Wall Street 2 - what to expect

Ok, so Tiger Woods has a couple of girlfriends on the side. NO shock, so do most men with his kind of fame and wealth. If he were a rockstar or actor no one would be surprised. But this is a family matter for him, so I won't speak on the subject further. Celebrities and enetertainers deserve some degree of privacy too.

Moving on to other news I have no problem speaking about, Wall Street 2 is getting ready to hit theaters in 2010. Oh the joy. The theme of this movie? Greed is legal.

Yes, Oliver Stone has made the sequel to the very good 80's film. It will again star Michael Douglas as the powerful and successful Gordon Gekko. But this time Gekko is not the massive power broker he was in the first time. No the banks are the ultimate bad guys.

This falls directly in line with the views of extremist Stone. It also happens to be right in line with the ultra-liberal tone that Hollywood has been promoting for years now. But the question is if this will make a good movie?

Since about 2000 or so, Hollywood has increasingly made movies that are more political propodanga with filler than movies the public can enjoy. Not that politics has been something foreign to films. Dr. Strangelove is anti-war, anti-nukes, and against the cold war but it was still entertaining. Lions for Lambs, War Inc., and dozens of other recent films that no one watched in theaters of DVD are anything but entertaining.

From the sounds of what Oliver Stone has been saying, Wall Street 2 is more akin to War Inc. than the original Wall Street. It sounds as if it will be yet another film that pushes Stone's political agenda a the cost of the tickets audiences will pay. Which does not motivate me to see the film, which is a shame since I did enjoy the original.

"Wall Street can be the engine of capitalism" and create opportunity, Stone said to one student. "But they increasingly have not done that because there's more money in speculation."

That seems to sum up the view that the new film will be taking. It's a warped and skewed overly simplistic view of finance, capitalism, and Wall Street but that is fine if that is not the movie's theme. I don't want to go to a movie to debate politics, I do that for a living. I want to see a film to be entertained.

Well here is what I understand is the plot of Wall Street 2. Gekko gets out of prison and is a reformed man. He sees an implosion on the horizon and tries to warn the industry, but is ignored since he is a convict. At the same time he is trying to re-establish his relationship with his daughter. His daughter wants nothing to do with him.

His daughter is engaged to upcoming hedge-fund trader Jacob (Shia LeBouf). Jacob's boss gets killed, possibly by the top boss of the fund (Josh Brolin). Jacob wants revenge.

So Gekko decides to help Jacob in exchange for help with his daughter. Cue the laugh track, or whatever.

I'm bored just writing the synopsis. Considering the views of Stone, and Brolin, I don't get a good feeling about the film. Thinking of Gekko as a powerless good guy doesn't work for me. The fact that the simplistic acting skills of Shia LeBouf are the driving force of this movie (to attract younger moviegoers) is another strike against the film. Oh, Charlie Sheen is reported to have a cameo too.

Still the trailers are not yet out. But some stills are available.



If this were a stock, I'd buy the leap put option.

Oliver Stone wants to tell you his story in Secret History

Are you a fan of Oliver Stone? I used to be, for a while. Like most people I loved several of his films. He made a visual impact that allowed the viewer to get a serious sense of the world he portrayed on film. Then he decided to get preachy, and showcased his own political beliefs. Which is when he lost me and many others.

Stone is probably best known for his film, Platoon. It was a serious and mostly honest view of aspects of fighting in Viet Nam. Many vets I know appreciated the feel of the film, something that Stone knows well as a decorated (Purple Heart and Bronze Star) Viet Nam-era Army soldier.

He also made Wall Street, a huge film that hit big. It showcased the 1980’s drive for success at all costs. It also gave us a hint at his own views of Wall Street. In his visual depiction it was a place of greed and corruption, filled with the morally corrupt. A view that I personally found insulting once I became a stockbroker and learned the reality of what that important tool of the economy is really about.

He has also made Natural Born Killers (a film originally written by Quentin Tarrantino – who disliked the film enough to ask his name be removed from it) and Any Given Sunday – which really gave Jamie Foxx a chance to breakout in Hollywood.

But those are his successful films. Each was a good film with an interesting view of life. It’s what’s kept him working and his name high in Hollywood circles (besides Stone’s political views). It is his flops, or less successful films that has lost him the fanbase that he once commanded.

Oliver Stone is a Liberal. There is no question or shame in that. It’s just that he has emphasized that in his growing body of work. And he has basked in the Hollywood liberal mentality while audiences have generally shunned him.

His film JFK was a slanted and biased depiction that fed the conspiracy theorists in the nation. His film Nixon insulted the memory of a controversial President under the guise as a search for the truth. His film World Trade Center, while honoring the efforts of many on 9/11, was factually incorrect to the point of changing a major real life hero from Black to White. That film did ok, but was no great success. I won’t mention his Comandante – a documentary about Fidel Castro. And with the film W., Stone completely disgraced the Office of the Presidency, the sitting President, and America in my opinion.

