tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342369910596581403.post6035140102846992072..comments2024-01-27T00:19:36.912-08:00Comments on Coleman's Corner in Cinema...: W. (2008)Coleman's Corner in Cinema...http://www.blogger.com/profile/04761319284479513957noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342369910596581403.post-63182303382021415652009-03-02T01:23:00.000-08:002009-03-02T01:23:00.000-08:00Haha, Tony, thank you for telling me that! I hope ...Haha, Tony, thank you for telling me that! I hope you didn't have to pay. :-)Coleman's Corner in Cinema...https://www.blogger.com/profile/04761319284479513957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342369910596581403.post-25639337313183424132009-03-02T01:19:00.000-08:002009-03-02T01:19:00.000-08:00Hey Alexander, W opened here last week. I walked o...Hey Alexander, W opened here last week. I walked out after 10 minutes...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342369910596581403.post-32392885378934056362008-11-03T13:41:00.000-08:002008-11-03T13:41:00.000-08:00I completely agree with Vanessa on two points she ...I completely agree with Vanessa on two points she makes:<BR/><BR/>1.) This is the definitive review of W we have seen on these blogs for certain.<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>2.) This is basically a mediocre and forgettable film.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342369910596581403.post-53718497626182545592008-11-02T22:11:00.000-08:002008-11-02T22:11:00.000-08:00Thank you, Vanessa, for stopping by and commenting...Thank you, Vanessa, for stopping by and commenting, and for the kind words. <BR/><BR/>The film's tonal issues taken respectively are not overwhelming, fortunately, but when taken cumulatively, they do harm the general picture.<BR/><BR/>And I agree, Brolin was quite good. That one scene that lingers, which I just discussed in my last comment here, is a greater statement about Brolin's acting talent than anything else.Coleman's Corner in Cinema...https://www.blogger.com/profile/04761319284479513957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342369910596581403.post-6868353594030791672008-11-02T18:52:00.000-08:002008-11-02T18:52:00.000-08:00"Probably the most convincing critical assessment ..."Probably the most convincing critical assessment of W that I've read so far, Alexander."<BR/><BR/>I totally agree with this-definitly a great review of a pretty mediocre and forgettable movie.<BR/><BR/>Stone lost something a while back as a director. I agree with Alexander Coleman that the sedated, honestly boring way Stone puts things together doesnt work for him and the moments of more zany qualities stand out poorly becuase of that.<BR/><BR/>The Marx quote is priceless.<BR/><BR/>Wish a director who still had his A game at the ready would take on this subject matter.<BR/><BR/>Brolin was good.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342369910596581403.post-58660375417647349062008-11-01T09:31:00.000-07:002008-11-01T09:31:00.000-07:00Daniel, thank you very much for the kind words and...Daniel, thank you very much for the kind words and understanding response, as I know you liked the film more than many. <BR/><BR/>Joel, thank you for the kind words and detailed response.<BR/><BR/>I concur that Stone apparently didn't have as much of a "story" to tell with this film as he probably thought he did (I remember him talking about the idea of making a movie about how we bungled our way into Iraq after 9/11 while <I>World Trade Center</I> was being released, so he must have thought about this movie for a while before making it), and that most of the picture is a rather prosaic retelling of moments we already know about (though frequently, as I've noted in previous comments here, Stone commits statements and deeds to entirely different contexts than the reality), and a blending of that with Stone's recurring Oedipal complex.<BR/><BR/>I'm glad you bring up the way you feel about <I>W.</I> the further away you get from it, Joel, as I similarly find myself largely allowing most of the picture to slip away in memory... The one moment my mind's eye recently keeps going back to is that of Bush struggling to come up with a single mistake he's made (which occurred in that April 2004 press conference, which I have always remembered as one of the more painful experiences I've ever had watching television), and the obvious sense of failure that is consuming him (which Stone nicely emphasizes, finally with some moderation, with Brolin's W. clearly infuriated with the press and himself).