W. (2008) Reviews

• A Fair And Balanced Portrait of a... Fairly Simple Man

  doubleosix2008-10-12

  This is a very good movie, but not the classic it wants to be. It's funny and tragic, although not too informative if you've read a newspaper with any regularity over the last eight years. In short, there are no surprises. Josh Brolin gives an excellent performance as W., and the supporting cast is generally superb, although Jeffrey Wright, Richard Dreyfuss, and James Cromwell particularly stand out. Thandie Newton is hysterically funny as Condie Rice, but it's an SNL-type parody, not an emotionally honest performance. The film is obviously meticulously researched and carefully considered, which is why the sequences that are clearly either utter conjecture or merely political finger-pointing stand out by a mile. Bush -- whom I personally despise for his offensive combination of idiocy and self-righteousness -- is treated with fairness and sensitivity. The effort here is obviously to fashion him as a tragic hero; a man who genuinely wants to do good but simply doesn't grasp how hard that is, especially when surrounded by the likes of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney (who is, very specifically, the villain of the piece, as he is in life). And it generally works. I found myself feeling bad for the poor guy. However, while trying to make W. a sympathetic character, Stone pushes his theme -- "It Was All To Prove Himself To Daddy" way too far. He overplays his hand, including a mood-breaking dream sequence near the end. There simply has to be more to George W. Bush than that..... doesn't there? The film ultimately plays much, much better when Stone relies on actual transcripts and information gathered by experienced reporters, and those sequences, whether they are cabinet meetings, press conferences, or more personal moments, snap and zing.

  More

• Uncomfortable

  robertgrimm-12008-10-27

  One word sums up how I felt while watching W: uncomfortable. I went into this film expecting more of an absurdist comedy than a tragedy. The level of realism was far beyond what I expected. For the most part, the cast, makeup, and casting crew did such a good job with the characters that it was very easy to imagine that these were not actors on the screen but the actual people. Josh Brolin's characterization of W was certainly Oscar-worthy. Even better than Brolin's part was Phedon Papamichael's photographic direction. The job of the Director of Photography is to bring the story to life through the creation of images to draw the attention of the viewer where the Director wants. Few films are as good of an example of this as W. Papamichael used the camera to force moral and emotional perspective in a way that I have rarely seen outside of the films of Stanley Kubrick. I've only seen the film once, viewing it as a complete work. I intend to watch it again to study the photography. Overall, I thought the film was fair in its treatment of the actual people involved. The most ardent Bush supporters will not like it, but to still be that supportive of him in the final months of his second term, you either have to not be paying attention or be uncritical in all of your thought. While artistic license was taken throughout the film, the portrayal of all events and people, with the possible exception of Dick Cheney, were far more grounded in reality and recorded history than I expected. The film made me uncomfortable on multiple levels, which is why it succeeds and deserves such a high rating. The portrayal of Bush's relationship with his parents, especially his father, forces the viewer to feel sorry for him. The overt religiosity that pervades the public service portion of his life must anger anyone who believes strongly in the separation of church and state. There are many moments when, with any other characters, the film should have generated much laughter. Only one moment in the film actually caused more than one person in the theater to laugh. I guess 4000+ dead soldiers drains the humor out of even the most hilarious gaffes. I would recommend this film to anyone who wants to see a realistic portrayal of historical events. I wish Stone had waited until Bush was out of office to make it, though. While it captures the major events that were involved in building the Bush legacy, it ends far too early.

  More

• Waiting for the final ball to drop...

  WriterDave2008-10-18

  With his "in the moment" biopic "W." the normally volatile Oliver Stone wisely saves his judgments for history when hindsight will be 20/20. Achingly subdued and slightly satirical, Stone plays it straight and to the bone. Here he presents us with the early years of our current lame duck president, showing Dubya rushing a frat-house at Yale, meeting Laura at a barbecue, living in the shadow of his father and brother, his troubles holding down a job, his failed bid to become baseball commissioner, and his defining moment when he gives up drinking and becomes born-again. All of which leads us to his first term and the Iraq War quagmire, where Dubya honest-to-goodness truly believes "God" wanted him to become president and that Iraq did have those rascally WMD. In the lead role, Josh Brolin is an endearingly bumble-headed Dubya, and Stone presents him as a simple-minded man with good intentions who has been crippled by his "daddy issues" and has surrounded himself with the most cynical, self-serving, and corrupt administration in modern American history. The supporting cast is a hoot, with highlights including Thandie Newton eliciting big laughs just with her facial expressions as a wicked and moronically faithful Condi Rice, Elizabeth Banks giving a winning portrayal of Laura Bush, and Richard Dreyfuss playing Cheney as the most insipid megalomaniac American politics has ever seen. Stone accomplishes three major coups here that should surprise those who expected a one-sided liberal smear job. First, he humanizes George W. Bush. The director does this with savvy editing showing the back-story of why Dubya does the things he does (i.e. why he uses nicknames for everyone or why running three miles every day is so important to him), and then juxtaposing that with the inane decisions he has made as president. By utilizing actual transcripts from press conferences, news coverage, and meetings, Stone and scribe Stanley Weiser allow Bush and his administration to speak for themselves, and it's both comically cathartic and occasionally frightening to see it dramatized so well. Second, he redeems the presidency of George "Poppy" Bush (a somewhat miscast but still effective James Cromwell) by showing what a restrained and thoughtful Commander in Chief he was compared to his naive and too-eager-to-please son. Thirdly, he redeems the legacy of Colin Powell (a surprisingly good Jeffrey Wright), who is shown here as the only person in the administration with any hindsight or foresight, and the only sane voice who questioned the motives for entering Iraq, though he eventually caved in and played along. His "f-you" to Cheney towards the film's final act is priceless. As the actual presidency still has a few months to go at the time of the film's release, Stone's biopic was never written a true ending, leaving us with a symbolic image of Dubya looking up to the sky in center field waiting to catch a ball that will never drop. It may be another twenty years before we can pass any accurate judgment on Dubya's legacy, and likewise, Stone's film will have to wait. It's going to be a long time before anyone catches all those balls George W. Bush's administration threw up in the air.

