Bush is depicted as foul-mouthed frat boy in new Oliver Stone movie

Bush is depicted as foul-mouthed frat boy in new Oliver Stone movie

www.independent.c o.uk

Oliver Stone's new film,W, portrays George Bush as a foul-mouthed, dried-out drunk with a baseball obsession and a difficult relationship with his father.

Filming is expected to begin any day in Louisiana. The movie should be in cinemas before Mr Bush leaves office next January.

Stone says the film won't be an anti-Bush polemic. Rather, as he told Daily Variety, it will be "a fair, true portrait of the man that asks the question: how did Bush go from being an alcoholic bum to the most powerful figure in the world?"

(visit the link for the full news article)

After being a major critic of bush, oliver stone starts filming a new movie about him.

The portrayal is sure to anger some, and will also probably make others happy as they see their views and impressions of bush being confirmed.

In what is sure to be one of the most contraversial films in recent years,stone questions bush's motivations for going into iraq - citing the failed assasination attempt on his father as the driving force behind his determination to topple saddam.

The problem is that much of what is known about bush's private life is anecdotal, other than documented failings in business and the alleged cover-up of his "service" in the air national guard when it has has been said that he was AWOL for much of his term of service - and documents would seem to support this.

I don't think I expect a fair portrayal of bush - but that's probably fair after all the lies he has told.

I'm also wondering if the film will cover some of the CT's surrounding his time in office, such as 9/11 and WMD's as well as the election scandals.



www.independent.c o.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

i can take comfort in having something to show little johnny when he asks "why is the world so f'ed up?" i'm not saying it's all bush's fault, but it's men like him that are ruining things.

If you have seen any other of his movies, you can just feel how bad this one is going to be.

Oliver stone has a talent for turning a good story into CRAP.

Consider this movie a charecter assasionation attempt by O.Stone...

He will probaly make W become gay or something...


After watching Alexander, i don't think i will ever watch another O.Stone movie again...

reply to post by TKainZero


Do you really think stone needs to make things up in order to do a character assasination?

I'd say shrub has done a pretty good job of it all by himself.



[edit on 10/4/2008 by budski]

I'm interested to see if this movie even comes out. If it's too negative, I have a feeling it will be "sanitized" before it shows. Either that or OS will make it so over the top that the entire movie can be classified as "completely a work of fiction."

I don't like how Stone has rewritten history in the movies.

Originally posted by TKainZero

He will probaly make W become gay or something...

Now that you have written that I feel the need to mention the name of Victor Ashe and George W....

Bush Bisexuality...

After looking thru your link, i can now say, i am ALMOST CERTIN that W will have a BrokeBack moment in this movie...

Great....




..............................................................................
[edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 30-4-2008 by 12m8keall2c]

Why, because Stone portrayed Alexander as he was? A bisexual. I think someone needs to look within themselves and figure out why it would bother them so much.



..............................................................................
[edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 30-4-2008 by 12m8keall2c]

I hope the movie also adresses the war crimes issues

reply to post by TKainZero


You mean like JFK?
As GRIFF said, what was wrong with Alexander?
Not to question your opinion on OS himself, but how has he rewritten history? By questioning the historical record which is suspect at best?
Does it offend you that a supposed manly man like A the G liked boys, as was the culture in those heady days of ancient Greece, or the more than probable JFK storyline?
Perhaps portraying the Great Decider as the drunken loser that he really is tweeks your sensibilities?
Just asking for a clarification. I thought Natural Born Killers was quite an excellent study of glorification of violence in American culture.

Since I can't stand seeing the real bush minor, I know I am not going to go and spend money to see a portraial of him.

That being said the reported depiction of him matches what bush minor's classmates described.

I wonder if it will show him (as reported) shoving fire crackers up frog's asses and lighting them?

I wish someone would cram a couple sticks of tnt up his backside and do us all a favour. Oops, I guess the NSA will be at my door anytime now declaring me a danger to Amerikkka.

Originally posted by Griff
Why, because Stone portrayed Alexander as he was? A bisexual. I think someone needs to look within themselves and figure out why it would bother them so much.

The Movie Alexander was bad... mabye i just went into it expecting it to be a qusi-historical movie, that focused on the Campain of Alexander to the edge of the know world...

...Instead, we were presented with a movie that was very poor in the fighting scence, breezed thru the Campain, and the majority of the movie was 'high-school' drama... Alexander "army" was also a joke, they couldn't have picked a worse group of 'men' to make up the most dominating conquesting army in the world, instead they have an army made up of 80-year old men...


