Directed by Oliver Stone. Drama. Biography. Starring: Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks, James Cromwell, Jeffrey Wright, Ellen Burstyn, Richard Dreyfuss, Thandie Newton. Drama/Historical
SYNOPSIS: A BIOPIC DRAMA OF THE 43RD PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, GEORGE W. BUSH, FOCUSING ON THE TIME BETWEEN HIS COLLEGE YEARS AND THE 2ND TERM OF HIS PRESIDENCY.
O.k. Take a breath. Let it out slowly. O.k. Well, here's the deal: a cutting edge director whose talent is prodigious but whose political/historical views are, to say the least, controversial in Oliver Stone (JFK, Nixon, Platoon) An ensemble cast filled with extremely talented actors. This could be something special, couldn't it?
Well, yeah, it could be...but I don't think it is.
So, am I saying its a bad film. Nope, not at all, quite the contrary, its a good film. I just don't think it's special, in the way that more than 1 Stone film has been in the past. Why do I feel this way? Well, my initial response to that question is, as opposed to some Stone films in the past that have tackled very controversial and mulit-layered historical topics, W was not made with the confortable cushion of some significant period of time between the event and the film. Platoon, Nixon, and JFK were all made with at least one decade or two of history and analysis after the monumental events at the heart of the movie.
In other words, rightly or wrongly, we pretty much knew, or thought we knew, how everything turned out with those historical events.W was made as some major things were still happening.
I know what you're thinking. 'You've missed the meaning of the film, you idiot!' JFK was not really about "JFK", and Nixon was not really about "Nixon" , they were really about the events which are most remembered about these two hugely influential and important presidents (the assassination and Watergate)! W is really about George W. Bush! Man, you're so dumb!'
O.k., I get that. (Not agreeing with the "dumb" part, but can't completely dispute it either, much as I would like to) But, still, I don't think this film hits the level of real epic cinema like, in my opinion, the other three Stone films I mentioned do. Why? Well, I already said what I think is the reason, because all the other elements of a wonderful film are there. Visually, its excellent, just as you would expect, it has those Stone trademarks that those of us who love the work of this director would expect, e.g. cutaways to the character in another setting while the character's dialogue continues
The cast is wonderful. No other way to say it. Josh Brolin (Milk, Planet Terror) is absolutely stunning as George W. Bush. To me, the highest compliment you can give an actor playing a well known celebrity, historical, or contemporary figure is to say that, while you were watching the flick, you would at times forget you were watching an actor playing the figure and though of it as the figure himself(or herself as it may be). I did that a few times when watching Brolin.
Now, I understand that many of you might have a strong visceral reaction, one way or another, to George W. Bush and your view of any actor pretending to be him might be set no matter what.
I get that, too.
In singing Brolin's praises, I'm attempting to leave my personal opinions about Mr. Bush and his presidency out of it. Also understand that this role as set up in the film was not easy to pull off, significant portions of the President's entire adult life are dealt with, events that occurred in his early 20's until his late 50's. Brolin plays the part in all of these scenarios and pulls it off well.
Not that he is alone in giving a great performance, his just stands out. Elizabeth Banks (Slither, The 40 Year Old Virgin) does very well as Laura Bush. Jeffrey Wright (Shaft, The Manchurian Candidate) is notable as Colin Powell, Thandie Newton (Crash ) is good, if slightly irritating, as Condeleeza Rice, Richard Dreyfus (Stand By Me, The Day Reagan Was Shot) is dead on as Dick Cheney. Also very good, but underutilized in my opinion, were Ellen Burstyn (The Exorcist) as Barbara Bush and James Cromwell (The General's Daughter, Salem's Lot) as George H.W. Bush.
There are some very telling implications in Stone's film, some of which have been talked about but not publicly verified, e.g. George W. Bush's arrests as a young man and his womanizing pre-Laura. But, I must say, those of you who go into this expecting the film to deal in depth with some of the more controversial and significant aspects of the Bush 43 presidency, such as the 2000 election or "mission accomplished", are going to be disappointed. This film is about the man, or more specificly, about perception of some of the man during the time he occupied the White House.
In my opinion, Stone is simply one of the most talented filmmakers we've ever seen and, fairly or not, when I see one of his films, the bar is set pretty high. I expect more from him. Did W deliver?
In my opinion, it barely did, and would not be one of Stone's best, but that is, again, largely because of the timing of the movie, we do not have the prism of decades of history to look at the film through, which keeps it from being the epic it was intended to be. On the other hand, the film is so well acted, who knows what we'll think of it in 5 years, 10 years?
That's just what I think. I know I say this a lot, but this time I can't emphasize enough: I'd love to know what you thought.