<BR/><BR/>You're right, though, many of Stone's more frenetic touchstones, which were much more aesthetically sensible and pleasing in his more purposefully <I>outre</I> films, do not mesh very well in the more sedated tone and texture Stone creates here. They stand out more, and not particularly well, as a result.<BR/><BR/>I agree, however, that Stone had several different avenues on which to build an engrossing take on Bush #43, through Rove, Cheney, etceteras... but it never quite congealed into anything resembling an overriding narrative chronicle.<BR/><BR/>Considering the height differential between Bushes: Bush #41 was, I believe, a little taller than 6 feet, 2 inches, while W. is, by most accounts, 5 feet, 11 inches and 3 quarters (nearly 6').Coleman's Corner in Cinema...https://www.blogger.com/profile/04761319284479513957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342369910596581403.post-48812088835880535082008-10-31T22:30:00.000-07:002008-10-31T22:30:00.000-07:00Thank you for this thoughtful review, Alexander.Yo...Thank you for this thoughtful review, Alexander.<BR/><BR/>You pointed out something that bothered me when I saw the film but I forgot to follow up on it: did #41 actually tower over his son, #43? My first thought is no, that this is an accident of casting that Stone took advantage of. And it's in this over-the-top symbolism that the film fails. Stone can't allow the drama of the moment to simply occur, he must undercut it by making everything melodramatic, from Powell's telling pronouncements to having the entourage lost in the wilds of W's ranch. It's all too obvious, because Stone has no real through-line for the picture. He's simply treading water, hoping that something of cinematic value will coalesce in the Avid editing bay.<BR/><BR/>It didn't.<BR/><BR/>The further I get from W., the more disappointed and annoyed I become with it. Stone could have made 4 different films from the rich tapestry of intersections that mark George W Bush's political career, were it Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Laura Bush, or Colin Powell, but instead Stone feels the need to throw the baby in with the bath water, the kitchen sink, and anything else tangibly implicated in the Iraq War II stratagem.<BR/><BR/>But by not offering anything more cohesive than his tired Oedipal conflicts, he loses touch with anything truly insightful or revelatory regarding George W. Instead we're left with a pastiche of moments and quotes that often veer more into the fictional than the rational, feeling once again like we're watching the history Stone envisions in his nightmares rather than the one we've all collectively survived.<BR/><BR/>Disappointing to say the least.Joel Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00636742605684472108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342369910596581403.post-46874453944488405762008-10-31T11:50:00.000-07:002008-10-31T11:50:00.000-07:00Probably the most convincing critical assessment o...Probably the most convincing critical assessment of W that I've read so far, Alexander. Though I liked it for entertainment purposes more than you, I appreciate that your faults with it weren't of the "it should have been crazier and sillier" variety. I feel like I've seen far too many people criticize it for being "tame" and in the same breath say Newton was too SNL-like in her caricature. You can't have both, people.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, that's not what you're saying. <BR/><BR/>Great work as usual. Your knowledge of both politics and film history is clearly on display in pieces like this.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05222052132452709301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342369910596581403.post-69933987983148740462008-10-28T10:11:00.000-07:002008-10-28T10:11:00.000-07:00I think your confusion is understandable, Dark Cit...I think your confusion is understandable, Dark City Dame... If you do see it, I think you'll find yourself being pulled in somewhat different directions by Stone: it's partly softly satirical in some ways, but it's largely a fairly "straight" biopic/expose on Bush #43.<BR/><BR/>I do think Stone believed that it would be next to impossible to build up an entirely "straight" look at W., however, because of the nature of the subject, so he went in a somewhat more goofy route, but not overtly so. Much of what W. does in the film is chronicled, though it's often in a different context than Stone dramatizes.Coleman's Corner in Cinema...https://www.blogger.com/profile/04761319284479513957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342369910596581403.post-1524301865189120292008-10-27T09:25:00.000-07:002008-10-27T09:25:00.000-07:00mommas don't let your babies grow up to ne cowboys...mommas don't let your babies grow up to ne cowboysAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342369910596581403.post-67413713887604887782008-10-25T20:14:00.000-07:002008-10-25T20:14:00.000-07:00Hi!A.C.,I really wonder what category to place thi...Hi!A.C.,<BR/>I really wonder what category to place this film in? Is this film suppose to be a <I>Comedy?