Magazines-Online-Store - Entertainment

Platoon put writer-turned-director Oliver Stone on the Hollywood map; it is still his most acclaimed and effective film, probably because it is based on Stone's firsthand experience as an American soldier in Vietnam.Chris (Charlie Sheen) is an infantryman whose loyalty is tested by two superior officers: Sergeant Elias (Willem Dafoe), a former hippie humanist who really cares about his men (this was a few years before he played Jesus in Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ), and Sergeant Barnes (Tom Berenger), a moody, macho soldier who may have gone over to the dark side.The personalities of the two sergeants correspond to their combat drugs of choice--pot for Elias and booze for Barnes.Stone has become known for his sledgehammer visual style, but in this film it seems perfectly appropriate. His violent and disorienting images have a terrifying immediacy, a you-are-there quality that gives you a sense of how things may have felt to an infantryman in the jungles of Vietnam. Platoon won Oscars for best picture and director. The digital video disc transfer was supervised by cinematographer Robert Richardson, and includes two commentary tracks (one by Stone and one by military technical advisor Dale Dye) and a 50-minute documentary about the making of Platoon called A Tour of the Inferno: Revisiting Platoon. --Jim Emerson ... Read more

Features

Color
Widescreen
Dolby

Reviews (249)

Americans still have not dealt with the real issues!!
1. PLATOON is in fact a film of gross political cowardice that comes NO WHERE near telling the truth about what Americans did to the nation and peoples of Vietnam and Indochina as a whole.Stone himself is more than willing to admit such.

2. All HOLLYWOOD produced movies concerning the so-called Vietnam War are in fact racist-imperialist orgies of denialist narcism. Far from altering this mindset PLATOON in fact confounded this mentality of what amounts to Holocaust Denial within the American and Western-World mindset regarding the militarist genocide committed upon the peoples of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia by the US military and imported mercenary death-squads. By the way there was NEVER any fighting force that called itself VIET CONG that is an American/Saigon regime term for the National Liberation Front.

3.No American film be it drama or documentary has ever dealt with the fact of either the death squads imported from South Korea into South Vietnam by the US from a regime in South Korea that was a Neo-Fascist despotism installed by the CIA.
More than 50,000 people were tortured in CIA/Saigon regimes interrogation complex. Electroshock was a standard tortute method via attachments upon or inside the genitals depending on the sex of the prisoner. Many Vietnamese prisoners were thrown-out of airborne helicopters or dragged tied-up by an armoured vehicle along the ground.

3. At the end of Elem Klimov's masterpiece COME AND SEEa statement reads that 600 Bylorussian villages were destroyed by the Nazis in the manner portrayed in the film.
Now GET THIS...
of the 15,000 SOUTH Vietnamese hamlets,
South Vietnam being the portion of Vietnam the Americans from Kennedy onward claimed was being defended and protected by the US against "Commie aggression" 12,000 hamlets were destroyed by American aggression in a manner that was a mirror of Nazi conduct in Eastern Europe.

4.Compare...
58,000 US military dead of whom 20% were shot by "friendly fire"and2,200 American MIA's
with
1,000,000 Vietnamese combatant dead
300,000 Vietnamese MIA's
3,000,000 Indochinese civilian dead (the lowest estimate)
14, 305,000 Vietnamese turned into refugees in their own land.

5. THE BOMBING

6,600,000 tons of bombs dropped by US Air Force more than all sides in both World Wars and the Korean War combined.
25,000,000 bomb craters left marking the landscape of Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia.
400,000 tons of Napalm dropped.
20,000,000 gallons of Agent Orange dropped the greatest chemical warfare crimes inhistory.
25,000,000 acres of farmland destroyed
12,000,000 acres of forest destroyed.

Howard S Marks
Manchester UK

Good, not great
I've got the same problem with Oliver Stone that I have with Michael Moore, or even Alex Haley (Roots); he plays a little too loose with the truth (JFK). That's too bad, because in every other way, Platoon is an excellent film. Platoon deserves praise for its realistic depiction of fighting in Vietnam. But even though Stone was a soldier, none of the rapes occurred and neither did the lethal battle between the two officers, at least, not in his unit or any other unit he knew about. These elements were put in purely for dramatic effect, and they became the main theme of the film, and I resent that. A book was written by one of Stone's fellow soldiers, which describes how it really was, and as far as I've heard, the two are still friends. When I see a war movie, I don't need the director to put in bad guys to keep my interest. War is bad enough.

