Oliver Stone's "W." is "boring" cinema, not much more than "illustrated journalism," lamented Time's Richard Corliss in an October 13 review.:
Like its central character, it seems never to have questioned itself about its mission or even asked if it had one. For this normally crazy-brilliant auteur, the last and lasting W. has to be Why?
But perhaps Corliss's real beef is that President Bush and his administration were not melodramatically portrayed as Republic-destroying megalomaniacal despots (emphasis mine):
Approaching George W. Bush, a Chief Executive with a shattered record and abysmal approval ratings who's now ignored or avoided by even his fellow Republicans, might seem way too easy a task for Stone. Historians have for years placed Bush at the bottom of presidential rankings, and The Daily Show, considering his legacy, chillingly guessed that Dubya is aiming to be not only our worst President but also our last.
For a related blog entry, see my October 13 post on Newsweek's more positive review by Alan Brinkley, who also insisted that "W." was "surprisingly, more or less fair," nay, downright "sunny and sympathetic."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I feels the hate.
October 14, 2008 - 12:55 ET by JWFDidn't I see that guy at a McCain rally?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
" But perhaps Corliss's
October 14, 2008 - 13:09 ET by Chris Norman" But perhaps Corliss's real beef is that President Bush and his administration were not melodramatically portrayed as Republic-destroying megalomaniacal despots"
Could it be the media has passed Oliver Stone in their race towards the radical left? That takes some doing...
McNotObama '08
WOW!
October 14, 2008 - 13:05 ET by mizflame98It takes a true talent to disgust conservatives and liberals with one movie. Looks like Mr. Stone has succeded in doing just that.
“Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula? I mean, they’re charging a lot of money for this stuff.”
B.H. Obama
Didn't you see Alexander?
October 14, 2008 - 13:13 ET by Defector01Nuff said
Stone tried to keep things somewhat in the middle left area (how sad is that?) but yeah Republicans don't want to see anything "Bush" for a while and Stone's main insane liberal base want to see him as Satan. Ergo, no success either side.
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it - Voltaire
Alexander the Gayte
October 14, 2008 - 13:22 ET by Jack BauerA very good friend of mine thought Alexander was laughably bad. Not even good bad like Showgirls.
And he's gay!
So Stone is auteurstic? I
October 14, 2008 - 13:23 ET by SickofLibsSo Stone is auteurstic?
I always thought so.
"Historians have for years
October 14, 2008 - 14:12 ET by mattm"Historians have for years placed Bush at the bottom of presidential rankings..."
Huh? Most historians wait until after some time has passed to rank a president.
Perhaps this twit meant "Liberals" - who placed Bush at the bottom of presidential rankings since January 20, 2001.
History Judged Truman not the press.
October 14, 2008 - 17:49 ET by richb313History will judge G.W.Bush, not the press or the pundits. The press and political pundits have been consistent in only one thing, they have been universally wrong about how history will judge the effectiveness of any President. The press and the pundits all thought Truman was a lightweight and from a questionable background. He has now risen in our eyes as an effective and brutally honest President.