Oliver Stone making a 9/11 Movie... hmmm.

[KyndCulture]

How does everyone feel about this?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469641/

I adore Oliver Stone because he usually does great movies about the truth...

I'm a tad worried about Nicholas Cage starring in it.


What do you guys say?

[tuvor]

1. Nicholas Cage hasn't made a good movie since Raising Arizona.

Since you're askin' an' all.

[KyndCulture]

2. Now that's true.

Birdie was his best.


But I love Stone... if he could do with 9/11 what he did with JFK, this movie might be great.

[Roland99]

14. Well, would be nice if he would stick to the truth unlike he did with JFK

[wtmusic]

3. He hasn't smiled since 1986

As long as the part doesn't require smiling...

[BlueCaliDem]

8. I thought he was great in 'Lord of Wars'. Excellent movie. n/t

[MsKandice01]

9. I couldn't stomach Lord of Wars

I can only handle Nicholas Cage talking for so long before I start to lose it and he narrated the whole damn thing!

[BlueCaliDem]

52. Well, if you already don't like Nicholas Cage, then the movie'll suck...

...no matter what.

I can understand that, though.

I detest Harvey Keitel <sp?> and wouldn't see a movie if he's in it.

Were it not for the vampire-topic in "Dusk til Dawn", I wouldn't have watched it just because he was in it!

So, I get where you're comin' from. :-)

[incapsulated]

10. Was it?

I was thinking of renting it.

I like Cage, when he is in a good movie.

Which is rare, these days.

[BlueCaliDem]

53. 'Lord of Wars' starts out kinda slow...

...but as the movie progesses, we get to see the ugly side of wars, and illegal arms trading.

I particularly like the end which was unexpected!

I believe it's well worth the $3.99. Saw it twice even! Great message in the movie.

[incapsulated]

56. Ok, then!

I'll go for it. Thanks!

[TheWatcher]

84. Not to be the Cinema Hall Police

But it's Lord of War.

And it was a great movie. :)

[sandnsea]

17. I tried so hard

It just kept sounding to me like a Ukrainian "Goodfellas". My husband said it was really great and so much more than that, about arms trading and the CIA, etc. I need to try it again. I like Nicholas Cage, even in bad movies.

[BlueCaliDem]

54. It *is* a guy's-guy movie...which I, most times enjoy, but the message...

...in the movie was what made it a great movie to me.

Yes, it went kind of "slow" in the beginning, but it soon revs up until it hits a high at the end.

Try watching it again. Maybe this time you might like it?

Another Nicholas Cage movie I like is "The Rock" with Sean Connery. I thought Cage was pretty good in that one too.

[sandnsea]

60. Oh yeah, great movie

I like "guy" movies too. But they either have to be high action, like Diehard, or with some real meat. I even liked Face Off. But I absolutely hated Reservoir Dogs; and Van Diesel, ugh, just shoot me. I will try it again. I forced myself to slog through Constant Gardener and it was well worth it, when it got going.

[fujiyama]

78. It's funny you mention "The Rock"

which is so ridiculous (and at times just plain cheesy), but I can't help but enjoying it. It's a fun action movie. It's certainly not fine cinema, but it's entertaining.

What especially amuses me though is that the studio released a Criterion version of it, which is usually reserved excusively for great films like Seven Samurai.

I also enjoyed "Lord of War", though it is somewhat depressing considering the actual message. I like how they point out at the end that the US, China, and Russia are responsible for most weapons proliferation.

It's definetely smarter than your typical action flick...

[peacebaby3]

91. I really like "Lord Of War." I actually bought the DVD and I don't think

it depends on gender. I am a very girly - girl who rates tear jerkers by how many box of Kleenex I have to use. Lord of War has a few sad moments. I thought the movie was pretty political and sent a very important message. The opening scene alone with the bullet is pretty awesome.

I highly recommend the movie.

[incapsulated]

12. Not true

Whatta bout Leaving Las Vegas?

[KyndCulture]

15. That was the MOST depressing flick ever! nt

[incapsulated]

21. Yes, but...

It was a good film he made after Raising Arizona. :)

[hang a left]

25. and the acting was superb nt

[shadowknows69]

103. He did win the Oscar for it

n/t

[tridim]

20. He was pretty good in Adaptation

and I loved Birdy.

"Biirrrrddddyyyyyy!"

"What?"

[Neil Lisst]

23. I call you with FACE OFF and raise you with LEAVING LAS VEGAS

[tuvor]

24. You are trumped, man. Sooooo trumped.

With Valley Girl.



