Bobby (Emilio Estevez, 2006)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#1 Post by Antoine Doinel » Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:53 am

I'm a pretty big fan of JFK and like a good conspiracy theory, so I'm really interested to see how Emilio Estevez's pet project on Bobby Kennedy will turn out. Will Estevez focus on one theory, or like Stone look at all of them? Also like Stone's film it features just about everyone in Hollywood.

Image

User avatar
Jeff
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

#2 Post by Jeff » Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:05 pm

Antoine Doinel wrote:I'm a pretty big fan of JFK and like a good conspiracy theory, so I'm really interested to see how Emilio Estevez's pet project on Bobby Kennedy will turn out. Will Estevez focus on one theory, or like Stone look at all of them? Also like Stone's film it features just about everyone in Hollywood.
My understanding is that it doesn't deal with the assassination much at all. Despite the title, it's not really about Bobby, but about all of the other people in the hotel the day he was shot.

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#3 Post by Antoine Doinel » Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:10 pm

Seems odd he would make a movie about the day he was shot and not address the main event of the day. Most of the conspiracy theories around the assassination grossly contradict the official story of one shooter shooting from the front and seem to point to one or two from behind. Anyway, I guess we'll see.

Stills

stroszeck
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:42 pm

#4 Post by stroszeck » Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:14 pm

Wow! Emilio Estevez is still alive?

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#5 Post by Antoine Doinel » Tue Sep 05, 2006 2:13 pm

Estevez's "Bobby" a political wakeup call

By Mike Collett-White 1 hour, 24 minutes ago

VENICE (Reuters) - For director
Emilio Estevez, his new movie about the assassination of Robert Kennedy in 1968 is a call to young people to shake off their cynicism and engage in the political process.
ADVERTISEMENT

His first feature film in 10 years, which impressed critics in Venice where it is one of 21 entries in the main competition, "Bobby" focuses on the lives of people working at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles on the night Kennedy was shot there.

The ensemble cast includes
Sharon Stone,
Demi Moore,
Anthony Hopkins and
Lindsay Lohan, who offer a slice of American life during the political turmoil of the late 1960s.

Real news footage of Kennedy at rallies, mass protests against the war in Vietnam and grim images from the conflict are woven into the narrative, and audiences today are bound to draw parallels with the U.S. wars in
Iraq and
Afghanistan.

Estevez, making his comeback from the movie wilderness with a moving story, said "Bobby," which was written in 2000, was not an indictment of the U.S. administration. But he added:

"It has become frighteningly and very sadly relevant and it has become more and more relevant as time goes on," he told a news conference after the press preview and ahead of the film's official world premiere later on Tuesday.

More broadly, he viewed his film as a call to political arms for young people today.

"The nation changed that night," said Estevez, who recalled shaking hands with Robert Kennedy when he was a boy aged five.

"It was the third strike. It was the turning point. I believe we went into a free fall after that ... (Richard) Nixon was elected president ... and we became cynical and resigned and it was the death of decency, it was the death of hope.

"I think we have yet to recover from that. I think we are still grieving."

LOHAN BRINGS GLAMOUR

Lohan brought celebrity glitz to the festival, with paparazzi following her every move as she navigated the waterways of the exclusive Lido beach front. She is in Venice with her boyfriend Harry Morton.

Inevitably she was asked about the tabloid press' fascination for her and her private life, but she brushed aside the questions.

"I don't think being here is about what attention I get in the tabloids," she told reporters.

"That has nothing to do with it. This is about working with a great group of people who are very passionate. It's more about the material, what's there on the table," added a black-haired Lohan, who was wearing a green dress and jumbo shades.

For Estevez, who directed his father
Martin Sheen in the film and appeared himself, "Bobby" was a welcome return to the world of movies.

"I feel like I've been in my basement working on my own little algorithms and out came this picture from this twisted brain," he said.

"I'm just so very proud to be coming back into the game and to be embraced by this festival and by the business in general. It's difficult not to weep when I think about it."

Lohan plays an idealistic woman who marries an old friend to save him from the Vietnam front, while Moore portrays an alcoholic singer bitterly aware of her advancing years.

Hopkins is the old hotel manager, while Moore's real-life husband
Ashton Kutcher plays a hippie who encourages two of Kennedy's campaign workers to take LSD for the first time, with hilarious consequences.

Reuters/VNU

User avatar
The Invunche
Alleged Socialist
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:43 am
Location: Denmark

#6 Post by The Invunche » Tue Sep 05, 2006 2:55 pm

What's wrong with cynicism?