Sanity lies about strewn in the ashes...
Oliver Stone, a soldier in Vietnam himself, made his remembrance through Platoon.The second of the three truly captivating Vietnam films released between 79-87 (Full Metal Jacket and Apocalypse Now are the others, both done by unique directors)In addition, this film put Stone on the map, and intriguingly enough put another Sheen in the jungle.

The story, for those who do not know, takes place around Chris Taylor (Charlie Sheen), a new, well-off volunteer who learns more then his fair share of life in Vietnam.Specifically, this is because of the division between tough Sgt. Barnes (Tom Berenger) and equally tough, but understanding Sgt. Elias Grodin (Willem Defoe).

As I mentioned, I like a variety of films about Vietnam, but this seems to, through it's own fashion, offer just a bit more about the feeling that was that war.Admittedly, this film has bits way too reminiscent of Apocalypse Now, but this film diminishes a lot of art for action and with reason.The reason is because war is not pretty, and Stone knew that and still knows that, thus he added a little more realistic edge.

If you feel like you've seen all the Vietnam you can take then this definitely isn't your film.If you have this halcyon view of the glory days of 'Nam then this probably will not please you either.But, if you want to see a hard-cutting movie about people, war, and what the two can combine then see Stone's Platoon. ... Read more

Asin: 079284646X
Subjects: 1. Feature Film-action/Adventure

The Doors (Special Edition)
Director: Oliver Stone
Average Customer Review:

DVD (18 March, 2003)
list price: $14.98 -- our price: $13.48
(price subject to change: see help)
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Editorial Review

Thanks in large part to its meticulous re-creation of the late 1960s and early '70s rock scene and the uncannily authentic performance by Val Kilmer as legendary Doors front man Jim Morrison, Oliver Stone's hypnotic film biography is standing the test of time. Capturing the carefree mood of the Age of Aquarius, the film charts the meteoric rise of the Doors on the California club circuit (including a memorable scene showing the creation of the hit "Light My Fire"), and chronicles the band's exploits with hallucinogenics and Morrison's battles against charges of public indecency on stage. Kilmer's performance is hauntingly perfect, and performances by Meg Ryan, Kathleen Quinlan, and Kyle MacLachlan are similarly impressive. The movie doesn't fully probe the depths of Morrison's character, but as a portrait of excess it is vividly true to the spirit of the self-destructive poet known to his fans as "The Lizard King." --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Features

Color
Closed-captioned
Widescreen

Reviews (167)

Incoherent, negative, and not really about THE DOORS...
I saw this movie when it first came out (March 1, 1991).I was 21 years old, and a huge DOORS fan.I liked it okay back then, but upon seeing it now, it's boring, and makes it appear that the other members did little or nothing to contribute to the band and its success (Robby Krieger, the guitar player, WROTE 'LIGHT MY FIRE').I think Val Kilmer does an Oscar-caliber job as Jim, but the others are only there to react to things Jim says and does.They have no other purpose except to fill in those roles-most anyone could have done that.I don't think a lot of people realize that Jim Morrison was many things, BUT HE WASN'T A MUSICIAN.HE DIDN'T PLAY AN INSTRUMENT, and he wasn't THAT great a singer (though I will say that he was damn good when he was good).THE DOORS were a great band, but that was a long time ago.As far as the studio albums go, the first two were great, the second two were mediocre (though 'STRANGE DAYS' has a couple of decent tracks), and the last two were hit and miss.I wasn't there, so I don't know about how they were live (videos and live CDs are NOT THE SAME as being there).Another reviewer said that Meg Ryan was a poor choice to play Pam.I agree.Listening to Stone talk about it on disc 2 tells us why.Ryan sounds like she was/is unable to comprehend the type of behavior that Pam/Jim engaged in, i.e. drugs, rebellion, etc.Stone said the same thing about Darryl Hannah regarding her failed attempt to play Darian in WALL STREET (a far superior movie to this one by the way).I don't understand why Stone would choose to have someone play a role like this when they obviously were unable to 'find and be' the character they were supposed to be portraying.Stone should have chosen more wisely.I think Stone's obsession with Jim is the reason this movie is really all about Jim.Of the many problems in it, the one that probably bothers me the most is that the movie acts like Jim is the center of the universe, as the camera is almost always on him.But Oliver Stone's Jim Morrison is juvenile, destructive, obnoxious, and often, pointless.He hardly comes off as a genius, poetic or otherwise.He suddenly has star status, but the movie doesn't show why-we're supposed to know why.Yet, why should we care??? The character is despicable, at least that's the way he's written here.I couldn't even finish the film-I simply didn't care that he was headed for a youthful demise.When I read 'Riders on the Storm' and 'No One Here Gets Out Alive', I found myself caring about the people involved-not here though.Moreover, the photography was irritating, to say the least.I wanted to know about THE DOORS, instead, I got an MTV-type drug trip with DOORS music behind it.As a big studio movie, I think this fails on all levels except one-Val Kilmer's performance.As another reviewer noted, this is the best acting he's ever done.It's too bad that the movie/script he had to work with was/is over-hyped junk.