(And I'm not so sure I'm kidding. :) )

[Neil Lisst]

36. he was great in Valley Girl

[incapsulated]

26. I called Las Vegas

But Face Off? C'mon, man. :P

[Neil Lisst]

37. Face.... OFF

and don't forget how important his minor role was in FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH!!

[incapsulated]

38. You are a true film buff.

:D

I like Nick Cage and I don't care who knows it!

[Neil Lisst]

42. Castor! Castor Troy!!

That film was soooo over the top! I had to love it.

[titoresque]

45. Family Man

I thought he was good in that.

[sandnsea]

61. I liked that too

I thought it was cute. Not Oscar worthy or anything, but cute.

[wicket]

73. I thought "Bringing Out the Dead" was great

n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

74. What about "Matchstick Men"?

[peacebaby3]

93. I actually really liked that movie and he did a good job with his

role. Not as good as Sean Penn in "I am Sam" (he should have won an Oscar for that performance. I forgot it was Sean Penn I was watching...truly amazing)but he did a really good job and was convincing as a person dealing with all kinds of phobias and some OCD. I really enjoyed the story.

[fujiyama]

77. Lord of War was pretty good

but he's taken some stupid roles in recent years.

[Kazak]

86. Wild At Heart?

:shrug:

[LuCifer]

4. Hmm

Well, the Doors movie really was sorry in how it portraied Jim as a complete dirtbag drunk. So who knows where Stone will go with this one.

And Arizona Rising has GOT to be in the top 5 of WORST movies EVER! What a piece of CRAP! What the HELL was the plot to that damn thing?!?!?!? Oh yeah, it didn't have one!

[KyndCulture]

6. Agreed on the Doors.

He slaughtered Patricia's character and the book.. that pissed me off.

But ya gotta admit JFK was good.

[shadowknows69]

105. Raising Arizona was awsome

The Cohen Bros. can do no wrong in my book

[sutz12]

5. Stone plays pretty fast and loose with facts....

[Media_Lies_Daily]

22. That's what the NeoCons want you to believe....

...why do you think the movie "JFK" created such a strong reaction from the rightwingers?

Your comment would be more believable if it was applied to the NeoCon Junta.

[The Magistrate]

31. That Movie, Sir

Created a grerat deal of mirth and merriment in many quarters: seldom has comedy been so brilliantly executed as in that farcical production. Mr. Stone was terribly out of his depth if his intention there was for serious expose. He has made one excellent movie, namely "Platoon". He should stick to what he knows by experience, it would seem.

[Imagevision]

40. The Movie JFK Sir was right on the money --> I totally agree...!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

41. That's your opinion, Sir....

...Just curious, but what do you personally know about the JFK assassination? How many years have you personally spent researching that case?

[The Magistrate]

48. It Is Been An Object Of Intermitent Interest, Sir

The "research" on the matter is the usual case of much thunder, damned little rain. People choose to entertain themselves in ways that are often a mystery to me....

[rman]

68. The movie is based on Garrison's investigation,

the Warren report and many interviews.
If you really think any movie or book not based on personal experience is not to be taken serious, then you must think most books and movies are without merit - unless you think this only goes for Stone.

Though i suppose you believe the RW smear about Garrison.

What's humorous is that certain people deemed it necessary to produce a docu that tries to
debunk JFK CT some 40 years after the fact because a majority still thinks the assassination was a conspiracy.

[The Magistrate]

96. Mr. Stone, Sir

Seems to do better when he sticks to things within his personal experience.

As a matter of curiousity, Sir, do you honestly consider agreement with Garrison a diagnostic of whether or not one is a leftist or a rightist?

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[adwon]

63. Actually, he does play fast and loose

Best example is the snippet from the September 1963 David Brinkley interview in the beginning of JFK. Stone edited the bit he used to imply JFK wanted to pull out of Vietnam immediately, whereas a full reading of the transcript flatly states otherwise.

[rman]

67. The movie makes clear

that pulling out of Vietnam was going to take several years - put the plan had been put into motion. Otherwise Johnson would not have needed to sign a plan to reverse the troop withdrawl and step up the war effort.

[adwon]

70. The movie is a fabrication

As I recall, it ignores the complicity of the Kennedys in the assassination of Diem, which was the single most destabilizing decision of the war. Additionally, it conveniently ignores the public pronouncements of JFK regarding the necessity of staying in for the long haul. The Brinkely interview that I mentioned is a great example of Kennedy's determination to stay in South Vietnam. Stone simply ignored inconvenient facts in the movie.