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#7 Post by Antoine Doinel » Thu Sep 21, 2006 8:31 pm


User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

#8 Post by hearthesilence » Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:38 am

I believe we went into a free fall after that ... (Richard) Nixon was elected president ... and we became cynical and resigned and it was the death of decency, it was the death of hope.
RFK's assassination definitely led to Nixon's presidency, but if the left knew how to organize better, they would have had a chance. Even when RFK was alive, you still had people on the left splitting their votes between two parties, and the people on the right were solidified behind Nixon and the GOP, and I'm sure most voters in the middle were probably scared off by the ridiculous, growing anarchy (drugs, sex, violence) of the far left that was already there.

It's like in 2000 when a Nader-supporting friend of mine kept telling me I should vote for Nader because America's moving to the right and this was the way to bring it back on track. GREAT F---ING PLAN. IT REALLY WORKED OUT BEAUTIFULLLY.

User avatar
The Fanciful Norwegian
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:24 pm
Location: Teegeeack

#9 Post by The Fanciful Norwegian » Fri Sep 22, 2006 3:13 am

hearthesilence wrote:Even when RFK was alive, you still had people on the left splitting their votes between two parties
The only third-party candidate to get any significant share of the vote in '68 was George Wallace, and it's safe to assume little of his support came from dyed-in-the-wool lefties. All other candidates combined (Eldrige Cleaver, Dick Gregory, etc.) only managed to get .33% of the vote, and Nixon's lead in key states like California and Illinois was too great for the those candidates to tip the balance on the state level. Nixon owed his '68 victory to the Southern strategy, not to vote-splitting among the left. Now, a fair number of leftists and liberals who stayed home in '68 may have been willing to turn out for an anti-war candidate like RFK (although RFK's record on the war was far from spotless), but even then Nixon would've been tough to beat.

User avatar
tavernier
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 7:18 pm

#10 Post by tavernier » Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:19 pm

hearthesilence wrote:GREAT F---ING PLAN. IT REALLY WORKED OUT BEAUTIFULLLY.
](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#11 Post by HerrSchreck » Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:22 pm

tavernier wrote: ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)
](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#12 Post by Antoine Doinel » Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:54 pm

'I used to Google my name to see what came up - it hurt'

He was one of the original brat-packers whose films defined the 80s. Then Emilio Estevez's career dived and the tabloids attacked. As he returns with an Oscar-tipped movie about the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, he tells Geoffrey Macnab about the good times and the bad
Geoffrey Macnab
Wednesday September 27, 2006

Guardian
You can't help but smile when Emilio Estevez suggests that he might be the target of an assassination attempt by "one of those men with three names". Why on earth would any budding Lee Harvey Oswald want to take a potshot at an ageing former brat pack star? Yes, Estevez might have starred in The Mighty Ducks, The Breakfast Club and St Elmo's Fire, but even that is not provocation enough.

Then again, maybe the idea isn't so outlandish after all. Estevez's remarkably accomplished new film Bobby, which he wrote and directed, could easily get under the skin of some white supremacists. It offers an idealised and nostalgic portrait of Robert F Kennedy; Estevez's thesis is that Kennedy was America's great lost leader. If he had been elected president, there would have been no Watergate and no George W Bush. Kennedy, Estevez insists, had the charisma and vision to heal the breach between black and white, the counter-culture and the establishment - which is why his slaying at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles in June 1968 was such a seismic event.

"I believe it was one of the most important events of the 20th century," Estevez says. "I believe we went into a free fall after that. We became cynical and resigned. The killing of Bobby was the death of decency and the death of hope, the death of manners, the death of grace and formality. We unravelled culturally and spiritually after his death."

Estevez may be overstating matters. In the 1950s, Robert F Kennedy had worked closely with Senator Joseph McCarthy during the communist witchhunts. He was heavily involved in his brother John F Kennedy's attempts to overthrow Fidel Castro in Cuba. Some saw him as ruthless and ambitious. "He was fallible," Estevez concedes. "He was a tough guy." None the less, the film-maker clearly regards Kennedy as a true political visionary.

"Bobby stood up for the little guy," he says. "And the Kennedy family is the closest thing we have to a royal family. Their grief has been our grief. For better or worse, the Kennedy family belongs to all of America. We share an affinity with them because they have been forced to grieve on such a national level. We forgive all their foibles ... I do anyway."

Estevez talks about Kennedy as if he knew him, and back in 1967, he reveals, he did in fact shake RFK's hand. He offers a poignant image of himself as a five-year-old (he was born in 1962) perched on his father's shoulders, meeting Kennedy at a political rally. "Bobby reached out and touched my hand. You could say that was when this journey began."