</I> or a<BR/><I>Drama?</I> Ok! it is a given, I have not watched this movie yet, but I am so "confused" after reading other bloggers reviews of this films.<BR/>I'am not quite sure, but is it true that director Oliver Stone, wanted this film to be "taken seriously" in the same "vein" as his previous 2 President biopics...<B>J.F.K.</B><BR/>and <B>Nixon?</B><BR/><BR/>The comment below is my comment from <B>Daniel's blog<BR/>over there at "Film Babble Blog"</B><BR/><BR/><BR/>Daniel said, "It is actually an empathetic study balancing swift satire with "earnest melodrama."<BR/><B>My response</B><BR/>But, I wonder if director Oliver Stone, should have just focused on "satire" "completely" and "omitted" the "earnest melodramatics." when he directed the movie "W" (Dubya) Because from the ad it seems as if the film is heading in the direction of "Satire."<BR/>(...more in the vein of 2 Comedy Central shows "Southpark" or "Lil bush" humour.)ratatouille's archiveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06369967577590947967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342369910596581403.post-73186923906679475252008-10-25T15:17:00.000-07:002008-10-25T15:17:00.000-07:00Hi, MovieMan and thanks for stopping by and commen...Hi, MovieMan and thanks for stopping by and commenting.<BR/><BR/>I do agree that Stone probably wanted the film to wallow in a kind of shallowness to reflect on its protagonist. It's one of the reasons why I believed it was a fool's errand to compare it to Stone's previous, "more histrionic" pictures, which took themselves much more seriously. <BR/><BR/>I am not critical of Stone's decision to omit Katrina and many other matters, <I>per se</I>, I just think that it's possible Stone could have built a stronger narrative backbone if he had included some other matters. <BR/><BR/>Interestingly, however, many will find Stone's more streamlined approach here more "historically accurate," and applaud that aspect of the film. I personally prefer the poetical flourishes of his "psycho-historical" efforts, however.<BR/><BR/>The Doors are great and bombastically so.Coleman's Corner in Cinema...https://www.blogger.com/profile/04761319284479513957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342369910596581403.post-27342825303065610162008-10-25T13:15:00.000-07:002008-10-25T13:15:00.000-07:00I liked the movie and found the occasional shallow...I liked the movie and found the occasional shallowness and definite simplicity of W. - as compared to Stone's other, often more histrionic films - to be intriguing. It mirrored the shallowness of its protagonist, but every now and then little hints would pop up that the old Stone was behind the camera. I think if he had tackled the subject with as much over-the-top gusto as he brought to JFK or Nixon, it wouldn't have been quite as compelling.<BR/><BR/>And I have to disagree with the idea that the movie should have included Katrina and all the other myriad crises of the Bush presidency. Stone had to chose a focus or else the movie would have been all over the place (which some may think it already is, but it would have been worse). Iraq is obviously the best prism through which to focus all of the movie's themes.<BR/><BR/>However, I'll concur with the consensus on the Doors. It's always bugged me how they get dismissed as "pretentious" and "juvenile." Yes, they are bombastic, but they're so damn good at being bombastic! Come to think of it, you could say the same of Oliver Stone.<BR/><BR/>By the way, you can read my review of W. here:<BR/><BR/>http://thedancingimage.blogspot.com/2008/10/w.html<BR/><BR/>It kicks off a political series in honor of the election which is just accelerating about now (expect 2-3 posts a day starting Tuesday or Wednesday). So far I've also tackled Mr. Smith, Bill Ayers & the Weather Underground, and Barry Goldwater - with Michael Moore and lots of political docs on pertinent issues on the way. Feel free to comment on older posts - I'm always looking to get discussions going.Joel Bockohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342369910596581403.post-68704004876758053222008-10-25T12:37:00.000-07:002008-10-25T12:37:00.000-07:00mr. fuchs, I