criterionforum.org

This looks to be next year's biggest piece of Oscar bait. Mike Nichols is directing an Aaron Sorkin script. Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts star; Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams have the biggest supporting roles. Here is the first still.

Hanks and Roberts...two dreadfully underused megastars.

That's a pretty oddly composed cast.

Should we take bets on how many times the words "academy award" are used in the trailer?

That's easy, 4.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:That's easy, 4.

I'm going 5. you forget Nichols, or Adams?

Does Julia Roberts play a sassy Dallas socialite tranny or something? Because that's the only explanation for that wig.

Though Nichols is terribly inconsistent (Wit is probably one of the greatest and most underrated things he's ever done, Closer is an embarrassment), I'm always willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Provided Sorkin had written a script that's more like The West Wing than Studio 60, it ought to be at least entertaining.

SncDthMnky wrote:

flyonthewall2983 wrote:That's easy, 4.

I'm going 5. you forget Nichols, or Adams?

Adams, what was she nominated for?

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Adams, what was she nominated for?

Best Supporting Actress, Junebug.

Well, I'm still standing by my answer unless she is starring as some super-heroine in one of the summer's upcoming blockbusters. That is, of course, assuming that Universal wants to put out during next Oscar season.

Here is the trailer. The phrase "Academy Award Winner" isn't used once!

Looks interesting.

Jeff wrote:Here is the trailer. The phrase "Academy Award Winner" isn't used once!

No, but they may as well of announced the return of Julia Roberts' push-up bra from Erin Brokovich.

That said, it does look very interesting and it's nice to see Tom Hanks doing something a little different than his usual dramatic pose.

Here is the cheesy poster, which cries out, "Attention people of the mall: Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts are in this movie!"

...and some fat guy

I kind of like that poster, it's a lot more interesting than it could have been.

Tom Hanks gives us a sentimental portrayal of a fascist, what's new.

Nothing wrote:Tom Hanks gives us a sentimental portrayal of a fascist, what's new.

So you saw this already?

No, but I've read the book.

cdnchris wrote:...and some fat guy

I can not tell that's PSH for the life of me.

STARRING: Bill Murry, an overdressed lesbian, and the super from Friends.

Magic Hate Ball wrote:STARRING: Bill Murry...

Good God, you're right! I didn't notice that before. From that angle he's a dead ringer.

Nothing is right. It's a lavishly produced "based on a true story" about how Julie Roberts saved the world from Communism.

Hanks plays a Congresscritter with numerous power connections and an office staffed entirely by babes with balconies you could do Shakespeare from.

The Russians are criticized for bombing innocent Afgans -- which is of course OUR game, but that's not mentioned. Likewise the Soviets are dissed for cutting the arms off innoent Afgan children. The Central American "Freedom Fghters" who Roberts' fascist socialite gets all misty-eyed when talking about, did the same. Moerover they were trained to do so at our very own "School For the Americas." But that doesn't get mentioned here either.

If there's an Oscar for "Slick Fascist Cynicism" this wins in a walk.

I believe Mike Nichols is one of our greatest-working directors, but this just doesn't interest me at all. Obviously, I'll reserve judgement until (or if) I see this, but I certainly think his immense talents could be put to much more gratifying use.

The thing is, this is such an interesting/enlightening/disgusting phase in world/US history and the book and Wilson could, potentially, provide a fantastic way in - that is, if the filmmaker works to methodically undermine Crile's POV (in the manner of, say, Verhoeven's Starship Troopers) and, with Hanks on board as Wilson, that is never going to happen.