W. (B- or 2.5/4 stars)
'W.' (directed by Oliver Stone) chronicles the life & presidency of the U.S.'s 43rd leader, George W. Bush (Josh Brolin). Stone takes us through Bush's life (as early as his fraternity yrs., and as late as 2004). Most interesting is seeing how he found both his wife, Laura Bush (lovely Elizabeth Banks), & his renewed faith in God. While 'W.' is a highly watchable film, I find myself just a tad underwhelmed. It's a slight film in light of such weighty topics. The acting & editing are quite stellar. But 'W.' does little more than offering a thin, visual regurgitation of things we already know and/or experienced.
The film's non-linear structure is executed flawlessly through the proceedings. We basically visit Bush at various times of his eventful life (2004, back to 1966, off to 1999, back to 1972, etc.). We first flashback to his times at Yale. We eventually get to meet a woman he knocked up. We meet Laura Bush. We watch him working for his father's (James Cromwell) campaign. And we see his decision to run as governor of Texas (something his family did not think he could handle). Interspersed is the backdrop of the Iraqi war situation. And I actually like that the entirety of the '01 debacles were not touched upon for the millionth time.
It's very interesting that Stone's argument for or against Bush rests on the supposedly rocky relationship with his father. Yes, we get to see glimpses of W's personality, his ticks, his hobbies, his addiction to alcohol, & his everyday-Joe insecurities. But the underlying theme of George W. Bush (according to Stone) is that he never felt enough love & admiration from papa Bush; and that that relationship translated over to his ineptness as leader of our country. You see several examples of him barely keeping up and/or outright disagreeing with the very people who advise him on the most important of matters (Rumsfeld, Rove, Cheney, Powell, etc.). The other interesting theme (from Stone) is that Bush felt it was his mission from God (as a born again Christian) to run for president. Right.
Josh Brolin is fantastic as W. Not only has he mastered the president's mannerisms & vocal inflections. But he's able to almost humanize the man; something extremely hard to do in this day & age. I am just extremely impressed by Brolin's physical & emotional transformation of one of the most controversial public figures in our history. Also impressive is James Cromwell as papa Bush. He doesn't look or sound like George Sr., at all. But you absolutely get his essence. With the exception of a quasi-accurate, quasi-awful portrayal from Thandie Newton as Condoleeza Rice, everyone else is "fine". Ellen Burstyn as Barbara. Toby Jones as Rove. Scott Glenn as Rumsfeld. Richard Dreyfuss as Cheney. Jeffrey Wright as Powell. But then, "fine" is about all we get from most aspects of the film.
You just don't expect an Oliver Stone film to be "fine". There's very little in 'W.' to get your motor running. Democrats & Republicans won't be praising or jeering it. I don't even think Dubya himself would chastise it. As previously mentioned, it's highly watchable & often entertaining; using multi-tones of humor, satire, melodrama & tragedy to showcase the president's plucky personality. But the buck stops there. Because events in the film have only 'just' ended, or are still going on, its dramatic momentum & historical context felt stunted. 'W.' is not a bad film. It's an event movie; something to 'see' on the big screen. But it's only passably interesting. And it certainly isn't as fresh, as thoughtful, or as scintillating as I hoped it could be.
The film's non-linear structure is executed flawlessly through the proceedings. We basically visit Bush at various times of his eventful life (2004, back to 1966, off to 1999, back to 1972, etc.). We first flashback to his times at Yale. We eventually get to meet a woman he knocked up. We meet Laura Bush. We watch him working for his father's (James Cromwell) campaign. And we see his decision to run as governor of Texas (something his family did not think he could handle). Interspersed is the backdrop of the Iraqi war situation. And I actually like that the entirety of the '01 debacles were not touched upon for the millionth time.
It's very interesting that Stone's argument for or against Bush rests on the supposedly rocky relationship with his father. Yes, we get to see glimpses of W's personality, his ticks, his hobbies, his addiction to alcohol, & his everyday-Joe insecurities. But the underlying theme of George W. Bush (according to Stone) is that he never felt enough love & admiration from papa Bush; and that that relationship translated over to his ineptness as leader of our country. You see several examples of him barely keeping up and/or outright disagreeing with the very people who advise him on the most important of matters (Rumsfeld, Rove, Cheney, Powell, etc.). The other interesting theme (from Stone) is that Bush felt it was his mission from God (as a born again Christian) to run for president. Right.
Josh Brolin is fantastic as W. Not only has he mastered the president's mannerisms & vocal inflections. But he's able to almost humanize the man; something extremely hard to do in this day & age. I am just extremely impressed by Brolin's physical & emotional transformation of one of the most controversial public figures in our history. Also impressive is James Cromwell as papa Bush. He doesn't look or sound like George Sr., at all. But you absolutely get his essence. With the exception of a quasi-accurate, quasi-awful portrayal from Thandie Newton as Condoleeza Rice, everyone else is "fine". Ellen Burstyn as Barbara. Toby Jones as Rove. Scott Glenn as Rumsfeld. Richard Dreyfuss as Cheney. Jeffrey Wright as Powell. But then, "fine" is about all we get from most aspects of the film.
You just don't expect an Oliver Stone film to be "fine". There's very little in 'W.' to get your motor running. Democrats & Republicans won't be praising or jeering it. I don't even think Dubya himself would chastise it. As previously mentioned, it's highly watchable & often entertaining; using multi-tones of humor, satire, melodrama & tragedy to showcase the president's plucky personality. But the buck stops there. Because events in the film have only 'just' ended, or are still going on, its dramatic momentum & historical context felt stunted. 'W.' is not a bad film. It's an event movie; something to 'see' on the big screen. But it's only passably interesting. And it certainly isn't as fresh, as thoughtful, or as scintillating as I hoped it could be.