Monday, September 22, 2008

"W" Movie Criticism (Or It's Too Bad Terry O' Quinn Can't Play Henry Paulson)

A favorite post of mine to construct (and here the news on) was the casting of Oliver Stone's upcoming movie "W." While I'm still uncertain of whether or not this film will be any good or not, it was fun to see who got cast to play the parts of Sr. Bush, Laura Bush, Condelezza Rice, etc.

Those side by side pictures can be seen here.

But my greatest concern over this movie initially was that the history was too recent, and especially in his final term as president, in an election year, I just didn't think this has huge long-term success potential.

While it'll be intersted to see how Josh Brolin's performance is perceived, I think this film is going to miss out on covering a huge part of Bush's presidency...called 2008!

I think that years from now when history books of 2025 are written, the history books will largely talk about the decisions made in the economic realm and the decisions made by Henry Paulson, the treasury secretary.

It's too bad that Paulson will likely not be included as a character in the movie. And even worse that Henry Paulson will not be played by Terry O' Quinn (John Locke's of Lost fame).

I have posted a pictures of the two men. First Paulson, and then O'Quinn. Not only is the look similar but Locke's Lost and Alias mannerism would work great in a role of this nature. Hey Stone how about a movie about Henry Paulson?


Loren Eaton said...

Am I a no-good, very-bad person for thinking that Oliver Stone has slowly transformed from a talented filmmaker to a hack? This movie's coming out way too soon; I think it will be a while before we can judge the significance of this presidency.

But Terry O' Quinn rocks!

crackers and cheese said...

Making a film about a current president is an extremely bold move. It could be awful, it could absolutely flop, but I intend on seeing it if it comes to this conservative college town where I live. I think it's the very audacity of the project that intrigues me and is bringing me to the theatres.

It's probably too early to judge, but I think that 9/11, the war on terror, and the Iraq war will be what the bush administration is remembered for. Based on the previews, it seems like Stone's film is going to show a lot of life before the presidency, how W got to where he is now. But obviously with the cast and characters, the actual presidency will be featured, and yes, you're right, recent economic events won't be covered. There's a lot to cover in 8 years of a presidency, and I'm sure that Stone is choosing what the thinks will make a good story, whether that's representative of Bush's legacy or not. Probably not.

Anonymous said...

The film shows flashbacks of Bush's life and his struggle "to make somethign of himself". Througout the film there are cut scenes of Bush Daydreaming of catching a baseball in an outfield, in these scenes Bush expresses joy and succuess, because he wants to be a Baseball Commisoner after many failed jobs.It ends with a metaphor of Bush not catching a baseball in an outfield; in this scene he is in the President's suit rather than a "Ranger's Sports Jacket. ( half of the audience did not understand the metaphor; and the movie ended.)Over all the movie had moments of Cheap laughs, like showing Bush talking with his mouth full, saying things at the wrong times or having scenes where he is in his underwear.

-R. Fisher