At the time I stated

“What I care about is the power and prestige of the American Presidency and thus America. America is the President on an international level, whether we love or hate any particular President. And Oliver Stone is so obsessed with his personal hate that he doesn’t seem to care what damage he does. He seems willing to do anything to place a(nother) blemish on President Bush, even if it means hurting every American and every American President to come.

… Could I be wrong about the film? … sure, and it is mathematically probable that I can fly, piss on the sun and put it out, and/or suddenly have a stroke and thus believe that Code Pink and San Francisco know what they are doing. But back in the real world, Oliver Stone is doing a wretched thing.”

Obviously, Stone is not the only one to have strong views about America.

But I say all this because Oliver Stone will be providing America with what he calls “Oliver Stone's Secret History of America”.

In this televised series America will be provided the truth, according to Stone, about actions behind the scenes in American History. Considering the flawed, biased, political views that Stone provides in his movies it is likely to be about as accurate as my describing the benefits of Socialism. Or perhaps the fun of hammering a nail through your own genitals.

Can Oliver Stone be a great director? When he gets out of the way of his ego and personal political views, sure. But as time moves on, it seems that Stone is more interested in highlighting his own political agenda on the big screen for Moveon.org and Code Pink than caring what an audience might find entertaining.

So I advise avoiding Stone’s “History” because I believe it will be his-story. Rather I suggest reading a good fiction novel if that’s what you want to be entertained by.

Entertainment and politics: do they mix?

So have you seen An American Carol yet? If you have not you are hardly the only one. And the question is why is that.

An American Carol is a parody film by David Zucker of Airplane! and Naked Gun fame. So the question is not if the premise works. Considering his input, the writing is also not that difficult to imagine as being solid. And the acting includes Kelsey Grammer, Bill O’Reilly, Jon Voight, Dennis Hopper, Trace Adkins, Leslie Nielsen, and many other celebrities and entertainers. So it is solid on that footing as well.

So what is the issue?

Well there is the fact that while the film started off in over 1500 theaters across the nation, many people can’t get to it. In Binghamton, a hub city in the Central New York State area, you can’t see the film. Not one theater will carry it. In fact you have to travel to Ithaca to see it – about 2 hours away. And as far as I am aware that is the only place in western New York that is carrying the film.

Would more people see the film if it were available to them? We will never know as Hollywood hates the film and its subject. The film is a satire of far-left political nuts like Michael Moore. It is the only film of its type made with major stars and major money in maybe 2 decades.

Yet in this year alone there have been 4 pro far-left-wing movies (including the abominable W by Oliver Stone and the Kevin Costner flop Swing Vote, oh and the John Cusack flop War, Inc.). Last year there was Redacted, Lions for Lambs, and several other films in far more theaters. And while each of the films has lost money like a spitball trying to avoid a blackhole, there are half a dozen more films planned for next year.

So I have to wonder, the public loves to hear about the lives of celebrities and entertainers. Paris Hilton learns to tie her own shoes and there are videos on the internet showing and discussing every aspect of it. Britney Spears gives up on her career and children and paparazzi follow every moment as the hair hits the floor. But are politics of limits?

It’s a tough question, as all the movies of the far-left and right have failed horribly. Yet films like Apocalypse Now (which I feel is an anti-war movie), Dr. Strangelove (which did not do well in it’s first run but has since done exceptionally well), and M.A.S.H all have made money.

So maybe we just don’t want to see these entertainers play acting at politics. Sean Penn, Angelina Jolie, Chuck Norris, Oprah Winfrey and others are fine in the real world – but slamming the messages down our collective throats is just too much. I agree with that thought. And considering that Hollywood has more than enough of a problem creating new ideas these days I think they can leave their messages on their high horses. No matter the political preference.

I just was thinking about that. Or am I wrong and you love the political advertisements posing as entertainment?

Guns 'N Roses cause guns and arrest

During the last 3 days I’ve been suffering from a sprain in my shoulder. It’s making my typing difficult to do, especially in the amounts I normally do. Considering how much I’ve written on the Democratic National Convention, I haven’t been able to do much more.

But when I saw this I had to tell you about it. Bloggers beware, the FBI are cracking down.

Now I do respect the laws of the nation, and the FBI. But they have gone way too far. It seems that Kevin Cogill, of Antiquiet, was arrested by the FBI because he put 9 songs from the upcoming Guns ‘N Roses Chinese Democracy album on his site.

The FBI arrived at dawn, reportedly en masse. They arrested Cogill with no lack of impending doom as you might expect. And the reason why is that he released the songs ahead of time, breaking copyright laws. Even though the songs had been removed by the time of arrest.

Since when is that the proper response? Since when does the FBI bother with a copyright issue? Isn’t this normally an issue that lawyers resolve with a stroke of a pen, threatening a lawsuit if the material is not removed (which it was)?

This is overkill, and a problem for bloggers of all sizes. If ABC News, or MTV, the news media, or Sirius Radio played the songs before release (which radio stations have long done) there would never be FBI closing down those companies. The DJ responsible would never be yanked of the air until they can make bail. They would never have to face criminal charges in court.

