Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

Vice (Dick Cheney biopic)

  • 03-10-2018 2:33pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 12,946 ✭✭✭✭ peteeeed


    Christian Bale As Dick Cheney
    Adam McKay's biopic


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,447 ✭✭✭✭ expectationlost


    peteeeed wrote: »
    Christian Bale As Dick Cheney
    Adam McKay's biopic
    ohmygod


    He looks amazing as Cheney but when he opens his mouth I recognise those bale teeth.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,097 ✭✭✭ Snake Plisken


    Damn this looks good, Bale & Rockwell are the spit of Cheny & Bush. You have to admire that beer belly Bale put on for the role :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,696 ✭✭✭ Slydice


    Nobody else waiting for him to burst out of disguise and roar... BECAUSE I'M BATMAN!!

    No? Just me?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭ batgoat


    Damn this looks good, Bale & Rockwell are the spit of Cheny & Bush. You have to admire that beer belly Bale put on for the role :D

    Weirdly, I kept mistaking Rockwell for Christian Bale in that trailer... :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,549 ✭✭✭ quad_red


    That is one well put together trailer.

    Amazing cast and Bale is bloody barely recognizable. But Rockwell - that’s an uncanny Dubya.

    “The more mundane jobs” 😄


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,354 ✭✭✭ brianregan09


    That looks great when is it coming out


  • Registered Users Posts: 75,442 ✭✭✭✭ JP Liz V1


    batgoat wrote: »
    Weirdly, I kept mistaking Rockwell for Christian Bale in that trailer... :pac:

    Bale looks like Jeff Daniels to me :p, dedication for his role, pure Oscar bait


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,207 ✭✭✭ p to the e


    Bale certainly looks the part. And Rockwell was born to play Bush. I didn't know who Carrell was supposed initially but he'll nail it.

    In an age of people with very short memories it may stand as a reminder that Trumpf, as much as an ass as he is, may not be the worst thing to ever hit American politics.

    It's also nice to see McKay moving into more serious work. I really enjoyed The Big Short and his more comedic approach to a very serious topic. Almost like a less irritable Oliver Stone.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,253 ✭✭✭✭ branie2


    On my must-see list.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,504 ✭✭✭✭ TheValeyard


    This looks really good

    Fcuk Putin. Glory to Ukraine!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,750 ✭✭✭✭ bnt


    Then there's Steve Carell as Donald Rumsfeld, which should be a blast. This is a guy who had a way with words, you could say:
    I don't know what the facts are but somebody's certainly going to sit down with him and find out what he knows that they may not know, and make sure he knows what they know that he may not know, and that's a good thing.

    Parvi enim sunt foris arma, nisi est consilium domi.



  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 17,390 Mod ✭✭✭✭ The Black Oil


    This is I would say two thirds of a good film, or a good film whose final segment knocks it back to being more so, whilst still good, probably in the serviceable category. Naturally, if your politics align with its liberal critique you'll likely enjoy it. It's quite polemical, with about as much subtlety as Michael Moore tends to deliver. I didn't know what to expect as I had only seen the snippet where Cheney/Bush meet, so all the background stuff from decades ago was interesting, and well done. Apart from maybe the fishing thing which was laid on a bit. The performances are good. Amy Adams is steadfast and unapologetic and Bale is certainly an embodiment of Cheney. I think for me where it went awry was actually with Cheney's ascendence to power, or rather where we see how he started to solidify it as VPOTUS. It's quite likely he did have an 'understanding' with W, in being at the forefront of certain policies. Post-Sept 11th is of course where this is perhaps most evident. Does beg the question, is Vice more than just the job and a reference to any sort of vice we might get hooked on? Anyway, I preferred the getting to know the man aspects. The film is pretty sympathetic to the Cheney clan, politics aside. Even the multiple heart attacks prompt a little humour. Overall, I would put McKay's The Big Short as being more accomplished.

    Small mid/post-credit sequence in there too, btw. Part diagnosis of where things are now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,863 ✭✭✭ mikhail


    The film is pretty sympathetic to the Cheney clan, politics aside.
    I don't know about that. I think a lot of it is build-up to the reveal of what the daughter in politics did to her sister.

    It's an ugly caracature of an uglier man. And I'm not talking about his face.


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,328 ✭✭✭✭ Penn


    Overall I really enjoyed it. Not a huge fan of the style of the film though, in terms of the mix between drama, comedy and documentary styles (which happened in The Big Short too). It just constantly feels all over the place, never letting you enjoy one style and become engrossed in the film.

    The performances and most of the writing is great though. Really enjoyed the story and Bale was fantastic throughout.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,253 ✭✭✭✭ branie2


    I saw it on Friday, and I thought it was very good


  • Registered Users Posts: 535 ✭✭✭ tony stark


    My God, this was rubbish imho. The actors were great but the “humour”?, subtle as a brick. Total lack of drama as well and a paint by numbers narrative. Reminded me of a Michael Moore book in its boorish attempt to cover what most know


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 27,235 CMod ✭✭✭✭ johnny_ultimate


    One of the big problems with McKay's two 'prestige' films is that they try to talk to the audience, but end up talking down to them. All of the gimmicks to deliver exposition ultimately just expose the fact that it is exposition - he simply doesn't trust the viewer, which comes across as inadvertently condescending.