Two years later, in 1969, when his father (the actor Martin Sheen) was cast in Mike Nichols' Catch 22, the family decided to decamp from New York to Los Angeles so that Sheen could pursue his career in movies. They drove cross country to California. "Our first stop was the Ambassador Hotel. I remember walking though the halls and the lobby, holding my father's hand, and just being knocked out by what my father was telling me."This, Sheen told his son, was where Kennedy died. "The day the music died, this is is where it happened."

Estevez's film is part soap opera, part political thriller. Set in the Ambassador Hotel on the day Kennedy died, the protagonists (played by an all-star cast including everyone from Estevez's father to his ex-fiancee Demi Moore, Sharon Stone and Lindsay Lohan) are drawn from every sector of American life. There are preppy college students campaigning for Kennedy, Hispanic kitchen staff, Vietnam protesters, sleazy hotel managers, beauticians and would-be movie stars.

One of the paradoxes about Bobby is that Estevez is telling a story about "the little guys and the underdogs" (those he believed Kennedy stood up for) but has recruited some of Hollywood's best-known names to play them. One guesses that he wouldn't have been able to finance the film otherwise, but they have an unbalancing effect. He rails against the inanity of celebrity tittle-tattle - "Why is the public interested in Brad and Angelina and what they're wearing? Who gives a shit?" - but by casting Lindsay Lohan, he has made it inevitable that the gossip columnists will circle his movie.

As if to cater for a mass audience, Estevez interweaves the political references with sub-plots about illicit affairs, drug dealing, staff rivalry, a kitchen porter's desperation to see a baseball match and marriages under strain. One of the pleasures of the movie is spotting all the faces: is that really Heather Graham working the telephones, and doesn't Demi Moore look like Joan Crawford? All the actors worked for "scale" (standard union rates). The trick to assembling such an illustrious cast, Estevez suggests, was to recruit names like Anthony Hopkins and William H Macy early. "They are actors' actors. They are magnets. They are known for their ability, not their celebrity; when you're in a scene with them, they give you credibility."

There is no doubting the writer-director's sincerity or his political commitment. He describes his film as "a call to action to re-engage" and, in Venice earlier this month, surprised journalists by telling them that "we need to sex up the political process. It is incumbent upon Lindsay Lohan's generation to re-engage with the political process, to sex it up and make it chic again." Estevez's admiration for his father matches his reverence for Kennedy. Sheen, he proudly boasts, has been arrested "more than 65 times" for his political campaigning. Nonetheless, they have different attitudes about the benefits of direct action. "I have this political badinage about whether what we do makes a difference," he says. "My argument is that if I make a movie about something I am passionate about, I might reach more people than my father getting arrested at the Nevada Test Site. If that is the best use of my time, I tell him that I don't share his passion for getting arrested."

Estevez freely acknowledges that his film career has gone into freefall in recent years. From being a major star in the mid-1990s, he had become a virtual nobody in Hollywood and was making a living directing TV series. Following the end of his marriage to Paula Abdul, the tabloids declared open season on him. After his brat pack peak, he was trying to re-invent himself as a writer/director and become more than "just an actor for hire", but the press continued to depict him as "a partier and a womaniser". "That's not my bag," Estevez says. "What young man has not gone out and had a few drinks?"

In his more masochistic moments, Estevez admits that he types his name into Google. "It's a cruel world out there. I've been at the unpleasant end of that poisoned pen. When journalists think that actors don't read what is written about them, they are mistaken. I would put my name in a Google site and see what came up and often it was very hurtful. Hollywood is guilty of turning out shit. I've turned it out myself, but what the journalists don't do is to take a moment to think that maybe this actor has got a family and he has got to feed them."

When Estevez was first trying to get Bobby off the ground, one of the few people who would help him was British producer (and now chairman of Millwall FC), Stewart Till. In the end, Till's company, Signpost, collapsed but Estevez credits him as one of his most important early supporters. To finance Bobby, Estevez sold artwork, cashed in his pension fund and "did everything short of selling my house". He was even reduced to selling autographs to raise $5,000 to make the next payment on his house.

His bitterness over the fate of his last feature as director, The War At Home (1996) is still palpable. "It was well received and well reviewed and then dismissed," he says. He had starred in The Mighty Ducks 3 for Disney for "no money" in return for finance for his own film. "And then they [Disney] released the film in four theatres. The heartbreak of that almost forced me out of the business."