There was no plan to retreat from South Vietnam under Kennedy. There are after-the-fact rationalizations, most notably by McNamara, but none of them can point to specific statements by JFK that he intended to pull out. Should the oft-stated idea that JFK intended to pull out all Americans after the 1964 election ever prove true, it would be quite a blow to his legacy. That would mean that he had committed American forces to war purely for domestic political purposes. While I'm no Kennedy fan, I simply can't believe that he would commit treason simply to win an election.

[rman]

71. There are signed documents sanctioning retreat from Vietnam.

As i said, if there would not be such documents then Johnson would not have needed to sign documents to effect the opposite.

Kennedy's involvement in the assassination of Diem is questionable - got any proof for that?

The Vietnam mess had started before Kennedy became president. Kennedy send troops to Vietnam because he thought the Russians were committed to conflict in Vietnam. Initially he wanted to use Special Forces. US combat troops were send to Vietnam staring in 1965.

You cite some questionable examples of omissions of facts from the movie - but i fail to see how that is evidence that the movie as a whole is a fabrication.

For the movie to be a fabrication, most if not all of the facts it presents would be need to be false. But you have debunked none of those.

There are a lot of issues surrounding the assassination that each by itself are exceedingly suspicious, many of which are in fact in the Warren Report (just not in the report's conclusion).
Multiple security stand downs, impossibility to fire 3 round in 6 seconds with that bolt action rifle (Warren Report), scope of the rifle was lose (Warren Report). Oswald's ties to FBI and CIA, multiple Oswalds drawing attention to themselves in Dallas in the weeks before the assassination. I could go on and on.

If you want to try and discredit that movie, you have A LOT of debunking to do.

[adwon]

72. ?

Signed documents? Do these explicitly state the decision to withdraw or, like the fictitious stories surrounding the Pentagon Papers, have they been intentionally misinterpreted? As an example, one of the Papers stories stated that LBJ had definitely decided to increase troop levels in August 1964, yet, when the Papers were declassified in 1988, it was discovered that the cited cable said that the president was considering the increase, not that it had been decided. Further, if such is the case, then JFK acted in bad faith by exposing American soldiers to combat for no gain. Not to be rude, but is this really the argument that you want to make?

It's long been established that Robert Kennedy, through Ambassador Lodge, assured the coup plotters that the US would take no action against them for Diem's assassination. It was an open secret of the day, as even Malcolm X noted in his "Two minutes on Vietnam." This fact is questionable only by ignoring the close-knit relationship between the ARVN generals and American forces. Every policymaker of the time has acknowledged that the Kennedys were complicit in the assassination, if only by omission.

Kennedy sent advisors to South Vietnam because, as Mao put it, it was one of three fronts: Korea, Vietnam, and Berlin. He had hemmed himself into such a decision by conceding the building of the Berlin Wall and the neutralization of Laos.

Debunking the movie is easy. Its central point is that there was some mysterious conspiracy to kill JFK in order sell more guns by escalating in Vietnam. To actually believe this, one must believe that JFK had: a) determined that Vietnam was unwinnable in 1963(something that Acheson, far better versed in foreign policy, did not decide until 1967), b) was willing to put American soldiers in harm's way for political gain (exactly the crime which Bush is currently charged), and c) was fundamentally a dove, not a hawk (an unbelievable charge, considering that this is the man who campaigned on the 'missile gap'). None of these points are supported by historical evidence, unless such evidence is edited in order to change the actuality of what happened (once again, the Brinkley interview). Hell, even people like Robert McNamara do not definitively conclude that Kennedy had decided to pull out, but that, mysteriously, 'he would have.' The rumor of the pullout was born with Mike Mansfield, Senate majority leader at the time, around 1968. The timing of such an announcement is suspect at best, considering that such information might have been more useful in 1964, when the Tonkin Gulf Resolution was being debated (not to mention the fact that it came AFTER Tet, which makes it even more suspect). Are we to believe that people like McNamara and Mansfield magically forgot such an important decision in 1963-4, only to remember it years later...when the war had become costly and personal?

[rman]

99. The conspiracy is not so much the central point, as it is the thesis.

The movie presents many points to substantiate that thesis. I mentioned only a few in my previous post, most of which you do not address.
The thesis certainly is not that the point of the conspiracy was only to sell more guns. The reason for withdrawl was not that war was unwinnable, but that it was an unjust war.

Still, you leave many points that the movie makes untouched.

