W. Looks very interesting...

Cubase wrote:If you are naive enough to believe this film (or any other film 'Based' on a true story) word for word then you need to have your head checked. Also, if you need to explain this to people then you need to either give your friends more credit, or wonder why the people who you hang around with are dumb enough to believe such things as word for word.

Sorry these aren't people I hang out with. These are the people you hear talking as everyone is filing out of a theater. People (at least in America) are rather dumb. I'd say about 10 to 20% will believe things from the movie. They will then pass it on to friends. The end result is 50% or so of stupid Americans believing nonsense.

I am interested in this film for one thing: entertainment. And that fact that it is about such a powerful figure makes it very interesting. But if you think I am going to see it as a documentary of facts then you got another thing coming.

I dislike bush, but being a film goer/lover/student/and budding maker I can appreciate the fact that this is probably a very dramatised interpretation of the president, in which case I will not belittle it or its maker when this is plainly obvious. I will judge it as I do any other film.

Sorry about the type Jen, the R and the T are next to one another and sometimes they fight, and the wrong one wins, lol! Oh, and I'm with you Jen... peace out everyone!

-Cub. =o)

Problem here: Oliver Stone has said it's an honest portrayal and neutral. It isn't a satire. It's supposed to be honest.

lotus_j wrote: Problem here: Oliver Stone has said it's an honest portrayal and neutral. It isn't a satire. It's supposed to be honest.

Well, here's the funny thing: I interpreted the film (before I've even seen it) as potentially being a semi-informative dark satire. Even if Stone were to say its 100% true (which would not surprise me given his track record) I would still treat it as a dark satire and nothing more.

I understand where you are coming from, and that a lot of folks might take it as gospel, but at the end of the day there's no sense in making it a criticism of the film if the viewers are the dumb ones. Of course a perfectly valid criticism is his knack for once again maintaining the claim for truth... but then again as you have already said, given his track record you'd have to be a deadbeat to walk into this film thinking you were watching a true-to-the-word documentary.

In my personal opinion some of America's best satires were the ones that claimed to be true as well, in which case you will probably find this film entertaining if you approach it the right way.

DrPaul wrote:Stone is a pretty talented film maker, but he is also seriously nuts.

Precisely why I am interested. I would rather hear his 'nutty' opinion rather than have to face something watered down and utterly conservative. A lot of critics have asked if Stone was concerned about claims of bending the truth. I personally think the same question can be asked of Bush. But then again we will never know so we might as well watch films like this for the entertainment value, much like we watch many satires and semi-fictions to tantalize the "what if?" within us. And then, combined with what we do know, develop our opinions further.

-Cub. =o)

You know I am gonna agree Cub here. You can't cater to the dumb people and only make movies that can understand.

Here's another, longer trailer: http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/w/trailer-b

...good film or not, you have to admit, these are some brilliantly cut trailers! Oh boy, if I could just make trailers for the rest of my life I would!

-Cub. =o)