It is more than a decade since Estevez first had the idea for Bobby. He spent hours in the public library, researching the project by poring over old newspapers and magazines, and buying old copies of Life magazine and Newsweek on eBay. At one stage, when he had written 30 pages, he suffered writer's block. "I carried around these 30 pages for a year." His brother, Charlie Sheen, cajoled him into finishing the screenplay, if only for his own peace of mind. In a bid to break his writer's block, Estevez checked himself into a cheap motel north of Los Angeles, just off Highway 101.

"It was a pretty old joint, ramshackle, and with no phone or TV in the room. I went to the front desk to check in. There was a woman in her mid-50s. She recognised me and asked what I was doing. I said I was writing a script about the day Bobby Kennedy was shot and she nearly fell over. Her eyes rolled up and she said, 'I was there.' "

The woman in the motel provided Estevez with just the fillip he needed. A former Kennedy volunteer, she had spent that day in 1968 canvassing for Kennedy in Glendale and Pasadena and had returned to the Ambassador in time to hear the shots that killed the presidential candidate. She partly inspired the character that Lohan plays in the movie: an idealistic young woman who marries a man to stop him being sent to Vietnam.

The wheel now seems to be turning for Estevez. Earlier this spring, producer Harvey Weinstein bought the US rights to Bobby, calling it "one of those unique projects that gives you great insight into the zeitgeist of this time in our country's history".

The film is now being talked up as a serious candidate for Oscars and Golden Globes. Whether it wins anything or not, one thing is certain: Bobby will exorcise the ghosts of Estevez's bratpack movie past.

· Bobby will be shown at the London Film Festival next month. Details: www.lff.org.uk

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#13 Post by Antoine Doinel » Tue Dec 26, 2006 7:23 pm

Saw this last week and while it's not JFK, there is much to like about Estevez's similarly ambitious film. Like Stone's film it tries to capture the feeling of an era and while not all the 22 characters stories are compelling or even well sketched out, the ones that do work are worth relishing. Harry Belafonte and Anthony Hopkins are an absolute delight to watch; Christian Slater is surprisingly dialed down and the entire kitchen plot is beautifully written.

What is most endearing about the film is Estevez's unabashed enthusiasm for the subject. The film is clearly made with care, and while it may not all work, it does possess a passion about its subject that not many films have.

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Big fan of the former president
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#14 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:27 pm

Antoine Doinel wrote:Saw this last week and while it's not JFK, there is much to like about Estevez's similarly ambitious film. Like Stone's film it tries to capture the feeling of an era and while not all the 22 characters stories are compelling or even well sketched out, the ones that do work are worth relishing. Harry Belafonte and Anthony Hopkins are an absolute delight to watch; Christian Slater is surprisingly dialed down and the entire kitchen plot is beautifully written.
Agreed. With such a large and diverse cast it felt like an Altman-lite film (in a good way). I also enjoyed the eclectic cast of actors, some of whom have been out of the mainstream consciousness for a few years (Helen Hunt and Demi Moore), some young, up-and-comers (Freddy Rodriguez and Shia LaBeouf) and established veterans (Anthony Hopkins and Martin Sheen). Estevez's only misstep and the one glaring bit of miscasting is a hammy Ashton Kutcher as a spaced out hippie who sells LSD to two young Kennedy campaigners.
What is most endearing about the film is Estevez's unabashed enthusiasm for the subject. The film is clearly made with care, and while it may not all work, it does possess a passion about its subject that not many films have.
I also thought that Estevez did a nice job establishing the social and political climate early on with a montage of actual historical footage that also set an idealistic, nostalgic tone. It was nice to see the film drawing some strong (and obvious) parallels between 1968 and now by showing how the United States was (and is now) embroiled in an unpopular war in a country far away by a government clearly out of touch with its people.

Estevez is clearly wearing his political beliefs on his sleeve but I think that we need these kinds of socially conscious films, especially since Oliver Stone was defanged years ago. It's just a shame that Estevez wasn't more forceful like Stone used to be. That being said, Estevez shows great leaps and bounds as a storyteller and skill as a director. Not saying much when you think of his previous directorial output -- Wisdom and Men at Work.

User avatar
exte
~_~
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ

#15 Post by exte » Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:05 pm

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:...especially since Oliver Stone was defanged years ago.
It's so sad that the media, which so heralded him after Platoon and Wall Street, had to rip him to shreds for JFK. It must've seriously set him back because he hasn't been the same. Defanged is right... Does he still have final cut, final choice of casting, etc? On the other hand, I'm just glad he got to make JFK in the first place.