  More

• Reduntant and therefore disappointing

  supah792009-02-03

  I used to be an Oliver Stone fan. But after Natural Born Killers I read in an interview that he had doubts about continuing his directing career. "I don't think I have another good movie in me". Well, I still think that he does, but W. isn't it. The reason I like and watch Oliver Stone films is that he has a strong opinion about a subject. One that isn't mainstream, but expresses it in such a way, that he wins his audience and therefore can change popular opinion. The best examples for this are Platoon and JFK. Oliver Stone makes a decision with this film which I do not like. The life and times of George W. Bush offer enough subject matter to make a powerful, semi-documentary film with hard hitting political and religious views that would sturr up popular belief. But instead of going for the jugular, Stone takes W. on his knee, pats him gently on the head and says: "I know, son. I get it." The film has all the elements that make W. the infamous guy that he is: the invention of axes-of-evil, God is on the side of good (The US of A), W.'s history of failed business, tale-chasing and alcohol abuse. Add the wheeling and dealing by the Bush-dynasty and you would think it's dynamite stuff. But it's not. The script is superficial. Tame at best. Stone is not good at satire and this film shows us why. Anyone who reads the Sundaypaper and watches the nine-o-clock news could have written this movie. It has the character motivation of a soap-opera. The father-son relationship for me was totally unbelievable. I expected a true depiction, with close source material. But it has become an imagined portrait by the screenwriter. Another thing that disappointed me was the lack of insight into the kitchen of the (right-wing) Bush-Administration, more over: the infiltration of the Hawks in the White House. This film doesn't add anything new or reveal any new insights. The movie is based on research done by outsiders. I knew every detail of this movie because I am up to current events. I don't want a summation and lovable depiction of a man who is responsible for eight very defining years of US foreign policy. I wanted new insights, make me doubt my own beliefs and discuss this with friends and on message boards. The end result has me shrugging my shoulders and saying: Eehh..., so what?

  More

• W. Movie Review (a review originally written for college)

  seamo422009-01-06

  'W.', Oliver Stone's latest true story film, is a simple biopic of America's 43rd President George W. Bush, touching on certain aspects of his life, including his college life, his alcoholism and his relationship with his father, the 41st president George Bush, while revolving mainly around his first term in the white house, specifically his controversial 'war on terror' and search for WMDs in Iraq. Like any biopic, there are two ways for it to be viewed. The first is how the feature stands as a film on its own, regardless of its comparison to the source material. Obviously the other way of perceiving it is to compare it to the source material, considering it's about something real and about real people who are alive or have lived. Unfortunately 'W.' is a movie that isn't particularly strong with either of these angles in mind. The film's light and sweet perspective, which portrays George W. Bush as a smart and well meaning guy, with flaws like the rest of us, doesn't balance with the fact that many of the scenes drone on. This is significant especially for audience members with no particular political expertise, which arguably this film should appeal to. Its father and son story has no real interesting conflict either, except for early on which isn't a good place to have focus, since we're meant to be kept sitting around for the duration of the 2 hours, of which this film runs. The structure of the film is confusing and the ending itself falls flat, leaving a hole that the audience may not be able to fill themselves, seemingly trying to make tough point about whatever issues the film is attempting to cover. In terms of comparing the film to the real subjects of which it is based on, 'W.' has even less to show for itself as the film focuses on the less interesting, or more widely known, pieces of just Bush's first term, and almost completely avoids the interesting material. Examples of said material would be the controversial speculation around the legitimacy of his position as president, the even more questionable aspects of Bush's behaviour around the time of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the film even makes absolutely no mention of Hurricane Katrina. The performances in this film are the only real things it has to brag about as Josh Brolin carries the film quite nicely with his charming and quirky take on Bush, along with Richard Dreyfuss' Dick Cheney, Thandie Newton's Condoleezza Rice, and others. However these still feel like impressions, granted they are rather good impressions. Another problem with the film's performances is James Cromwell's portrayal of George Bush Sr., as he is shown as a sweet, hard working old man, with no similarities shown in the real George Bush Sr.'s speech or mannerisms, which, I guess, was necessary to make the character likable. Overall, 'W.' is reasonably entertaining with its imitations of the American president and the people surrounding him in his career, however the viewers shouldn't delude themselves into thinking it as a reliable source of historical or political information as it covers any subject it has chosen to include, very lightly giving very little for it to say, despite the fact that there would be many things for this film to include, considering its protagonist's history. The only real conceivable, politically taut, reason for why this film was even released before the end of Bush's time as president is that, to avoid anyone else making a biopic of Bush, in case they might have had the kind of daft, one sided sense to portray George W. Bush as a hero, and his enemies as scum, Oliver Stone jumped at making the film in an act that sort of resembles suppressing an explosion. Verdict: Stone's telling of George W. Bush's life is long but thin, however it doesn't have any huge bias leaving it as an empty and boring chronicle with little harm.

  More