I didn't realise that it was going to be hours of men dressed in drag, and running around in womens clothing, and men making out... i could have dealt with all the cross dressing, all the charecters wearing insane amounts of make-up and the drama, if there hadnt been a picture of balls... oh yea, thats what we needed, a shot of Alexanders Balls... we just can't leave little clues, or what not, the movie just has to show 2 men naked togheter in bed.


SO i went into the movie expecting a Historical retelling of the campain, instead, you got a movie that was produced by the Gay Mafia, and wants to shove homosexuality down your throght...

Let me rephrase this a little, to further clarify, i do not care about Alexanders personal life, it is of no consequence of mine, im sure that Alexander wasn't the first dude to like a dude, BUT he was the First General to Conquer the lands to the ends of the world... but for some reason, the movie portrayed his homosexuality as the main point of the movie, rather then the tatical, and stratigic gueniss of Alexander... That is my problem with Alexander... if i wanted to see Gay porn, i would go somewhere else, i wanted to see a Theatrical story of Alexander the Great, instead i was treated to a bad-gay-porno movie...

I would expect the same from the GW movie... not that the 2 men are comparable, but that i expect Oliver Stone to be true to his nature...


Thats all... oh.. last thing... mmorth1wayto... Its not Amerikkka, its the U S of KKK, you better get you wright refencers right...


Did Oliver Stone Direct JFK? Is that the refrence to JFK???

Maybe Stone will connect the Prez to the grassy knoll in Dallas. He does not portray real history as it happened but he writes good fiction. Personally, I would not pay to see this movie or watch it for free on cable.

Yeah, he directed jfk, or produced, or wrote it, or all of the above, but he had his grubbies all over it. I like that, U.S. of KKK. Hadn't seen that one before, very apt......
He probably will connect him to the grassy knoll. Senior was in the c.i.a. at the time.......the plot sickens.....er thickens......

Stone likes to revise history.

That sometimes makes for good cinema, but the problem is that so many people take his movies as gospel.

"JFK" was filled with inaccuracies that somehow have come to be taken as fact and have become a part of the culture.

I don't think Stone has made a historically accurate film since "Platoon."

Originally posted by TKainZero

Originally posted by Griff
Why, because Stone portrayed Alexander as he was? A bisexual. I think someone needs to look within themselves and figure out why it would bother them so much.

I didn't realise that it was going to be hours of men dressed in drag, and running around in womens clothing, and men making out... i could have dealt with all the cross dressing, all the charecters wearing insane amounts of make-up and the drama, if there hadnt been a picture of balls... oh yea, thats what we needed, a shot of Alexanders Balls... we just can't leave little clues, or what not, the movie just has to show 2 men naked togheter in bed.


SO i went into the movie expecting a Historical retelling of the campain, instead, you got a movie that was produced by the Gay Mafia, and wants to shove homosexuality down your throght...

Let me rephrase this a little, to further clarify, i do not care about Alexanders personal life, it is of no consequence of mine, im sure that Alexander wasn't the first dude to like a dude, BUT he was the First General to Conquer the lands to the ends of the world... but for some reason, the movie portrayed his homosexuality as the main point of the movie, rather then the tatical, and stratigic gueniss of Alexander... That is my problem with Alexander... if i wanted to see Gay porn, i would go somewhere else, i wanted to see a Theatrical story of Alexander the Great, instead i was treated to a bad-gay-porno movie..

The funny thing is, homosexuality/homosexual behavior was a common trait among Macedonian soldiers, and thought among them to be a sign of brotherhood. "Alexander" was an accurate interpretation of ancient Macedonian military culture, and would have been flawed without the gay bombs. O.S may try to represent "all the facts accurately" for his Bush movie (Thats 2 bush movies so far :lol , but I feel it will likely have a negative slant to it judging from O.S.'s previous comments on G.W .Though I do agree, showing Alexanders testicles was too far, nobody needed to see that. (Though he did in fact have them) CENSORSHIP! OMG

Well it is cinema, so it should be entertaining. As far as historically accurate, I doubt he would even claim to be making a historically accurate film. The Doors was quite entertaining, but I doubt very much of it was anything more than Jim Morrison worship. I agree about the balls though. No one needs to see that.

I am not in the least a fan of Dubya but c'mon, it's school days. This could easily be rewritten and be as accurate:

Oliver Stone's new film, I, portrays Intrepid as a foul-mouthed, dried-out drunk with a football obsession and a difficult relationship with his father.

Ah, college.