    But yeah this one on the whole doesn't really work at all. I mean it does get across that Cheney and the whole Republican establishment are a whole heap of pure evil, but we knew that. Stylistically the filmmakers favour gimmicks and trickery over anything resembling a cohesive vision, so this is a mish-mash of half-baked stuff attempting to elevate what's otherwise a messy, confused biopic. It fluctuates between tones wildly and unconvincingly, and some of the stunts - like the
    mid-film fake-out ending
    - land with a thud. It simultaneously over-reaches and under-delivers. It undercuts moments of real-life tragedy and atrocity with clunky, cheeky humour, and for all its overt references to devastating consequences of the Bush administration's actions it never feels like it takes it as seriously as it should.

    Aside from some predictably confident performances (although honestly thought Bale was trying too hard) the one thing it has going for it is a sense of righteous anger that these people got away with what they did. But there's undoubtedly a better way to channel that fury than this glib, confused film.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,723 ✭✭✭ El Rifle


    I saw this a few weeks ago, and for me its the best film i've seen of the last 12 months. Political film at its very best, exceptional acting performances that captured the time, the personality and darkness of those guys.

    Have heard a lot about it being left leaning, but for me the director left it up to the viewer to make his mind up - a skill in political filmmaking that I've only seen before from Oliver Stone in the likes of Nixon. We understand why Cheney did what he did. Ambition, and a sense of duty, responsibilities to be successful to his ambitious wife, a muddle of all things. You could say it was duty at the top of the list, or you could say that was at the bottom of the list.

    Fantastic editing, pacing, and filmmaking that transported me back to the time when Cheney and Rumsfeld were essentially running western world policy. A time in history where America ran with a justification, that had been created by their own mistakes and led to what is now a complete hell in the middle east in many places. Also an important film in history I believe where two guys took the torch that has been lit in the 80's by Reagan creating Al Quieda, and ramped it up 10 fold which ultimately led to the creation of ISIS and the darkness they have placed upon that part of the world. This film really gets to the bottom of all that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 557 ✭✭✭ Walter Bishop


    As subtle as a brick in the face, but I enjoyed it.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 27,235 CMod ✭✭✭✭ johnny_ultimate


    El Rifle wrote: »
    Have heard a lot about it being left leaning, but for me the director left it up to the viewer to make his mind up

    Personally I didn't think that was the case at all - felt the film had a clear, unambiguous perspective about Cheney. It is explicitly critical of the war-mongering nature of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton (Washington isn't rid of that mustachioed hawk just yet - his fingerprints all over today's nuclear treaty announcement) and co., and repeatedly highlights the futility and human costs of the wars they started. There are scenes that 'humanise' the subject and try to understand his motivation, yes, but ultimately the film overtly condemns him, his ideology and his actions (as well as those around him who were also playing the game). There's literally a scene where the camera
    lingers on his broken, dead heart
    for the guts of 30 seconds :pac:

    I don't think political film needs to be objective or even-handed - I'm all for directors unashamedly saying what they think about any given subject, and if they do it poorly or clunkily (ala Michael Moore) it's still their right to say what they want to say. I would suggest that Vice is more 'liberal' and 'anti-Republican' than 'left' (Sorry To Bother You is a true lefty film) but again don't think there's any obligation on it to adopt any middle ground. Ultimately its failures are less to with its political-leanings and more to do with its under-baked writing and direction.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,723 ✭✭✭ El Rifle


    Personally I didn't think that was the case at all - felt the film had a clear, unambiguous perspective about Cheney. It is explicitly critical of the war-mongering nature of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton (Washington isn't rid of that mustachioed hawk just yet - his fingerprints all over today's nuclear treaty announcement) and co., and repeatedly highlights the futility and human costs of the wars they started. There are scenes that 'humanise' the subject and try to understand his motivation, yes, but ultimately the film overtly condemns him, his ideology and his actions (as well as those around him who were also playing the game). There's literally a scene where the camera
    lingers on his broken, dead heart
    for the guts of 30 seconds :pac:

    I don't think political film needs to be objective or even-handed - I'm all for directors unashamedly saying what they think about any given subject, and if they do it poorly or clunkily (ala Michael Moore) it's still their right to say what they want to say. I would suggest that Vice is more 'liberal' and 'anti-Republican' than 'left' (Sorry To Bother You is a true lefty film) but again don't think there's any obligation on it to adopt any middle ground. Ultimately its failures are less to with its political-leanings and more to do with its under-baked writing and direction.

