-peaceful when you don’t profess enough requisite devotion to Dear Leader.
Johnny Ed's Babyon 18 Oct 2008 at 9:32 am 51Joe the plumber found out what happens when one does not show deference to Dear Leader.
The goons squads were loosed on him and the example has been set.
There will be no such attempts to upset the peaceful rule of Dear Leader after January 20, 2009.
Mr Naronon 18 Oct 2008 at 10:47 am 52The reason Stone made this movie is so History teachers will have something to show when we finally get around to teaching 9/11 and the War on Terror. I hope it has lots of cussing and sex. Highschoolers like that kind of thing. Keeps them calm.
Jack Marinoon 18 Oct 2008 at 11:00 am 53Rufus , thank you for your comment!
Our Glorious leader Obama the Messiah will achieve Nivaina when he takes over total control and sets up re-educations camps headed by Bill Aryers to teach us ‘evil conservatives’ who wrong our ‘thinking’ is. FOr those of us who resist their indoctrination, they will deport as many of us as they can at first. But then other nations won’t want us so the ‘Final Solution’ will be design to get rid os us pesky christians pro american constitutionalist.
Wouldn’t this idea make a decent little horror film??
Johnny Our dear leaders is going to get nuked but McCain on Nov 4 so he won’t even make it to Jan 20.
Stephanie I second your motion to award John Notle his well deserved award for bravery above and beyond. Also would the committee set aside any funding for Mr. Notle in case he has to go to the Bette Ford Clinic to be detox for the vile toxins that come from the screen onto the brains of mush sitting there in the audience.
Clinton got the glory riding off the Reagan years of a booming economy. Then he raised taxes to the highest ever to pay off all the big city democratic mayors who got him elected. Then he lost the congress to Newt and the Reps because of shoving gay rights in the military. He lost a 50 year Dem control congress. BRILLIANT MOVE BUBBA. Newt on the other hand had the votes to get him to sign welfare reform and he had no choice, but Bubba was pissed so he started to close all our major military bases to stick it to the republicans. Lo and beyhold all this savings we got a surplus WOW!!! So Bubba is now the Savior for the budget with this surplus, but he was sent there dragging and kicking his feet by the republicans. When Bubba felt office we were in a slight recession, and then 18 months later USA was attacked. But Bush cut taxs and we had a great economy, during a war, and with this onslaught of BDS 24/7 we had the lowest unemployment since LBJ and we have more people now then LBJ did. Then the dems take over congress and they can’t shut off the money to the war to force Bush to retreat, so they went ahead to destroy the economy before the new election to get, at the time Hillary in there. Now they have ruined our economy though the sub prime mortage deals, and they are blaming Bush for this. The BALLS on these bastards are awesome. Now, they dumped the Clintons for this chicago thug who is clueless on how anything works, and they think they can control him behind the scenes. This is their last attempt to radically socialize this country, this is their orgasmic wet dream is took take as much of our money, so that we don’t hit the streets, ban our guns, outlaw any christianity, through these gay hate laws, where the churches can’t condem this lifestyle. They are going to shove every kind of perversion onto this country, every kind of whacky law they will get through their leftist activist judges on the Supreme court. This is what the liberals have been dreaming for years to pull off.
But guess what? There are millions upon millions of people out there like Joe the Plumber who don’t want to share the wealth with the moochers who suck off our asses for money. While we all work 9 to 5 and come home with nothing to achieve the American dream.
The more the Dems exposed themselves as the commie sons of bitches that they really want to be, the more votes McCain is gaining. The signs are all out there, the Dems are screw ups and everything they touch turns to shit. The moochers want free healthcare, free education, free rent, free homes, what is the extent of their demands in the future…. Universal Car Insurance????
Where will this all end?? He wants to change our National Anthem it insults other people, like MUSLIMS
(sung to rule britainia)
Hail Obama, Obama rules the world,
Yankees will always have to pay, pay, pay through the nose
Snarfblatton 18 Oct 2008 at 11:37 am 54Thanks Sharon and Sal! I’m kind of embarrassed it posted so many times, so it’s good to know the filter just takes a while to go through. Being in my final year at liberal indoctrin-errr, college, and having a workplace full of liberal Democrats, the BDS gets really, really old sometimes. It was good to get this off my chest.