Boo, Hiss - Fake Widescreen
The movie is interesting and I think Val Kilmer did a good job.I rate this so low because Artisanjust put big black bars on top and bottom and then calls it widescreen.This is FAKE widescreen and is a bad, bad, bad thing.

negative "one," really
be serious: Val Kimler playing Jim Morrison? Oh, be real.Oliver must've been WAY stoned.But instead of being so negative, here's an idea:how 'bout a "two CD-set" of...um...say, "Helter Skelter" with Pee Wee Herman portraying Charles Manson?And then you could drag out J Lo to play Squeaky Fromme, and keep the "reality" in high gear, eh? ... Read more

Asin: B00005NB8K
Subjects: 1. Feature Film-drama

$13.48

Salvador (Special Edition)
Director: Oliver Stone
Average Customer Review:

DVD (05 June, 2001)
list price: $14.95 -- our price: $13.46
(price subject to change: see help)
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Editorial Review

Director Oliver Stone (Platoon, JFK) offers up this brilliant, engrossing true-life account of the violent civil war in El Salvador as told through the perspective of a has-been journalist trying for one last grasp at glory and finding the true horror of war. James Woods is freelance journalist Richard Boyle, who leaves San Francisco broke with his drug-addled, disc-jockey buddy (Jim Belushi) to cover the escalating conflict and hopefully return to his former stature as a war correspondent. What he finds is a nation torn by random violence, shifting ideologies, poverty, and the malevolent influence of the United States. Boyle tries to make sense of the brutality he sees while extracting his girlfriend from the war zone and saving his own life. Featuring John Savage (The Deer Hunter) as an earnest photojournalist, this is a fascinating and riveting depiction of the bloody strife that tore apart a nation and mirrored the disillusionment of the Vietnam era. --Robert Lane ... Read more

Features

Color
Closed-captioned
Widescreen
Dolby

Reviews (30)

Film as a text
I was compelled to write this review after I read the two reviews written from the Salvadorean perspective claiming that this movie was essentially complete fiction. Although, I haven't seen this movie in several years I remember it being a griping and shocking account of events that are largely forgotten (or were even noticed back then) by average Americans. I wonder if the two Salvadorean reviewers have ever met or talked with Boyle, the journalist whose experience the movie is based, or if they were ever in the same places with Boyle during that time. Moreover, one of the key events depicted in the movie actually DID HAPPEN: On December 2, 1980 four American nuns who were there giving aid and relief to the poor people of that country were brutally raped and murdered by a group of El Salvador's National Guardsmen. Like anything we view or read, Stone's movies should be seen with a critical eye. Of course his movie is not the "ultimate truth" on what happened in the 80's in El Salvador and it should not be viewed that way. Instead, it should be viewed for what it is: one man's perspective (Boyle's) of what he witnessed while he was there. How does that person's perspective or account deepen our understanding of history? What questions does it raise? Whose interests does that perspective (or other perspectives) serve? Whether this movie is an "accurate" depiction is not as important as the fact that this movie can get us thinking and talking about important issues surrounding justice, freedom, equality and the role our government overtly and covertly plays in international conflicts where those values are at stake.