    Well Cheney is a warmonger or was a warmonger, there's no getting away from that whatever side you are on but it did present his different motivations, and in my opinion brilliantly laid out the making of the man, why he became what he did, and his own justification for doing his various deeds.
    Take the perspective for example of someone who was affected directly on September 11 with a family member getting killed after enemies of the state flew multiple planes into a building their son or daughter was in. They would first think that their country is at war, they would likely want to go to war, and would want their government to do it for them and protect them from the invaders. Cheney sees himself as that defender of the realm... at least from certain scenes its presented that way. And its no stretch to imagine an Americans first motivation for their leader to do those things for the country, other then say making money from owning weapons factories and defense contracts which is another view on it.

    I agree there is no obligation to adopt the middle ground, but I think its a much more skillful thing to do in filmmaking to present both sides when possible. Nixon, is one of my favorite films if not my favorite. Every part of the man is presented in that film - what made him what he was. It generates a much deeper and greater perspective on a biography, instead of a single portrait through a single paradigm of a directors vision who may not like the person, or have a political leaning. I for one find that a much more honest and artistic way to make a film....lets look inside and see what we can find, instead of someone telling us what we should find and how we should think about it all. I believe its a sign of respect from a director to the viewing public when you can make up your own mind after seeing a biography.

    Can't agree on the directing. From the first 5 minutes the style of the film had gripped me and I found it a riveting presentation all the way through, probably because it was such a reminder of Olive Stones style of editing when he was making these kinds of movies.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 27,235 CMod ✭✭✭✭ johnny_ultimate


    El Rifle wrote: »
    Well Cheney is a warmonger or was a warmonger, there's no getting away from that whatever side you are on but it did present his different motivations, and in my opinion brilliantly laid out the making of the man, why he became what he did, and his own justification for doing his various deeds.

    I don't know, I can only respectfully disagree (and I appreciate your thoughtful response) that the film lets the viewer make up their own mind. Even if it does try to prod at the motivations, it IMO unabashedly hands down its own judgement. I'd say that's supported by interviews with McKay such as this New Yorker one, but I didn't think the film itself left any room for doubt. Aside from a variety of filmmaking choices (the deadly serious real-world montages or references to torture, to pick another example) you could also point to its handling of the Mary Cheney subplot. It's IMO the film's most overt effort to separate the man from the Washington power games and bring him down to Earth...
    but it's also there to deliver this final condemnation, where he crosses the one moral line he had vowed not to cross
    . Camera angles, editing choices, the score also serve to underline this.

    It's true we bring our own biases and perspectives to any film we watch, and that will skew our perception of it. It's very possible a conservative watches this and sees something different than I do - but that's also the case with a Michael Moore or a Dinesh D'Souza film. I just feel that, even trying to separate my own political leanings, Vice is a film with a clear, consistent point of view - and, consequently, doesn't leave that space for the audience to fill in the gaps. I hasten to add I'm not saying that's either a good or bad thing, even if I personally felt it was on balance a bad film ;)


  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 54,504 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭ Mr E


    I saw it tonight. I thought it was very dry and quite dull. The humour was out of place, although the fake out half way through was funny. Bale's performance was the best thing about this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,253 ✭✭✭✭ branie2


    Did you know that Dick Cheney and Christian Bale have the same birthday?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,207 ✭✭✭ p to the e


    branie2 wrote: »
    Did you know that Dick Cheney and Christian Bale have the same birthday?

    What are the odds?! Must be one in a billion.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 30,772 CMod ✭✭✭✭ ancapailldorcha


    Mr E wrote: »
    I saw it tonight. I thought it was very dry and quite dull. The humour was out of place, although the fake out half way through was funny. Bale's performance was the best thing about this.

    I enjoyed it and got a laugh out of this though I did take out my phone in the middle to see if it was over.

    Show me a god that does not demand mortal suffering. Show me a god that celebrates diversity, a celebration that embraces even non-believers, and is not threatened by them. Show me a god that understands the meaning of peace. In life, not in death.

    Steven Erikson



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,945 ✭✭✭✭ razorblunt


    Saw it over the weekend and I really enjoyed it, Bale is fantastic but Carell is class too.

    I'd heard about the fake out ending but others I were with didn't know what was going on.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,281 ✭✭✭ CrankyHaus


    Disappointing after McKay got a home run with the Big Short. Quality performances redeem the film somewhat but some of the writing is awfully clunky, as is most of the direction.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,020 ✭✭✭ eviltimeban


    Finally saw it last night, thought it was great. I like all that Big Short-style stuff, the "wtf is going on" type of movie (which is what McKay is calling these movies - he has one more of a trilogy to make - Trump?)

    Bale was fantastic. I really didn't think I was watching Christian Bale and completely believed in him as Cheney. He should've won the Oscar - he was way better than Rami Malek. He really balanced being ruthless in "work" and being tender with his family.

    Supporting cast great too - Amy Adams as always, Steve Carell stole every scene he was in, and Sam Rockwell was funny as George W - really portrayed him as not having a clue about anything.

    As for the politics, I'm not really bothered, I can see what McKay was doing but the fact remains Cheney started those wars and we're still seeing the impact years later.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,500 ✭✭✭ Sabre0001


    This is amusing. Absolute disaster of a speech when accepting their Oscar.

    🤪



Advertisement