[adwon]

100. Again, ?

Please state which points I did not address. I thought I'd touched on them all. Sorry if I didn't.

Kennedy sought to withdraw because the war was unjust? Please clarify this one.

The big trouble with the movie is the influence of Garrison and Prouty, both of whom should have been certified as nuts. After all, I do believe Prouty published a book in the 80s which claimed JFK was killed in order to cover up an alien conspiracy. Additionally, the guy was extremely close to both the Liberty Lobby and the Institute for Historical Review.

[rman]

104. I'm not going to repeat myself

Look 2 posts back.

Your argument about Garrison is nothing but guilt by association and suggestion.

[adwon]

106. Ok

As i said, if there would not be such documents then Johnson would not have needed to sign documents to effect the opposite.

Kennedy's involvement in the assassination of Diem is questionable - got any proof for that?

The Vietnam mess had started before Kennedy became president. Kennedy send troops to Vietnam because he thought the Russians were committed to conflict in Vietnam. Initially he wanted to use Special Forces. US combat troops were send to Vietnam staring in 1965.

You cite some questionable examples of omissions of facts from the movie - but i fail to see how that is evidence that the movie as a whole is a fabrication.

For the movie to be a fabrication, most if not all of the facts it presents would be need to be false. But you have debunked none of those.

There are a lot of issues surrounding the assassination that each by itself are exceedingly suspicious, many of which are in fact in the Warren Report (just not in the report's conclusion).
Multiple security stand downs, impossibility to fire 3 round in 6 seconds with that bolt action rifle (Warren Report), scope of the rifle was lose (Warren Report). Oswald's ties to FBI and CIA, multiple Oswalds drawing attention to themselves in Dallas in the weeks before the assassination. I could go on and on.

If you want to try and discredit that movie, you have A LOT of debunking to do.

Above is what you wrote.

The cited document you refer to I believe is NSC 273. It was signed by Kennedy on November 21, 1963. The movie claims that Johnson magically reversed Kennedy's Vietnam policy with this document on November 26, 1963. There's one lie.

The acquiescence of the Kennedys in the assassination of Diem is not questionable. As I recall, it was initially established by the Church Committee in the mid 70s. Here's a link. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/index.htm

Kennedy didn't 'think' the Russians (and the Chinese) were actively supporting the North Vietnamese, he knew it. Something like 3000 Soviets and 300,000 Chinese soldiers served in the region during the conflict.

How about we mention the fact that Stone created Donald Sutherland's character for the purpose of hiding Prouty's involvement? Or the fact that the character is a huge fabrication.

Regarding the number of shots. http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100knoll51.html
Stone claims 6, when only 8.7% of the witness claimed to have heard more than 3. Amazingly, 80.8% of the witnesses interviewed heard 3 or less. Essentially, Mr. Stone chose to go with a number of shots that goes greatly against the weight of evidence.

Both the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee investigation found that the wounds were caused by 2 bullets, not 6.

Here's a fun site that did a computer reconstruction of the event and found the evidence in favor of all the shots coming from the Depository. http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/intro.htm

Regarding the 3 shots in 6 seconds, here's a link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle
I do have some skepticism about the link because the claim of 8.4 seconds doesn't have an independent citation. It's not that I disbelieve it, I just prefer to have another source.

"Most of the time you marshal your facts, then deduce your theories. But Garrison deduced a theory, then he marshaled the facts. And if the facts didn't fit he'd say they had been altered by the CIA." - Charles Ward, former assistant to Garrison --A thought regarding the idea that Garrison might be unfairly tarred by association with Prouty

http://www.jfkassassination.net/sightings.txt
The Warren Commission studied the 'multiple Oswald' sightings and found them inconclusive. It's a bit disingenuous to claim something as a fact when the only study was unable to determine conclusively whether or not the sightings had actually happened.

The Warren Commission found that the timespan of the 3 shots was between 4.8 and 7.9 seconds. Quite different from the standard claim of 5 or 6 seconds. http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html#timespan

Please cite the scope being loose and the links to the FBI and CIA.

[rman]

107. ok

> The cited document you refer to I believe is NSC 273. It was signed by Kennedy on November 21, 1963. The movie claims that Johnson magically reversed Kennedy's Vietnam policy with this document on November 26, 1963. There's one lie.

Kennedy signed one document (NSAM 263), Johnson signed another document. No magic, no lie.

> Kennedy didn't 'think' the Russians (and the Chinese) were actively supporting the North Vietnamese, he knew it. Something like 3000 Soviets and 300,000 Chinese soldiers served in the region during the conflict.

