Film Review: W

"W" ** 1\2 (out of ****)

Oliver Stone is the kind of filmmaker who doesn't shy away from controversy. Back in 2006 he also made a film about Sept. 11, which seemed to have gotten overlooked because of "United 93". But "World Trade Center" was causing some Conservatives to complain before they even saw the movie. Was Stone going to blame President Bush for the attacks? Was he going to re-write history as he tried in "JFK"? These same worries appeared again when hysterical Republicans heard about Oliver Stone's new film about our current president.

Stone claimed the film was not going to take sides. It would be an honest look at George W. Bush's early life at Yale and in Texas and the decisions he has made while in the White House.

Many felt only Liberals or Bush-bashers would go see this film. Stone was going to pander to this group which simply can't get enough bad talk about the president.

Whether or not I agree with Stone's portrayal of Bush and his interpretation of his presidency I feel doesn't matter. "W" feels like an unnecessary film. Shouldn't Stone have waited at least until President Bush leaves office so he could get all the facts? Allow some time to pass so his presidency could be properly accessed?

I'm usually not comfortable discussing politics with people who I don't know and\or people who I know in advance don't share my views. I just don't think it is anyone's business how I vote. But, for the sake of this review I will admit I don't like George Bush. I didn't vote for him in 2004 and I was too young to vote in 2000. If I could I would have voted for Al Gore. I think Bush is the worst president this country has had in the last century. So Stone would merely be preaching to the choir. But none of that matters. In the end "W" simply isn't a good movie.

What hurts "W" most is oddly enough the lead character. President Bush is not an interesting character in my opinion. Compare this film to Stone's "Nixon". Stone presents Nixon as a misunderstood man. Whatever your feelings on Nixon, after watching the film you feel a certain sympathy for the man. Nixon was a very nuisance person. He was a conflicted person. George Bush has no nuisance. At least not the George Bush seen in this movie. There is nothing interesting on-screen unless you simply want to hear how corrupt the Bush administration is.

Much of what happens in "W" should not come as a surprise to anyone who follows politics closely or reads the paper daily or watches the news. The events depicted here happened in our lifetime. We are still discussing the issues. We are getting ready for another election. The bottom line is there is little re-writing of history here. Stone doesn't take too many liberties with the facts of the Bush administration. If he does with Bush's early years, I honestly don't know.

Much of the performances are very good. Josh Brolin plays the president. The problem I have with Brolin is, I was never quite sure how to approach his acting. Is Brolin playing this for comedy or drama. And to a larger extent that is the overall problem Stone has with the film. What is the correct tone of the film. I laughed at some parts but were they intentional? Sometimes it feels like Brolin isn't trying to get inside Bush and really develop a character. Look at what Anthony Hopkins did with Nixon. Brolin doesn't take it that far.

Richard Dreyfuss is creepy as Vice-President Dick Cheney. He has one extremely powerful scene which does suggest alternative motives for going in war. Cheney is discussing how the U.S. must go into Iran for oil. He points out it is the only country in the middle-east where there is no U.S. influence. If the United States can start a war with Iran, the U.S. can create an empire and rule the world and its energy resources. Colin Powell (Jeffrey Wright) asks Cheney how long will we be there to which Cheney responds we won't leave. Dreyfuss delivers the lines so effectively its scary because this could have actually been said by Cheney.

James Cromwell plays George H. W. Bush, who the movie suggest never approved of his son, President Bush. And as a result George W. Bush would try his whole life to get his father's approval. That there could have caused an inner conflict within Bush but the way the film treats it is not realistic. Elizabeth Banks plays Laura Bush and Thandie Newton plays Condoleezza Rice.


For everything "W" tries to address it leaves out a lot. No mention of the 2000 election or Bush's re-election. No mention of the CIA leak or anything on Attorney General Gonzalez. In fact no one even plays him in the movie. And in a missed comedic opportunity no mention of Cheney's hunting accident.

Does this hurt the movie? Not really. Though I do think the 2000 election should have been mentioned. Still you can't expect any 2 hour movie to completely cover a man's life. The scriptwriter Stanley Weiser, who wrote Stone's "Wall Street" and a TV movie on Rudy Giuliani does a good job assembling all this information and making a coherent film out of it. But we come back to my original point. He doesn't do enough to make President Bush an interesting character. Nearly every other character is more interesting. They all have conflicts and acknowledge them. Bush doesn't.

Will Oliver Stone fans want to see this? I'm sure they will. But the film is nowhere near as good as "JFK", "Platoon", "Born on the 4th of July" or even "Any Given Sunday". "W" could have been a great film ultimately, like the last eight years, it becomes disappointing.