Oliver Stone's, "W."

Status
Not open for further replies.
Evan S

Evan S

Veteran
Lets not make this political. Which is probably impossible for some of you.
I don't even really want to talk about the movie a lot. But, to mention somewhere publicly that Josh Brolin is an amazing friggin' actor, and he was dead on.

Oliver Stone's best movie in a while + the ending was amazingly played out.

-Evan ;)
 
It was okay. I thought it dragged a bit. I was surprised how sympathetic the film was. The acting was pretty good, especially on Brolin's part, although my favorite performance has to be Jeffrey Wright as Colin Powell.
 
I thought this was a fascinating, well made film. Brolin went beyond mimicry and truly seemed to inhabit Bush. All the actors were spot on, especially Dreyfus and Wright. Of course it's easy to politicize this movie but the story, just as human drama, was surprisingly affecting and actually made me care about the lead character. I actually got emotionally involved in Bushie's struggle. Maybe because I too grew up with a stern father who was never much for shows of affection, and only paid attention to my screw-ups. And since there has been much discussion about Christian filmmaking around here, I think this film actually qualifies as one believe it or not. Bush's Christian conversion is played with a lot of pathos and sincerity, one of the defining moments of his life. I'll try at the end here not too veer into the political, but I think Stone's W. proves that in this reductive age of mass media and soundbites, its very easy to demonize people, but this film shows that they are just that, people, with mostly good intentions. If anything, I think Stone did a disservice to his film by releasing it now, at the height of election time, as many will dismiss it out of hand. I think if you step back and just look at it as a drama, it's a pretty good film. Not perfect, it does drag a bit 3/4 of the way through, but it's a solid piece.
 
Last edited:
This was my #1 most anticipated movie of the year, and I was pretty disappointed. Wasnt bad, but I didn't really get into it either. I felt it lacked story, I didn't think there was a great arc to it. And on just a tabloid level there wasn't much insight either.

The movie is surprisingly sympathetic, but it still obviously leans toward pity rather than admiration. The movie does make Bush out to be someone who struggles to get a complete sentence out. While I certainly won't argue the point, it didn't make for an interesting movie to me.

I was watching something last night where polls were being discussed about what are important issues for the next president to tackle, and "improve our standing with other countries" ranked surprisingly high. They listed our approval ratings from other countries, low, but mentioned that those polls were beginning to score more positively purely as a result of Bush preparing to leave office...

Now, just on a human level, I thought "Now THAT'S tragic". A character preparing for decades, becoming the most powerful man in the world, sticking his neck out there for something he truly believes in, trying to save the country and someday reach world peace!... and he leave office the least popular president in history, a joke... That sounds like a much more interesting story than the one I saw Friday night.

I know a popular criticism of Stone is his re-imagining of history and habit of "filling in the gaps", but I think that would have been the way to go, IMHO. In this movie his stuck to close to the book and it made for a rather uninteresting flick. I would have rather seen either the evil, election stealing, empire building Bush, or the strong-willed, fore sighted, warrior of God Bush, who did the right, necessary thing, and who's country hated him for it. Neither of those would be accurate, but either would be more interesting that the mouthfull-of-food talkin' Texan we got in the movie.

Just my opinion of course. :)
 
Cheesesailor77 said:
I would have rather seen either the evil, election stealing, empire building Bush, or the strong-willed, fore sighted, warrior of God Bush, who did the right, necessary thing, and who's country hated him for it. Neither of those would be accurate, but either would be more interesting that the mouthfull-of-food talkin' Texan we got in the movie.

Just my opinion of course. :)
Click to expand...

I obviously disagree. I'm glad Stone took a more honest approach, and I did find it involving. In a strange way, I found I had some things in common with the guy, and I did not expect that at all.
 
I think it was pretty fair-handed. Not the best movie ever, but the performances IMO truly make the movie, they never seem to mimic (except condi). I also agree, a movie that could have come out in a couple of more years and may have been better received. It's not the film I would make. Mine would be much more dark. There was a lot of comedy which seemed forced. It towed the line between comedy and drama. Bush is an interesting person, and in respect to the movie - the baseball anecdotes come out pretty well done. It's hard to think of a politician with something going on in their head that isn't egoism. (which it starts out as, and finishes with the ball disappearing between the headlights and darkness.)

Great imagery. I probably wouldn't have thought of that.

The two other notable scenes worth mentioning, when Cheney is spelling out the choke-hold in the middle east. He talks about going to war with Iran to control the oil. That scene had great tension.

The other being when bush is screaming in another board-room type situation, " whose in charge here! "

(you are!)
 
Batutta said:
I obviously disagree. I'm glad Stone took a more honest approach, and I did find it involving. In a strange way, I found I had some things in common with the guy, and I did not expect that at all.
Click to expand...

obviously this movie was made for you and not me. Which is absolutely fine, but a little disappointing since I've been looking forward to it for so long.
 