It's a legitimate cause for US military involvement in Vietnam, which weakens your argument that Kennedy went into Vietnam for domestic political gain.

> How about we mention the fact that Stone created Donald Sutherland's character for the purpose of hiding Prouty's involvement? Or the fact that the character is a huge fabrication.

"Mr X" = Fletcher Prouty. There's an interview with him on the bonus DVD of (reissued edition of) "JFK". So Stone is not hiding Prouty's involvement.

I won't get into the number of shots now.
The FBI did extensive test firing in which they were unable to fire 3 shots in 6 seconds with that kind of rifle.
If 6 second is impossible, then 4.8 and 5 second are also impossible. The 7.9 seconds is based on speculation in trying to reconstruct several scenarios wrt the firing of the rifle, taking minimum reloading time into account (leaving no time for actual aiming) - it's not based on material evidence or eyewitness accounts.

The Warren Commission found a lot that they figured was inconclusive - meaning that they did not include those in the conclusion of the report.
If there's a conspiracy behind the assassination of JFK then the Warren Commission is part of the cover up. I have no reason to accept its conclusions - evidence is not the same thing as conclusions.

The loose scope and ties to CIA and FBI are part of Garrison's findings. I'm not sure what exactly his sources on those issues are.

Since you don't trust Garrison and I don't trust the Warren Commission, let's focus on something that is beyond dispute - a smoking gun which you haven't yet addressed: multiple security stand downs. This is one of the issues that on its own regardless of everything else, is extremely suspicious.

[adwon]

109. More fun

There's no significant difference between the policies espoused by 263 and 273. The withdrawal of 1000 'advisors' was contingent upon the South Vietnamese being able to bear the burden themselves. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/context1.htm

I didn't argue that Kennedy was involved in Vietnam for domestic political reasons. I never would. Some who believe in a conspiracy have argued over the years that Kennedy intended to keep troops in South Vietnam until after the 1964 election. I just wanted to eliminate that argument by pointing out that those who believe in such an idea are essentially claiming that Kennedy was committing impeachable offenses, if not treason.

Hiding Prouty's involvement was a bad claim to make. The use of the character, though, was disingenuous at best. It implied that Garrison had some real source for his claims other than his imagination.

The number of shots really isn't in question. It was a maximum of 3. The timing is in question, though it has to remembered that it's really 2 shots in x amount of seconds, not 3. After all, the clock starts ticking when the first shot is heard.

Garrison's findings are untrusted by the people who helped him on the case. If they don't trust them, why should anyone else? After all, this is a guy who was well known for making grandiose claims and being unable to back them up. His record paints him as a loose cannon, not a crusader for truth.

When I look at the makeup of the Warren Commission, I find it near impossible to believe that they would ever 'cover up' an assassination of a president for any reason. Let's just examine two of them: Earl Warren and Richard Russell. Warren headed the most liberal Supreme Court in American history. This is the man who wrote Brown and Miranda. Escobedo was decided on his watch. How likely is it that this man, maybe public enemy number one for conservatives, could cut a deal with those same conservatives to cover up the death of an essentially conservative Democrat? Not very.

Richard Russell is another interesting case. This is the man who chaired the MacArthur hearings in 1951, which showed the public just what a jackass the general was. If he'd wanted to score points against a president who truly believed in civil rights, like Truman, he could have easily lobbed softballs at MacArthur. Instead, he set him up for failure. He had no love for Kennedy to be sure, but would he have really taken the chance at covering up such an event? He wanted LBJ to be president badly but I don't see him taking this kind of a chance. After all, what happens if someone talks? Johnson would be screwed.

Cite to the stand downs, please. Offer me a link or the name of a document or something. Thanks.

Unrelated thoughts: I have trouble believing in a political conspiracy to kill JFK. The escalation in Vietnam was a consequence not of militarism, but of Diem's assassination. Diem, bastard that he was, had some degree of legitimacy (something his successors never had) and had a power base. The pacification efforts before his death were doing well, to the point that Kennedy was considering removing advisors because the South Vietnamese forces were becoming able to handle the NLF on their own (to some degree). If things were going well, why kill him? Surely not civil rights. It's not as though he had any real commitment to that cause (quite unlike his successor). It strikes me that a conspiracy only can be plausible by looking at the period through the lens of the present rather than the lens of the time.

[drbtg1]

75. Was that the line where Kennedy says, "It's their war,

...they're the ones who have to win it."?

