But I’m sure that it’ll be shown in limited theaters so that when it’s soundly rejected, they’ll blame it on limited distribution–just like the Jolie Mighty Heart movie. Jerks.

Clue: once you pay to see it, whether in the theater or at home via rental or purchase, the filmmaker doesn’t care what you think of it. They don’t give refunds, and they count your sale as part of the success. Just like in Wargames, the only winning move is not to play.

He did an excellent job on World Trade Center, eschewing his normal self-centered directorial style for a much more straightforward and affecting approach in telling the true story of two 9/11 survivors and the people who rescued them.

Ed, I agree with most of what you said. However, “World Trade Center” was loaded with “world sympathy” views and completely disregarded celebrations in several Muslim countries, including the non-country “Palestine”.

Ignoring the fact that there were significant groups of people celebrating the atrocity of 9/11, IMHO, completely minimized the significance of the event as an act of war on American soil; instead turning the story into a typical “disaster” movie. Such an action ignores the context of the attack and dishonors the innocents who died as a result of it.

But then again, had he thrown in so much as two seconds of celebratory footage showing Muslims partying over the 3,000 deaths, it’s quite likely that he would have received the van Gogh/Wilders treatment.

/sigh

Theres making a film that shows some dissent towards a topic you know, Stone having been in Nam and then making a skewed version of Platoon. But this Bush drama is based on more hearsay then fact. Its to bad Bush has too much to do, running the free world, then to sue the pants off this no talent crap. If we get lucky maybe Dicky boy will convince him to go out for some Moose hunting, he’ll get to use a bigger gun then last time.

Most Americans may no longer like the President’s job performance, for some valid reasons too. But he’s still the sitting chief of state and he still scores high on personal likeability.

If this movie trashes W while he’s still in office, or makes Laura, GB41 or Babs look like fools, people will rebel against it at the ballot box.

Therefore I say: bring it on, Oli.

If there is a more worthless waste of skin on this earth than Oliver Stone, I can’t think of him.

NoDonkey on April 1, 2008 at 4:38 PM

Michael Moore.

If there is a more worthless waste of skin on this earth than Oliver Stone, I can’t think of him.

NoDonkey on April 1, 2008 at 4:38 PM

Brian DePalma…or Mark Cuban, take your pick.

And the weapon that he used was a smoke bellows?

Hello Aengus, how’s the weather on the other side of the pond today?

Hi. It was very nice today, its getting brighter. Thanks for asking.

Too bad they didn’t do that same thing before the 1973 War.

Too bad they didn’t kill Egypt’s Third Army to a man when Sharon had them trapped.

If anything I think France (yes, really) should bomb the Sudan’s air force on the ground. It would prevent the Sudanese from going on jihad and barreling their way West through Africa. It would make more sense than keeping 3,700 troops in Chad to just sit around and babysit – babysitting (or, if your prefer, peacekeeping) being the EU’s primary foreign policy.

Again:
1967 – Six Day War
1981 – Osirak Reacto
2007 – Syrian thingie
All pre-emptive attacks designed to prevent something worse that could have possibly happened. Too bad they didn’t do that same thing before the 1973 War.

Del Dolemonte on April 1, 2008 at 6:07 PM

George Orwell wrote against pre-emptive war as well. He called it fascist. This is not a new or anti-American view per se.

Who’s playing McCain? I’m sure he’ll have a few appearances in this to remind viewers how much alike the two are.

kongzilla on April 1, 2008 at 5:55 PM

Josh Brolin in both roles…