0% Historically accurate
This movie is completely, totally, and sjamefully innacurate to what really happened. I'm from EL Salvador and as a boy, a bomb exploded on my face, got caught in the middle of 2 gunfights and went to bed wondering If i would make it through the night. As my fellow Salvadorean said, this movie makes the guerrillas loo like they were good people and our army as cruel, reckless and "bad". First of all, I witnessed a bus being hijacked by guerrillas and all the kids taken out to be recruited. Through my experience I can say that the guerrillas AND the military did horrible things but this movie truly doenst show how the war was really like. Also I believe they try to make us look like a 1600's town. People on horse wagons and all the people are "mexican-like". I know that to most of you this will come in as a surprize but people from El Salvador as well as Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, etc don't look like Mexicans! It makes me upset that we are stereotyped as mexicans. Well, overall, this is a historically innacurate, bad movie

Overall a Truthful Account of a Dark and Bloody Time
While Oliver Stone's 60's-style "hipness" intrudes too much into the characters and situations, overall the film is a good and honest portrayal of the Nazi-like terror inflicted on this country by police and military beasts in human form.Having been associated with Amnesty International at this time I'm well aware of the real people who were tortured, mutilated, raped, murdered, and "disappeared" in the name of "Western Values."This film not only portrays the true face of El Salvador's bloody and evil little civil war, but of the moral callousness of the US in funding this descent into hell.The US self-righteousness over Bosnia and Kosovo a decade or so later seems all the more incredible, as one watches American complicity with mass murder here. ... Read more

Asin: B00005AUJR
Subjects: 1. Feature Film-drama

$13.46

Rolling Stone
Average Customer Review:

Magazine
list price: $103.70 -- our price: $12.97
(price subject to change: see help)
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Editorial Review

Founder and publisher Jann S. Wenner's brainchild remains the standard by which rock & roll magazines are measured, though even its most fervent boosters would concede there've been some growing pains for RS as it's strived to remain relevant through the decades. The erstwhile baby-boomer bible mixes fleshy covers of today's alluring celebs with coverage of graying rockers from the magazine's heyday. In addition to celebrity interviews, stalwart features such as CD reviews and Random Notes (the mag's long-running gossip section) provide familiar reading for older readers, as does the publication's superior political and cultural coverage. But the bulk of Rolling Stone's features are aimed at the younger pop-culture set. --Steven Stolder ... Read more

Features

Magazine Subscription

Reviews (142)

Corporate magazines still suck
Rolling Stone hasn't been a credible music journal for at least 15 years, and that's being extremely kind.Rather they are a marketing outlet for the corporate sponsors of whatever music is being pushed at the moment.That's of course when they deign to write about music at all.There are far too many politically oriented articles from an upper middle class armchair liberal point of view to catagorize Rolling Stone as strictly a music magazine.And let's not mention the extremely annoying fashion layouts.RS is more of a lifestyle journal that panders to white and mostly liberal middle class tastes and culture.I don't care about the political bent of the magazine so much as I care about the pop garbage that Rolling Stone writes about.They almost without exception shill for the flavor of the month rather than write any responsible criticism.Occasionally the articles are informative, but for the most part Rolling Stone is an irrelevant device to generate advertising dollars.

You get what you pay for
Isn't it amazing that the cost of a Rolling Stone subscription is barely enough to cover the cost of postage?The magazine is mostly advertisements, and the rest of it isn't worth reading.I grew up on Rolling Stone, but have realized that if I want a decent music review about music I care about, I'll go to pitchforkmedia.com.Even SPIN is better than this crap.

RS: "Music Experts" who don't know CRAP about music.
Anyone who would consider putting a list of the 100 Greatest Artists ever without Pink Floyd, Queen, or Metallica has no knowledge of music whatsoever.

Also who the hell would put Kurt Cobain and Jack White on a list of the 100 greatest guitarists ever above Eddie Van Halen and Randy Rhoads? Also not to mention that they didn't even include Slash or Malmsteem on the list.

This magazine makes me sick to the stomach. Basically all they do is praise artists who have good lyrics but crappy music, like Bob Dylan. They also need to get over their constant worship of U2, because even when they put out those 2 awful albums 'Zooropa' and 'Pop', they did nothing but praise them for their over-produced experimental crap.

And what can we say about their devotion towards 'The White Stripes' and 'The Strokes' and hail them as the BEST NEW THING, while we've been waiting for years for these people to make albums worth their praise. Yet, Rolling Stone rather ignores great new artists like Muse, Franz Ferdinand, and Keane.