My apologies if I'm not remembering it correctly.

[adwon]

76. That's about right

It's during the opening credits.

[drbtg1]

81. Well then, I don't see how that directly translates into...

...pulling out of Vietnam immediately. That line may have simply been denotation instead of connotation and allowed Mr. Stone to show JFK to be more pragmatic regarding the War than his succesors.

[adwon]

82. I had a different view

In the context of the opening, it struck me as being duplicitous. I think it was only because I was familiar with the interview before I saw the movie (a couple of years ago). I was just stunned that Stone would blatantly use a source that flatly contradicted his thesis that Kennedy was killed because he was trying to pull out.

[drbtg1]

88. Okay, I can appreciate your familiarity with the interview...

...may allow you a different view that is perfectly legitimate. However, may I suggest the bulk of that interview may have been intended simply for public consumption as political rhetoric (certainly not the first and last time a politician has done that) but the line (perhaps not intended for the public, but just slipped out) Mr. Stone used offered a nugget of insight into the mindset, that the practical approach JFK had for Vietnam may have conflicted with the gung-ho attitude of others, and thus viewed as a threat?

[adwon]

89. It's possible

Such a view seems a bit too nuanced for Stone, in my opinion. I don't think that Stone viewed JFK as having a 'practical approach' to Vietnam, an idea which is worthy of a discussion in itself, but intended to use it as circumstantial evidence of Kennedy having, at least, no desire to get mixed up in a protracted conflict. While that would be a valid view, I can't help but doubt that it was that simple for Mr. Stone.

[drbtg1]

92. Actually, I think the whole thing was very simple for Mr. Stone

I think Mr. Stone views the end of JFK as the end for any rational ending for the War (yeah, that was very oxymoronic) and the beginning of a long, hard hell. Anything supporting that, including that line, will be used. I guess we'll just disagree as to whether that line is too nuanced for his ability for application in support of that theory.

Also, I don't think "JFK as having a 'practical approach' to Vietnam" and "no desire to get mixed up in a protracted conflict" are conflicting concepts. A question: was that interview after the Bay of Pigs? If so, we could certainly consider if that may have had a role in uttering that line.

Finally, a tangent: as I remember that line JFK spoke in regard to Vietnam (with the concept that we cannot do everything and people there have to step up for the sake of their own country), I can never imagine Bush saying that concept about Iraq, with any degree of sincerity, until it is far too late. That saddens me greatly.

[adwon]

95. Hmm

Fair enough.

The interview was in mid-September of 1963.

Can't disagree.

[Imagevision]

39. Stone plays pretty fast and loose with facts? compared to what?

[TheWatcher]

85. And I am sure you can back up that claim and this isn't a Post And Run

Oh Wait.....

[Selatius]

7. He probably chose Nicholas Cage because of the flick "Lord of War"

That was a good movie.

[Botany]

11. I hope he gets a good film editor & fact checker.

BTW get kevin spacey, jeff bridges, and gary sensee (sp)

[orleans]

13. wonder if stone will cover the LIHOP or MIHOP theory

(will he dare to go there?? that's the real question)

[KyndCulture]

16. I think he will!

[Telly Savalas]

30. There will be a scene where Bush and Cheney eat magic mushrooms

and have a vision of a Native American who tells them to stage 9/11.

[orleans]

32. will nicholas cage be playing the part of the Native American?

or will billy jack be playing the part in a reincarnation?

[Telly Savalas]

33. Maybe Nicholas Cage will be Bush.

[orleans]

35. not a chance--cage doesn't know how to giggle n/t

[BlueCaliDem]

58. Aw, hey! He might not be able to "snicker" but in "Peggy Sue Got Married"

...he was really, REALLY funny when he did that nasal "uh-huh" in that scene when he was sitting in Peggy Sue's (played by Kathleen Turner)family living room and chewing on a marshmellow rice crispy cake as Peggy Sue's dad was trying to tell him to "restrain himself".

He also did a few highly comedic chuckles when he was given the "bad news" that he didn't have what it took to become the next "Fabian"!

LOVED that movie, even to this day!

[fujiyama]

80. Speaking of Native Americans...

it reminds me of another Nicholas Cage film, "Windtalkers". Now that was an AWFUL film, which looked a lot better in previews.

[PatrioticLeftie]

18. "Lord of War" was pretty biting at the world governments

I don't see too much of a reason to be in a fuss over Cage.