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#16 Post by Antoine Doinel » Thu Apr 19, 2007 10:21 pm

exte wrote:
Fletch F. Fletch wrote:...especially since Oliver Stone was defanged years ago.
It's so sad that the media, which so heralded him after Platoon and Wall Street, had to rip him to shreds for JFK. It must've seriously set him back because he hasn't been the same. Defanged is right... Does he still have final cut, final choice of casting, etc? On the other hand, I'm just glad he got to make JFK in the first place.
I'm not sure what he's allowed for theatrical releases, but considering he was allowed to go back and re-edit Alexander TWICE for DVD at least shows he still has some pull.

User avatar
exte
~_~
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ

#17 Post by exte » Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:09 pm

SPEAKING OF FANGLESS, HE'S BEEN REDUCED TO COMMERCIALS!

[quote]MoveOn Snags Stone For Ad Campaign
By: Ryan Grim
April 19, 2007 06:00 PM EST

Director Oliver Stone is planning to direct an anti-war television commercial chosen by members of the liberal group MoveOn.org.

The Stone ad campaign will focus on a specific American family affected by the war. Which family and soldier used will be determined by the votes of MoveOn.org members.

An anti-war veterans organization, VoteVets.org -- which was responsible for the Super Bowl ad that included an Iraq war vet amputee -- is also backing the project.

It was announced as liberal opponents of the Iraq war stepped up attacks on Republican congressional lawmakers who voted against a timeline for redeploying troops with letter-writing campaigns, demonstrations and, this week, the launch of new TV ads.

A broad coalition of war opponents spent the congressional recess rousing the locals in dozens of Republican swing districts in 24 states.

Organized by Americans Against Escalation in Iraq -- a coalition comprised of MoveOn.org, the service employees' union and anti-war veterans' organizations -- the campaign has raised $5.6 million so far.

“A couple of million bucks of George Soros' money certainly does wear on people,â€

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Big fan of the former president
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#18 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:26 am

exte wrote:It's so sad that the media, which so heralded him after Platoon and Wall Street, had to rip him to shreds for JFK. It must've seriously set him back because he hasn't been the same. Defanged is right... Does he still have final cut, final choice of casting, etc? On the other hand, I'm just glad he got to make JFK in the first place.
Well, I think the real back-breaker so to speak was the box office failure of Nixon which I think soured Stone on doing another American historical biopic and so he moved on to Any Given Sunday, etc. And then filmmakers like Michael Mann (The Insider) picked up the biopic ball and ran with it. Watching a film like Syriana I wonder what it might've been like had Stone directed it.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

#19 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:43 am

He didn't help himself too much with Natural Born Killers, either.

User avatar
dx23
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:52 pm
Location: Puerto Rico

#20 Post by dx23 » Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:17 pm

flyonthewall2983 wrote:He didn't help himself too much with Natural Born Killers, either.
Exactly. That is the film that broke the camel's back. He was critiziced and scrutinized so much for that film that he hasn't been able to recapture the the spark of his glory years.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

#21 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:42 pm

Personally, I never got how anyone (who isn't on any kind of stimulant) got or appreciated that movie. But I won't put him up on a cross for it, either. That or U-Turn, which is particularly terrible but the press didn't seem to notice there either. Not to say that NBK is entirely awful, there were some good performances in it. Tommy Lee Jones and Robert Downey Jr. in particular.

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Big fan of the former president
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#22 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:35 pm

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Personally, I never got how anyone (who isn't on any kind of stimulant) got or appreciated that movie. But I won't put him up on a cross for it, either. That or U-Turn, which is particularly terrible but the press didn't seem to notice there either. Not to say that NBK is entirely awful, there were some good performances in it. Tommy Lee Jones and Robert Downey Jr. in particular.
I thought that NBK was brilliant and has aged surprisingly well. It really stands an incredible snapshot of the chaotic, anything goes state of popular culture at that time and the zenith of all those crappy tabloidy TV shows that picked up true crime/celebrity gossip/scandal. Now, a lot of that stuff has migrated to the internet because it is so much more immediate.

The film was also a great example of where Stone's sledgehammer approach works and how he really took it the next level into absurdity -- case in point the whole I Love Mallory faux sitcom with a truly frightening Rodney Dangerfield. In addition to Tommy Lee Jones and Robert Downey Jr. being excellent, I also thought that Woody Harrelson was very very good. He hasn't done anything to equal this performance, IMO.

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#23 Post by Antoine Doinel » Fri May 11, 2007 10:32 am

exte wrote:SPEAKING OF FANGLESS, HE'S BEEN REDUCED TO COMMERCIALS
Slate gets reactions from Republicans, Democrats and Independents on Oliver Stone's ad.

Post Reply