"It will contain surprises for Bush supporters and his detractors," said Stone.Who's the right actor to play George Bush? Josh Brolin. (Here's a photo slideshow. See the resemblance?)
[Stone] said Brolin was better looking than Bush, "but has the same drive and charisma that Americans identify with Bush, who has some of that old-time movie-star swagger."
Did Anthony Hopkins look much like Nixon?
Posts
41 comments:
No, Anthony Hopkins didn't look much like Nixon. Hopkins did play Hitler, however, in "The Bunker", which probably had a bit to do with his selection to play Nixon.
Oliver Stone should have looked for a Hitler character actor to be consistent for his "Bush" movie.
Yeah, like I'm believing that Stone will be fair with Bush. The fact that he's putting this movie together while Bush is still in office tells us all we need to know about that.
"[In his film 'JFK']....This silly Oliver Stone came up with ten groups that had a motive and he’s got all ten groups involved in the assassination. I go into great depth for the first time on the movie, and show what he said, and then show he committed cinematic murder. His movie is one continuous lie. I should amend that by saying he did have the correct date, location, and victims, but other than that, it was one continuous lie, and yet millions saw his movie and walked out thinking that there was a vast conspiracy.
To show you how unfair he was in the presentation of the evidence. I mentioned fifty-three separate pieces of evidence pointing irresistibly to the guilt of Oswald, and Oliver Stone in his three hour and eight minute movie could not put in one of those fifty-three pieces. I guess poor Oliver just didn’t have enough time to do that."
--History News Network interview with Vincent Bugliosi, author of 'Reclaiming History,' an analysis of the assassination.
Stone was such a bootlicking lackey in his Castro movie that even HBO couldn't stomach it, and insisted on changes to note Castro's human rights violations.
Don't tell me Stone will be fair.
I think the choice of Josh Brolin to play Bush is ironic. His father, James Brolin, played the "dumb Southern Presidential candidate" who ran against President Jed Bartlet on the West Wing.
I'm extremely dubious. Not because of Stone's politics. Because of his timing. With Nixon we had the chance to see the whole story played out, for a good long while after he left.
Making a movie about Bush now has utterly no chance to say anything about him the news hasn't already said. It can say nothing new because there is no history yet about the Bush administration. No new documents, no new insights.
Movie's are Oliver Stone's blogs. He wants to say his part to satisfy his ego and to maybe add a unique take. But he has nothing say on this topic. It can only be empty and incomplete. He should wait 20 years. Impatience is not art's friend.
Of course Hopkins looks nothing like Nixon, and I remember when I went to see "Nixon" thinking "This can't possibly work." But it did, because Hopkins is such a great actor. And "JFK" is a great movie, despite being full of crackpot conspiracy theories. Stone makes excellent movies; you just have to accept that they are works of fiction and enjoy them as such.
Oliver Stone made one great non-political movie, "On Any Sunday". It's one of my favorite films. Though I disagree with his politics, I do give him points for caricaturing himself in "Dave".
Interesting that the Reuters writer chose to juxtapose these remarks:
A White House spokesman could not immediately be reached for comment. Bush has acknowledged that he was a heavy drinker in his younger days, but has long been sober.
Stone, who has had his battles with drink and drugs, earned three Oscar nominations for his 1991 conspiracy film "JFK."
Josh Brolin is in one of my son's favorite movies (Goonies). Will Martha Plimpton play Laura?
I thought the NIXON film was well done too, and I think Hopkins looked nothing like RMN...in fact I thought he looked more like Jimmy Hoffa.
Wonder how his sister Sharon is doing these days
Say "Reuters writer" 10 times real fast.
Maybe get that guy from Napoleon Dynamite to play Bush..."Vote for Pedro."
Isn't America sick of this endless Bush obsession yet?
Take a look at the box office bombs about the Iraq War and greenlight with caution.
I've always had a crush on Josh, since Goonies. He's very good looking. I'm going to feel very uncomfortable watching him play someone that disgusts me. But he can act...did you see No Country For Old Men?