[Kiouni]

19. Spike lee

did 25th hour and it was loosely based on 9/11 and it was good so hey who knows.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

27. Not 'based on 9/11' but set in post 9/11 NYC.

[incapsulated]

29. Yeah, but it was a great movie

I loves me some Ed Norton.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

28. I think this is not about M or LIHOP. I believe it's about 2 firemen? who

were trapped in the rubble.

[Telly Savalas]

34. Will the fire fighters have a vision of a Native American?

[Bucky]

43. I'm not optimistic. His "JFK" was so riddled with holes & half truths

But his "Born on the Fourth of July" was brilliant. His "Nixon" movie should be mandatory viewing for all government classes--really shows you how a flawed huan being operates in the seat of power--and it could be anybody in any position of power, from Tom Cruise to Ken Lay. Hell, even to Bill Clinton, who had a lot of the same issues as Nixon: the drive to be accepted, the survivor's guilt, the hope that public adoration would kill his demons; But obviously Clinton had loads better judgment than Nixon. I'll reserve judgment on his "9/11" movie until I see it. But I doubt it'll be anything worse than the Flight 93 hagiography hitting the theatres this summer.

I understand if it does well, they've already signed up most of the cast for a sequel.

[Balbus]

47. Yeah, after that JFK garbage I have no faith Stone movies.

[incapsulated]

44. I would like to further hijack this thread with this question:

Am I alone: Natural Born Killers was a great movie.

???

[darkmaestro019]

49. I loved it. nt

[The Magistrate]

50. It Left Me Fairly Cold, Ma'am

Except for the sound-track, which included some excellent songs by Mr. Cohen. My tastes do not run to great exaggeration, though.

[incapsulated]

55. I thought it was great satire

I agree on the soundtrack, I bought it myself.

[sandnsea]

62. Oh man, fuckin' brilliant!!

I absolutely loved that movie. Straight on pscyhosis, it was GREAT!! It's what I love best about the Sopranos too, just in your face crazy making with that totally black and twisted humor.

lol. So what does that say about me??

[peacebaby3]

94. I actually turned that movie off & that's only happened maybe 3 times. It

was the Rodney Dangerfield flashback killing scene that did it for me. I had made it through the diner scene but I had really had enough. Just too weird for me and that is extremely rare because I usually like things that are weird. I did appreciate the point of the movie, but I just couldn't watch it.

[cemaphonic]

108. I want to like it...

It's a rich theme, and the variety of film stock was an interesting idea. And it does have a few good scenes, like the Rodney Dangerfield bit, but it is just too messy and chaotic. Ultimately, it's "Badlands" (if you haven't seen this and liked NBK, do so), but with the dial turned to 11, and then broken off.

My favorite Stone films are JFK(in spite of the loopy history) and Talk Radio.

[incapsulated]

110. Talk Radio!

I'd completely forgotten that gem! :)

I didn't find NBK chaotic, at all, but I can understand how some people reacted that way. I thought he made a truly razor-edge film for it's time, for a commerical film, and did it just right. And I was pleasantly surprised because I would never of expected it from Stone. I've seen it over two dozen times, by now. I'm sleepy and can't really articulate why I love the film so much but I really, really do, heh.

(btw, he stole the basic plotline from Tarantino)

[cemaphonic]

111. Talk Radio

Yeah, everybody forgets that one, if they even saw it in the first place. And granted, it's mostly the Eric Bogosian screenplay and performance that makes it so great. But Stone did do a really good job with the direction (in particular, using the camera to keep things from getting too visually monotonous in a practically one-room set.)


>(btw, he stole the basic plotline from Tarantino)

I thought Tarintino wrote the screenplay? Besides, the plot was taken from Badlands (which itself was based on the Charles Starkweather murder spree in the late '50s).

[incapsulated]

112. Everything is derivative

Especially with Quentin. Yeah, I meant the screenplay, although Stone changed it.

Edit to add: Yes, that whole movie centered around Bogosian but Stone was smart enough to just put the camera on him and let him go.

[Balbus]

46. self delete - wrong place

[LaPera]

51. Stone will do a great job-lots of legitimate sources mainstream media

has ignored, Stone is a fine film-maker!!!

Yes, the directors cut of JFK is phenomenal...One can listen to Stone narrates & tells exactly where he got each piece of his info and what he chose to do what he did with each secene, also 30 minutes of extra scenes incorporated in to the film...Check out JFK again.

[fknobbit]

57. No one ever saw Guarding Tess?

Cage at his best!