I know you guys are probably potheads, but perhaps you should consider putting the hash pipe to the side and think about what you write because it's hurting the REAL ARTISTS. ... Read more

Asin: B00005N7SJ
Subjects: 1. Entertainment 2. Music

$12.97

JFK (Director's Cut Two-Disc Special Edition)
Director: Oliver Stone
Average Customer Review:

DVD (11 November, 2003)
list price: $26.99 -- our price: $21.59
(price subject to change: see help)
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Editorial Review

Director Oliver Stone added 17 minutes of previously unseen footage for the "director's cut" edition of his hypnotic courtroom epic about the investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in November 1963. That fateful day in Dallas set in motion a sequence of events that would only intensify the mystery behind Kennedy's death, causing New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) to begin an investigation that would gradually become a personal obsession. Bravura filmmaking combined with controversial treatment of historical facts and audacious speculation, this breathtaking revision of history presents a mesmerizing parade of shady figures and conspiracy theories, unfolding like a classic mystery based on history's greatest unsolved crime. A technical triumph boasting Oscar-winning cinematography and editing, Stone's film is guaranteed to grab the viewer's attention with its daring take on the JFK controversy. The stellar supporting cast includes Tommy Lee Jones, Joe Pesci, Jack Lemmon, Donald Sutherland, Sissy Spacek, Kevin Bacon, and Gary Oldman as Lee Harvey Oswald. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Features

Color
Closed-captioned
Dolby
Surround Sound
Widescreen
Director's Cut

Reviews (244)

overblown junk from an over blown director!
When this movie came out everyone was talking about it.It was up for Best Picture against Silence of The Lambs, Bugsy, and Beauty And The Beast.Looking back at 1992's Oscars, JFK should never been in there.
The Acting, from great actors, is over the top like in so many of Stone's films.Not everything is supposed to be like a Greek tragedy!Too many cutaways, and too many half assed historical "facts".
Stone's best work will always be Platoon.That movie had it's over done scenes, but, it never went overboard like JFK, Nixon, Any Given Sunday . . . well, all his flicks since 1987's Wall Street.
For anyone foolish enough to still retain affects from the conspiracy talk . . . it'sjust a movie from a bad director.

Blah, blah, blah , blah, blah, blah, blah
So, who do you believe???Whether you think Stone is Satan or the Messiah, it's impossible to deny the power of this film.I took the time to read all 243 previous reviews---that's how interested in this topic I am...I'm impressed with the passion that you've all shown on this subject.I'd love to tell you I was the second gunman on the grassy knoll, AND give you ALL irrefutable proof that it's the God's honest truth, but who would believe me?Anyone who cares has already made up their mind.What would it take (REALLY!) to get you to change your mind?Have any of you ever thought about that???I think that when I get to heaven, the first thing I'll ask is:"What really happened on 11-22-63???"But, for me, right now, in this life, I don't care any more about Oliver Stone than I do about Gerald Posner.In fact, I would add those two to a list that also includes Walter Cronkite, Jim Garrison, Peter Travers, Dan Rather, Jim Marrs, Robert Groden, Earl Warren, Lyndon Johnson, Cyril Wecht and a sh#@load of others (Peter Jennings gets a special FU#@ YOU for his DUNGHEAD comment during a 40th anniversary TV special in 11/03), NONE OF WHOM I'D PISS ON EVEN IF THEY WERE ON FIRE.How can you believe anyone at this point?There's enough information out there to build a case for (practically) any theory you want.I want the fu@#ing truth!!!I can't believe that after this much time has passed that we still aren't any closer than we were in 1964.The Warren Commission's investigation was a joke.So many leads not followed, so many witnesses not interviewed, so many questions NOT ASKED, so many directions not taken...Arlen Specter's work was pathetic.He should be ashamed of himself for being that stupid or that naive, whichever is the case.Humes burns the original draft of his autopsy notes (then later, gives a weak excuse for it), and nothing is done???LBJ gets the limo cleaned and the interior replaced (BEFORE it can be inspected and photographed--HE DESTROYED EVIDENCE!!!), and nothing is done!!!More than half the witnesses said they saw and/or heard shots from the grassy knoll/railroad area and the Warren Commission concentrates on those that said the shots came from the 6th floor window???ALL the Dallas doctors said that the wounds clearly showed the shots came FROM THE FRONT,but we're supposed to believe that they ALL MADE A MISTAKE and the monopoly on autopsy wisdom resides with the doctors at Bethesda???A pathologist is 'chosen' to lead the autopsy who had NO (AUTOPSY) EXPERIENCE WITH VICTIMS OF GUNSHOT WOUNDS, and NO ONE DOES OR SAYS ANYTHING!!!How the hell does something as important as the BRAIN get "lost"???All this and more makes it obvious (to me) that there is no simple explanation for what happened.Military/Industrial complex?Cuba/Castro?The Mob?The CIA?How 'bout the Secret Service?Russia/KGB?Oswald plus others?How the hell are we supposed to know???Reading everything that is out there just provides more suspects.The real crime here is for those of us who are critical thinkers.We know it's not a 'lone nut', but we're also skeptical of the myriad of other 'ideas' too.I'm still reserving judgment in the (naive, I know) hope that more TRUTH will come to light before I die.