I wonder what his mother-in-law, Barbra Streisand, thinks of his new role?
I could see Jessica Lange playing Laura, or maybe Anne Hathaway as the younger Laura (you remember the younger Laura, the one who ran over and killed her boyfriend with her car--google it).
Oliver Stone made that stupid 9/11 movie a couple years ago--again an event too current (I believe) to have any honest retrospection. I agree with Paddy on this one.
and his conversion to Christianity."
What religion did he convert from exactly? It was my understanding he was orginally raised Episcopalian and then became Methodist. Last time I checked, both are Christian faiths.
I think the choice of Josh Brolin to play Bush is ironic.
I wonder if Josh is as much an idiot as his father. Papa Brolin was on the Chaz and AJ Show last year talking about his movie Hunting Party and when one of the hosts mentioned it was the 6th anniversary of 9/11, Brolin says Right, oh yeah, happy 9/11." (the show was on September 11, 2007).
He's nothing more than a scumbag. I would never pay a red cent to see him in anything.
Last Stone movie I saw was JFK.
Exciting, but terrible and crazy (I mean looney tunes) at the same time.
No need to waste my time on another one.
I'd see Any Given Sunday if it were free.
Maybe.
Might be Ann's worst post ever (/comic book slobbery). The Nixon movie was AWFUL, borderline unwatchable. Nixon as portrayed in that film would never have gotten vote #1 (someone else said it, but that captures it).
The half-baked efforts to add balance consisted of making him look like a simpering p*ssy and were the product of animus and disdain. Nixon was complex, the crappy Stone version was not.
The movie "Dick" was actually much better even though it was silly, and Dan Hedaya (Nick Tortelli on "Cheers") was a MUCH better Nixon (strange for me to write, b/c Hopkins' Lecter and Stevens are two of my favorite all-time performances).
zeb quinn is exactly right about the timing. Stone doesn't want to wait because Bush might (and he will) be much better regarded 20 years from now.
The idea that a Castro rumpswab like Stone would make a fair movie about Bush is laughable.
I hereby demand a full refund for this post.
I think Frank Caliendo from Mad TV (and Frank TV) should play Bush. It's the closest anyone can come.
Stone was such a bootlicking lackey in his Castro movie that even HBO couldn't stomach it, and insisted on changes to note Castro's human rights violations.
It will be amusing if his Bush movie turns out to portray its subject more negatively than his Castro movie did.
Anyway, I would normally say something grumpy about Oliver Stone 's lefty obsessions at this point -- but really, I just don't feel it. Let's be honest, the man is a has-been; who cares what movies he makes? Get back to me when an A-list director does something like this. :)
And will the Vulcan in the Star Trek movie 20 years from now, say "Only Bush can go to Iraq" like Spock says now "Only Nixon can go to China?"
It is a movie folks. It is called entertainment. Unless of course you depict a Clinton in a bad light- remember the debacle over that P911 movie? Movies, unless they are factual documentaries, are entertainment. Also, if you do not like Mr. Stone vote with your dollars and CHOOSE not to watch his product.
vote with your dollars
All well and good. But it appears no amount of monetary failure in the movie can make Stone a pariah. He's a fiscal loser. Why all the attention?
It's like New Kids on the Block announcing a new album.
Why announce it?
Why an interview?
Why write an article about a has-been's newest craptacular straight-to-DVD borefest?
Sorry, Middle Class Guy, I have to disagree. A movie is not just "entertainment" when it is used as a tool for political propaganda--as JFK inarguably was--and I suspect the same will be true of this portrayal of GWB. It is a given that Stone loathes the President. Given that, is it so difficult to admit this movie will be a biased mess? Perhaps you and many others will find it entertaining. As I did with JFK, I will most likely find it offensive and inaccurate.
Hoosier Daddy, one of the notions in many Christian sects, especially of the evangelical variety, is that one may believe in Christianity and even attend church, but must go through a conversion experience before claiming to be a true Christian.