[incapsulated]

59. Ok, on that one...

The end was too corny and predictable, but the first two-thirds was enjoyable.

[sandnsea]

65. Another great movie

I love that one too. I actually like a darker Cage better, but he did that part perfectly. One of Shirley MacLaine's best movies lately too.

[adwon]

64. I have my doubts

If Stone is doing a generic morality play, such as Wall Street, he's untouchable. When he does movies were screwing up the facts creates major plot holes, he sucks.

[Neil Lisst]

66. Stone got JFK right, so he'll probably get 9/11 right.

I love hearing people talk about Oswald and the magic bullet, though. Oh, to have such childlike faith in government!

How many people besides Lee Oswald were allowed to defect to the USSR, and then return to the US - all to ostensibly lobby for a pro-Castro group? That is not possible unless Oswald was working for the feds.

[KyndCulture]

79. Agreed! nt

[Balbus]

90. LOL! JFK is about as factually correct as the movie Gladiator

Ahhh, to be able to watch movies with such naivete - I wish I could go back to that age.

[Neil Lisst]

97. LOL! How would you know?!

Please. What makes you the expert on the JFK assassination?

[rman]

69. Looking forward to it

In spite of all the unsubstantiated allegations that Stone is lose with facts.

[mdmc]

83. stone!

go get em!

[RedStateShame]

87. My two cents

Is this going to be the one where the Pentagon sending orders to fire one of the planes down is the surprise plot twist?

As for the bad actors, that's Oliver Stone's thing, almost as if to not let the acting take away from his directing. His past stars have included Charlie Sheen, Tom Cruise, Kevin Costner, Woody Harrelson, Juliette Lewis(playing !surprise! a psycho cracker), LL Cool J, and post "Hoo-hah" Al Pacino.

[Beaverhausen]

101. This film is about 2 firefighters trapped in the towers after they fell

I don't think it gets into the politics.

Well, this is what I read in a recent article in Time.

World Trade Center, the account of two Port Authority policemen trapped beneath the towers' charnel rubble, follows in August.

snip

World Trade Center promises to be a hymn to the courage and perseverance of Sergeant John McLoughlin (Nicolas Cage) and Officer Will Jimeno (Michael Pena). Jimeno was trapped in an elevator shaft for 15 hours, McLoughlin interred in rubble a few feet below Jimeno for 23 hours.

The days the two men visited the set—Howard Hughes' old airplane hangar near Marina del Rey, Calif.—McLoughlin, who had 30 surgeries that left braces on his legs and an open wound on his left hip, stayed away from the 65-ft. mound of Styrofoam beams and cargo boxes meant to represent ground zero. "I hate getting upset," he says. As soot-covered extras in police and military uniforms milled around, Jimeno was reduced to tears by the sight of the too-lifelike rubble pile. "I survived for a reason," he says. "We, as a country, have a short attention span. We don't want people to forget those who died and those who saved us."

Although the film's director is Oliver Stone, this is no paranoid panorama on the order of JFK. It's a boy-down-a-well saga with, insists first-time screenwriter Andrea Berloff, "no politics. This is a small story. We're in the hole with these two guys for practically the whole movie." With the digging out comes the uplift. "I hope people will walk out of the theater and say to themselves, 'Life is short,'" Jimeno says, "and go home and hug their loved ones." Berloff has the same aim. "You don't want people leaving theaters slitting their wrists. I don't think the world is ready for the Towering Inferno version of 9/11. I don't know how you would make that movie." These three films, in various stages of gestation, all look to be honest, fact-based depictions of a central American story. They also have recognizable movie antecedents. In the horror stories of history, Hollywood picks through the carnage to find heroes, and the makers of the 9/11 films have found a few. Clarke, in Against All Enemies, is the lonely sentinel begging a smug, slow-witted establishment to take al-Qaeda seriously. He's Frank Capra's Mr. Smith after 30 years in Washington, his stubborn zeal intact. Another species of hero is the lucky survivor; and as Schindler's List was not about the nearly 6 million Jews killed by the Nazis but about 1,100 who escaped, so World Trade Center focuses on two of the last victims evacuated alive after the big buildings collapsed. As for the United 93 passengers--in movie terms, and in the life of the world--they are the first heroes of the 21st century.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1181589,00.html

[bj2110]

102. Anything with Maggie Gylenhaal will be good. Period.

Plus, it's got William Mapother, Tom Cruise's cousin... lol. Bet you didn't know Cruise's real name was Mapother, did you? He went to a high school in Louisville, KY that shared a football field with my alma mater...