We bloggers are powerful, there is no question. I reach 119 countries each month on this blog alone. I write for about 40 blogs (when I’m in good health) each month. And I am often controversial and critical in what I write. I’m sure that I piss off various parts of the Government, politicians, entertainers and celebrities, Hollywood, athletes, countries, racists, and a host of others on a regular basis. Does that mean I should fear the police?

My posts have been usurped by other websites that I don’t write to. PrettyShady.com stole my post on Brawlin'at the Belmar - my first BMX Pro-Am dirt jumping tournament, calling me an employee. [They also have false information on their contacts – protecting them from being told to remove information] But I didn’t decide to get the FBI to arrest them for violating my copyrights. [I do not authorize the wholesale copying of my posts or content, though excepts with links and/or full credit are permissible.] But the precedent stated means that I could have done that instead of letting them know to remove the copied material or face a lawsuit.

If the FBI can arrest a blogger for releasing a song early, what is next? Arrests because you used a public photo (with credit to its source) of a politician in a negative post? Possession of a podcast or post on a laptop or cell phone means federal charges for distribution or receiving stolen goods? And how long is it before a blogger just gets arrested because they wrote something someone else did not like.

I think about it now and I suppose that the movie previews that I do might violate a copyright, in that the person that got the video clip may or may not have had permission. Does that mean I should expect the FBI at my corporate office looking to arrest me, SWAT team in tow? Just because I think Oliver Stone is a politically biased loudmouth?

This may not sound serious, but my fellow bloggers it is. Stay aware.

I just hope the bloody Guns ‘N Roses album will be worth even half this trouble. But I doubt it.

Oliver Stone - an ultra-liberal pissing on America - movie preview

It would seem that for some in the American ultra-liberal far left wing, otherwise defined as fanatics, it is not enough that Senator Obama stands a solid chance at winning the American Presidency. It is not enough that the major news media are fawning over Senator Obama – treating his recent trip overseas as if he were a sitting President, and refusing his opponent the opportunities they give him (ie. New York Times editorial). Even the fact that a movie highlighting the very liberal Democratic Presidential candidate is in post-production is not enough (and the film will be out just before the election – nice timing).

No for those like Oliver Stone something more must be done. Something over the top. Something insulting. Something that has never happened to a sitting President in any medium. Oliver Stone feels that now is the time to make up a movie about President Bush, while he is in office.

Why can’t Oliver Stone give up his citizenship, move to France (or Russia, or Iran), and make whatever slanted version of history he wants. I’m sure the Taliban, Al Quida and a few other “see an American, kill an American” hate groups will be more than happy to pack theaters for his biased derogatory slime on film.

Obviously I have a problem with the upcoming film W. My problem is not so much political as it is decency. I don’t care that Oliver Stone has a political agenda the size of the Empire State Building. I don’t care, as much, that he is seeking to portray historical fact in a manner more akin to a scifi movie about they year 300,000 A.D. I don’t care that he is going to get about as many people in the audience (stateside) as there are members of Moveon.org – I’m sure they will all go see it 2x.

What I care about is the power and prestige of the American Presidency and thus America. America is the President on an international level, whether we love or hate any particular President. And Oliver Stone is so obsessed with his personal hate that he doesn’t seem to care what damage he does. He seems willing to do anything to place a(nother) blemish on President Bush, even if it means hurting every American and every American President to come.

This film, a supposed biography of President Bush – that seems to be focused squarely on the past according to the trailer - looks dumb. What may be even more dumb is that it was greenlighted by a Hollywood studio, and that actors of ability have taken several prominent roles.

Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks, Ioann Gruffudd, Ellen, Burstyn, should all be embarrassed that they would do this to an American President. I really thing that James Cromwell, Richard Dreyfuss, and Scott Glenn should have known better. I mean they couldn’t wait until President Bush finished his term of office?

And as for Jeffery Wright and Thandie Newton I am at a loss. Do they believe that a movie built upon diminishing the office of the President of the United States is going to help their careers or in any way highlight African Americans (who are routinely seen and expected to be Democrats only) in a positive light? Colin Powell and Condelezza Rice have succeeded in becoming exceptional political figures, a fact that did not exist in any other Presidency before President Bush. And Wright and Newton believe that a film that insults America is the best way to immortalize these 2 accomplished, educated, Black figures? I think they deserve far better.

I will show this movie trailer clip. Because I do believe in Freedom of Speech and artistic expression. But I in no way suggest that anyone should see this film. I in no way support any actor’s portrayal in this film. I denounce what Oliver Stone has done, and am angry at Thandie Newton and Jeffery Wright.



Could I be wrong about the film? Until it is released sure, and it is mathematically probable that I can fly, piss on the sun and put it out, and/or suddenly have a stroke and thus believe that Code Pink, Berkley, and San Francisco know what they are doing. But back in the real world, Oliver Stone is doing a wretched thing.

Imagine if someone did a hatchet job on President Clinton and Hillary back when he was in office while doing Ms. Lewinsky with a cigar; the Democrats and Hollywood would be raging and the nation embarrassed. How is this different?