Snarfblatton 18 Oct 2008 at 12:03 pm 55Also, thanks Wankette for your firsthand account of life under Saddam. It seems we’re never presented with this information, and we should be. People should know what Saddam was really like.
Ken Bendoron 18 Oct 2008 at 12:23 pm 56re. Hailstate: “Dick” was actually a BETTER film than “Nixon”; try as he might, Anthony Hopkins just COULDN’T capture the essencse of Nixon- he resembled RMN as much as Cameron Diaz would’ve had she played Condeleeza Rice (not that Thandie Newton did any better, from what I heard
)
Zundfolgeon 18 Oct 2008 at 1:08 pm 57I find it frightening that so many Obama supporters define a “Peaceful Country” as one that:
• had Official State Rapists to use on its citizens
• routinely threw its citizens in wood chippers (many simply for expressing disagreement with the President … look out Joe the Plumber!).
• the sons of the President routinely went to jr high schools and pulled young girls out of class to rape and murder
• who used chemical weapons on part of its citizenry.
And Obama wants to “change” America into a “Peaceful Nation”?
Bennett Marcoon 18 Oct 2008 at 1:12 pm 58Ken Bendor,
I agree, Sir Anthony got taken to school by Dan Hedaya.
Bob Whiteon 18 Oct 2008 at 2:53 pm 59Re: Scuffle #21. You are wrong about Iraq not having freedom today. There is much evidence that you are wrong. Were you being sarcastic?
Iraq has many newspapers today, not just the state-run media. They have full internet access. Even the Shiite-Sunni conflict is a sign of freedom (as well as chaos and cruelty, of course).
You can read Jay Nordlinger’s latest articles describing his recent trip to Iraq to see how things have changed. He talked to one Iraqi who recalled how Iraqis used to be imprisoned if their birthday greetings to Saddam were insufficiently effusive.
http://tinyurl.com/58gdya
I hope you were being facetious, otherwise you are woefully uninformed.
Carolineon 18 Oct 2008 at 3:02 pm 60Josh Brolin beats his wife.
The Almighty Turtleon 18 Oct 2008 at 4:07 pm 61Caroline:
Proof?
We have to hold ourselves to standards higher than our opponents.
thebookkeeperon 18 Oct 2008 at 6:26 pm 62Hang in there, snarff - you’se one of us - and yeah, Steph, DH deserves a medal of DHonor for going to watch this shiite, for us, the American People.
Mike Kriskeyon 18 Oct 2008 at 6:59 pm 63Josh Brolin beats his wife. And he was arrested once for it.
Proof:
http://www.courttv.com/people/2004/1222/brolin_ap.html
The Almighty Turtleon 19 Oct 2008 at 3:01 am 64Mike Kriskey:
Thanks. I intended to check it out, but I hadn’t found the free time yet.
I know I sometimes come off as overbearing for things like by reply to Caroline, but I just don’t want to see our group drop to the same level as our dear “friends” already have.
Thanks.
Mike Kriskeyon 19 Oct 2008 at 6:29 am 65Turtle:
Not overbearing at all! I agree with you completely.
I’d rather lose this election than win by telling lies about the opposition. It’s fortunate that, when the opponent is Obama, that choice isn’t necessary.
flyingtigeron 19 Oct 2008 at 8:39 pm 66I liked Alexander the great! Mind you, I am one of the few on this planet. It should have been a mini series, for there is so much about the life of ATG that was never showned.
Anyway, I never considered GWB to be a conservative. I have always considered him to be a bleeding heart liberal. Or what a bleeding heart liberal would be like without a spine. No child left behind? Pure liberal. Invading a country to make it democratic- pure liberal. I could go on and on.
You will note that he works mostly with the dems, and the rebups hate him.
I might enjoy W, but not for the reasons Stone wants.
The Almighty Turtleon 19 Oct 2008 at 9:16 pm 67Flyingtiger: “It should have been a mini series, for there is so much about the life of ATG that was never showned.”
I concur, and also think that ATG, while not Stone’s best, is often overly maligned.
“nvading a country to make it democratic- pure liberal”
Hardly. Iraqi Democracy was a BYPRODUCT of the invasion, NOT the cause. The cause was Saddam’s aid to the Islamists we were (and still are) fighting.