Seriously... more accurate casting for Dubya would be a chimp that they'd used for psychotropic drug testing.
I think more people would go see this it was called "bush"...
Studios love double entendres
I read about this at the HSX. Josh Brolin is the lead candidate to play Dubya.
I wouldn't say that Stone is trying to be non-biased about this, but since when does non-biased or fair and balanced become the most important measure of a film about history?
I do however, like the idea of Bush being portrayed as an individual with a psychology and quirks and hang-ups and neuroses, as regardless of whether or not that paints him in a positive or negative light... it at least goes far away from the whole "Bush is stupid" caricature that comedy shows have run into the ground.
I don't know what I think. Anyone else think that they look a bit too much like they are in a made for TV movie? If you know what I mean.
. . .
This looks as stupid as the man himself.
I think it's just too surreal to see so many living people, who appear so often on TV news in recent years, get played by name celebrities. It's just mind boggling.
I mean imagine if people made Reagan biopics in the 80s, while he was still in power, and played by contemporary big names. Same thing.
A lot of people seemed to have liked Bush as well, BEFORE the post-9/11 shenanigans.I don't know. It would be a little different though because most people actually LIKED Reagan. I think I might see this though.
A lot of people seemed to have liked Bush as well, BEFORE the post-9/11 shenanigans.
But that wasn't my point. My point is that this film is just completely weird because in the age of cable and Internet, we're looking at a vast collection of national decision makers who have had their faces become highly recognizable... now being played with contemporary big names... and most of them are STILL in positions of power, never mind the fact that they're still alive. It's just so damn WEIRD.