American Fact, American Fiction
In 1969, New Orleans D.A. Jim Garrison brought noted New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw to trial for conspiracy to murder President John F. Kennedy. To date, this is the only trial of any individual in reference to the Kennedy assasination.This controversial 1991 film follows Garrison's investigation into the Kennedy assasination from the day of Kennedy's death to the conclusion of the trial--and it has prompted almost as much controversy as the assasination itself.

How much of this film are we to take as fact and how much of it are we take as fiction?Critics have noted that as a historian, Stone is a great filmmaker, and with JFK Stone creates a vision so extreme that even some conspiracy theorists have denounced it as completely impossible.But that may actually be part of the film's point: that we live in a society that typically subverts the truth, a world in which facts are hard to come by and in which speculation runs wild.

However you wish to take the film, there's no denying that it is exceptionally well done.Much of its power rests on visuals.JFK is presented on different film stocks with various grains and color qualities, and these scenes--some of them lasting only seconds--are combined like pieces of an jigsaw puzzle to create a slowly emerging picture of American politics at its worst. The script, largely based on Garrison's book ON THE TRAIL OF THE ASSASINS, works in much the same fashion, shifting rapidly from scene to scene and back and forth in time. In combination, cinematography and script have a cumulative power that is most impressive, and Williams' haunting score adds greatly to the effect.

The ensemble cast is easily one of the best I've ever seen. Kevin Costner is not, perhaps, ideally cast as Jim Garrison--but he plays in an extremely low-key manner completely devoid of any "star" trappings, and thus throws focus on the myriad of characters who swirl through the story. Gary Oldman is uncanny as Lee Harvey Oswald. His performance is such that you're often unsure if you watching Oldman or news footage of Oswald, and Brian Doyle-Murray achieves a similar effect with the smaller role of Jack Ruby.

But perhaps the most memorable are the host of actors who appear in unlikely roles and who aquit themselves exceptionally well. Joe Pesci gives a typically aggressive performance in the strange role of a right-wing paramilitary homosexual, Kevin Bacon is completely unexpected and flawless as a hard-bitten gay prostitute, and Tommy Lee Jones is impressive as the influential Clay Shaw. Other memorable performers include Ed Asner, Jack Lemmon, Sissy Spacek, Laurie Metcalf, Sally Kirkland, and Donald Sutherland--and in a wicked twist of irony Jim Garrison himself appears as Justice Earl Warren.

The package includes a number of extras, including an often interesting director's commentary, an interview with famous conspiracy theorist Prouty, and a documentary on certain intriguing records recently declassified by Congress as a direct result of this film's impact. Then there is the film itself, which includes several previously cut scenes and which is extremely well transferred to DVD.

Historians and theorists will probably wrangle over the JFK assasination for decades, perhaps centuries to come. But whether you buy into Oliver Stone's scenario in whole, in part, or not at all, film is both extremely well-done and provocative to the max. If you want to stir conversation, this will do it. Recommended.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer ... Read more

Asin: B0000CDL93
Subjects: 1. Feature Film-drama

$21.59

1-5 of 5 1

Prices listed on this site are subject to change without notice.
Questions on ordering or shipping? click here for help.

Top

Magazines - Entertainment - oliver stone fanatics (images)

Images - 1-5 of 5 1
Click image to see details about the item

Images - 1-5 of 5 1