agree that the film does feel "rushed...mr. fuchs, I agree that the film does feel "rushed," and there is little doubt Stone wanted to have the film released before the election.Coleman's Corner in Cinema...https://www.blogger.com/profile/04761319284479513957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342369910596581403.post-60428782131927496682008-10-25T11:20:00.000-07:002008-10-25T11:20:00.000-07:00the film could have been longer. i get the feeling...the film could have been longer. i get the feeling that stone was desperate to release a film as soon as possible. i am kind of surprised as how the movie felt kind of silly and not very serious. maybe stone wanted bush to look like a clown. that might be bushs legacy if people look back on his presidency through the eyes of a motion picture.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342369910596581403.post-25203728423188250082008-10-24T13:43:00.000-07:002008-10-24T13:43:00.000-07:00Hi, Patrick, and thanks for stopping by and commen...Hi, Patrick, and thanks for stopping by and commenting.<BR/><BR/>Funny what you say about the correlation between Brolin's W. and his cowboy in <I>No Country</I>, as evidently Stone believed, after seeing the Coen picture, that Brolin's projection of stubbornness as Moss made the fruitfulness of him playing the forty-third president more likely.Coleman's Corner in Cinema...https://www.blogger.com/profile/04761319284479513957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342369910596581403.post-78339231683427797362008-10-24T13:21:00.000-07:002008-10-24T13:21:00.000-07:00Josh Brolin did a convincing Dubya, though he remi...Josh Brolin did a convincing Dubya, though he reminded me a lot of his cowboy character from No Country for Old Men... over all, i don't doubt that 'W.' will have the effect Oliver Stone desiredAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342369910596581403.post-74245484981797449822008-10-22T02:25:00.000-07:002008-10-22T02:25:00.000-07:00Yes, I do love The Doors quite a bit. Their first ...Yes, I do love The Doors quite a bit. Their first album has to be considered to be a contender of the greatest albums of <I>all time</I>. It's simply a perfect album. Following that up would be like Orson Welles with <I>Citizen Kane</I>: a deck stacked against you by yourself. However, "Touch Me" is my favorite song among their later efforts.<BR/><BR/>Sadly, I do not have the Live in Boston set. Thank you for pointing me to it, Tony; I'm undeniably interested.Coleman's Corner in Cinema...https://www.blogger.com/profile/04761319284479513957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342369910596581403.post-58341948638678822092008-10-21T20:48:00.000-07:002008-10-21T20:48:00.000-07:00Well you can blame that second tangent on me Sam :...Well you can blame that second tangent on me Sam :)Tony D'Ambrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00359495250856189815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342369910596581403.post-47783053443726766792008-10-21T17:03:00.000-07:002008-10-21T17:03:00.000-07:00Oh, Tony I complete the concensus on THE DOORS. I...Oh, Tony I complete the concensus on THE DOORS. I especially love "Touch Me," and "The End," (used so effectively in a film we all know and love.LOL!) but there are so many more.<BR/><BR/>Are they the greatest American group of all time? Well, their only real challengers (excluding duos) would be THE BEACH BOYS, and CSNY, although a case could be made I suppose for THE SUPREMES and THE FOUR SEASONS. If duos count, of course SIMON AND GARFUNKLE and THE EVERLY BROTHERS count too. See, list again, and tangents.....I'm hopeless.<BR/><BR/>But at 23 years old, Alexander is truly amazing. We find out something new every day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342369910596581403.post-79108381291796012002008-10-21T16:54:00.000-07:002008-10-21T16:54:00.000-07:00Alexander, that's more than fair enough. We're on...Alexander, that's more than fair enough. We're on the same page there. Yeah you rate NIXON higher than I do, but your silver medal winner, JFK, is my choice as the gold, with BORN ON THE FOURTH as the bronze on both our lists. SALVADOR is my own silver.<BR/><BR/>I agree with what you say about WALL STREET, but not PLATOON, which for all its simplified thematics is still a film that exert overwhelming emotional power, which at the time of release was enough to win high praise from our best cudemudgeon and scholarly critics like Kauffmann and Kael.<BR/> But I admit that time has diminished it with a number of people.