I think that dude from The Paper Chase has always played a good George Bush.
Hoosier Daddy, one of the notions in many Christian sects, especially of the evangelical variety, is that one may believe in Christianity and even attend church, but must go through a conversion experience before claiming to be a true Christian.
Well I'm a Catholic and conversion is generally reserved to those who were either non-believers or came from a non-Christian faith. Stating he converted to Christianity implies to most people he wasn't a Christian to begin with. I'm not familiar with Methodists so I'm not sure if they consider Christians who are non-Methodists as needing conversion.
"'Bush,' the new Oliver Stone movie."
Oh. Michael Moore must be working on another movie, or is at Betty Ford for food addiction treatment.
Any Given Sunday....great sports movie....great cast...Pacino, Dennis Quaid, LL Cool J, Cameron Diaz, Ann Margret, Charlton Heston...
Ted Turner has announced that he is planning another revisionist mini-series about the civil war. Several stars have agreed to appear including Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Mike Farrell, and Susan Sarandon to be directed by Oliver Stone. There will also be cameo appearance by Sharon Stone's bush. The series will be called the Blue and the Grey.
Well I'm a Catholic and conversion is generally reserved to those who were either non-believers...
After someone has been saved, upon looking back many consider their earlier life as one of non-belief.
(I actually think it's a very awkward construction, but then again I haven't figured out how someone can "be saved" multiple times. Neither have I figured out those folks who claim to be saved, yet haven't actually changed any of their immoral behavior.
Recreation of conversation my wife had with workmate twenty years ago:
Workmate: I've been saved.
My Wife: But you still live your boyfriend.
Workmate: Yes, but I've been saved.
My Wife: And you still do drugs.
Workmate: It doesn't matter, I'm saved.
It goes on redundantly.)
Pete: Well, I'll be a son of a bitch. Delmar's been saved.
Delmar: Well, that's it, boys. I been redeemed. The preacher done washed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out. And heaven everlasting's my reward.
Everett: Delmar, what are you on about? We got bigger fish to fry.
Delmar: The preacher said all my sins is washed away, including that Piggly Wiggly I knocked over in Yazoo.
Everett: You said you was innocent of that.
Delmar: Well, I was lyin'. And the preacher said that that sin's been washed away, too. Neither God nor man's got nothin' on me now. Come on in, boys. The water is fine.
[later, after Pete gets baptized]
Pete: The preacher said it absolved us.
Everett: For Him, not for the law. I gave you credit for more brains than Delmar.
Delmar: But witnesses seen us redeemed.
Everett: That's not the issue, Delmar. Even square with the Lord, the state of Mississippi's a little more hard-nosed.
Last Ollie Stone movie I saw was Platoon. And he peaked with The Hand.
I beg to differ, Blake. He peaked with the screenplay for "Conan the Barbarian". :)
Too bad he didn't stop there. I'd be saying "man, how come Oliver Stone never did any more movies" instead of "ugh, why does Oliver Stone keep doing more movies".
Leave 'em wanting more.
Nobody does that these days.
I imagine the experience of watching this movie to be like that scene in "A Clockwork Orange" where they wired their eyes open and forced people to watch violent dreck.
I just hope it's historically accurate and they show the piles of dead bodies as a result of Bush's actions. "Pro-life," you know.
'George' You have your 53 points of how Oswalt did it eh? I am not saying Stones JFK movie was good or acurate, but how about the irefutable evidence ballistic and video that he could not have done it alone. You cane beat physics buddy. Not saying Oswalt didnt do it but it is IMPOSSIBLE for him to have done it alone and that has been fact as shown by evidence for years. Refute that if you can, but you cant.
Actually, Penn & Teller did a very good refutation of it, by performing the same shots themselves.
I'm not an experienced marksman myself, but I was able to get off three shots in very little time with pretty good accuracy with a much lower quality single-bolt action rifle.
Now, if you wanna argue that Oswald was hired by the CIA to do that, that's a lot harder to disprove.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/227815.html
good insight
How so?
Post a Comment