<BR/><BR/> My apologies for turning the discussion in this direction, even temporarily. Alexander's excellent review of W should be teh central focus. I went off on a tangent as I often do.....I am list crazy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342369910596581403.post-54232395173088298732008-10-21T16:50:00.000-07:002008-10-21T16:50:00.000-07:00Great to know you are also a fan of the Doors, Ale...Great to know you are also a fan of the Doors, Alexander! If you haven't already, get a hold of the Live In Boston set - it is brilliant.Tony D'Ambrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00359495250856189815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342369910596581403.post-75605372201224682702008-10-21T16:10:00.000-07:002008-10-21T16:10:00.000-07:00Replying belatedly to Sam's second post:As people ...Replying belatedly to Sam's second post:<BR/><BR/>As people are, I'm sure, informed at this point, I think <I>Nixon</I> is Stone's finest hour, with <I>JFK</I> and <I>Born on the Fourth of July</I> the winners of the silver and bronze.<BR/><BR/>I've always believed <I>Platoon</I> to be very overrated, and <I>Wall Street</I> does not do much for me, either. <I>Salvador</I> is quite excellent, however, with some flaws. <I>Natural Born Killers</I>--I haven't seen it in a <I>looong</I> time, but I enjoyed it a great deal. It was Stone unplugged and the better for it.<BR/><BR/><I>Any Given Sunday</I> and <I>Alexander</I> are both wildly uneven--they're both fundamentally "bad" but interestingly, engagingly so, though they do have long, intermittent stretches of talkathon tedium that test one's patience and conspire to make the already grievously flawed movies only worse in one's reflecting mind. I must admit, I do not even remember <I>Talk Radio</I> or <I>U-Turn</I> aside from thinking that they were both wastes of my time. As a fan of The Doors, I was saddened to finally see <I>The Doors</I> about five years ago, and finding it in all of its psychedelically limitless opulence tinted by Stone's own martyr streak (one of the less discussed aspects of his art) to be downright suffocating, not to mention awfully rendered and, honestly, boring.Coleman's Corner in Cinema...https://www.blogger.com/profile/04761319284479513957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342369910596581403.post-28955764734643229002008-10-21T15:13:00.000-07:002008-10-21T15:13:00.000-07:00Thank you, Sam, I'm especially glad to see you lik...Thank you, Sam, I'm especially glad to see you liked the noting of the "Oedipal complex," haha.<BR/><BR/>I think <I>W.</I> <B>could</B> have juggled a full biopic <I>and</I> the run-up to the ignoble machinations of this administration leading up to the Iraq War--Stone has proven in the past he is able to wrap his arms around mammoth subjects--but it just did not come off here. <BR/><BR/>I agree that the depiction of Bush himself, as played by Brolin, is the stand-out piece.<BR/><BR/>For a little while, I thought Stone was going to capitalize on the mercurial nature of this film, Sam and Tony. Yet it never left that impression, and the coda was quite dissatisfying, much like many other elements of the film.<BR/><BR/>I think you're right, Tony, and they were points I wanted to express dualistically in the review, as the distance between events and dramatic reenactments or examinations of the same usually does not provide the historical balance, "fairness" or objectivity that we usually hear it does. And I likewise agree that there is a place for contemporaneous studies and accounts, though, again, Stone allowed a potential weakness to become more than potential.<BR/><BR/>That--the historical issues discussion--is interesting unto itself, though, Tony, and thank you for further opening those up here.Coleman's Corner in Cinema...https://www.blogger.com/profile/04761319284479513957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342369910596581403.post-3836746470013405532008-10-21T14:50:00.000-07:002008-10-21T14:50:00.000-07:00As I have not seen the film Alexander, I can't com...As I have not seen the film Alexander, I can't comment directly other than say you have raised important historical issues, and raise a couple of my own:<BR/><BR/>. I doubt any 'fiction' film can ever be historically objective close or far from the event in time or proximity, or for that matter can the study of history itself be free from bias.<BR/><BR/>. There is case for contemporaneous accounts as primary sources for later historians who will not so much be less biased but have a wider perspective and the benefit of hindsight.Tony D'Ambrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00359495250856189815noreply@blogger.com