Cheesesailor77 said:
obviously this movie was made for you and not me. Which is absolutely fine, but a little disappointing since I've been looking forward to it for so long.
Click to expand...

I guess after seeing Nixon I knew what to expect from Stone. He's not as far left as some people seem to think.
 
I listened to an interview with Stone and Brolin (who plays GWB) on NPR and they're quite technical about the movie. Brolin studied Bush extensively and gives a great performance from what I've heard!
 
It hasn't gone to theatres over here (Asia), but I have to say one thing that really disappoints me with "W" is not the movie, per se, but the "timing". It comes out now obvioulsy to take advantage of the elections climate, and this only asks for trouble. The movie would have been much more enjoyable after the elections. Independently of how the movie portraits its main character- the current preisdent Bush- its stance is a way to influence voting. I do not know if it works, or not, but it does have its impact.

I'll definitely see it when it comes out: however, IMO, history can only be judged with a fair amount of distance (timewise) from the moment "it" happens.
 
it's hard to believe, but I honestly don't think it's release had anything to do with trying to influence the election. I think they hoped the election would influence ticket sales, not the other way around.

While the film obviously leans left, it's not a political flick, and I can't imagine it would be capable of changing ONE voters mind of who to support, and I think both Stone and the studio know that. From a business perspective it makes perfect sense to me to release the movie while presidential buzz is at an all time high rather then when it all dies down and everyone's more concerned with the new leader rather than our current one.
 
Batutta said:
I guess after seeing Nixon I knew what to expect from Stone. He's not as far left as some people seem to think.
Click to expand...
If that were the case, why weren't ANY of the principle parties contacted?
Obviously, a President (as the most powerful man in the world) can't lend himself to any sort of bio.
But how about Ari Fleischer? He said that he was not contacted once.
No one depicted in W was in fact. Doesn't sound very even-handed to me.
No, instead what Stone has made a tradition of doing (for several biopics now) is to take bits
from various (un-authorized) biographies, piece them together, then call it "public domain".
That way he never has to pay for any rights.
Hey, that's his MO. If he can get away with it, good ($$) for him...
But doing so to a sitting President weeks before a major election is shameful.
I don't give a damn what political party that President happens to belong to, it's shameful.
 
I'm curious about this movie... but I don't find the concept of the content fascinating. I almost find it hard to believe that somebody wanted to make a movie "portrait" of our current president (only because it's practically become a genre unto itself, and I'm getting bored with it)... I'm sure somebody could make a good movie about any of them... clinton, reagan, etc... but just for my personal taste I kind of don't get it... when I see the trailers I just gently raise an eyebrow and purse my lips a bit... like the Church Lady. Not good or bad... just... don't... get it.

I'm hoping to hear from a hardcore republican that I know... and have him say "yeah I have to admit, it was a pretty good movie"... OR I hope to hear from a hardcore democrat that I know and have them say "it's too bad it sucked"... because in either case, I'd be refreshingly surprised.

If anybody fits one of those two criteria and prefers to not ruin this thread... please PM me with a comment. I'd love to hear that this film was great, but I don't pay much attention to anybody's political stance... even in the threads that get that way I never remember who said what... and I don't hold grudges... but if you're secretly super-republican, and you thought this was a good movie... please PM me... I'd love to hear that... but to start it in this thread would start this thread in the wrong direction.

Still... the point is that I'll be surprised if reviews aren't divided by political affiliation.
 
Last edited:
MattinSTL said:
I'm curious about this movie... but I don't find the concept of the content fascinating. I almost find it hard to believe that somebody wanted to make a movie "portrait" of our current president (only because it's practically become a genre unto itself, and I'm getting bored with it)... I'm sure somebody could make a good movie about any of them... clinton, reagan, etc... but just for my personal taste I kind of don't get it... when I see the trailers I just gently raise an eyebrow and purse my lips a bit... like the Church Lady. Not good or bad... just... don't... get it.

I'm hoping to hear from a hardcore republican that I know... and have him say "yeah I have to admit, it was a pretty good movie"... OR I hope to hear from a hardcore democrat that I know and have them say "it's too bad it sucked"... because in either case, I'd be refreshingly surprised.

If anybody fits one of those two criteria and prefers to not ruin this thread... please PM me with a comment. I'd love to hear that this film was great, but I don't pay much attention to anybody's political stance... even in the threads that get that way I never remember who said what... and I don't hold grudges... but if you're secretly super-republican, and you thought this was a good movie... please PM me... I'd love to hear that... but to start it in this thread would start this thread in the wrong direction.

Still... the point is that I'll be surprised if reviews aren't divided by political affiliation.
Click to expand...

I think people on the far ends of either political party are going to be disappointed with this film, because it doesn't eviscerate him, or submit him for sainthoood. It's somewhere in the middle, a moderate view, which is where most normal humans actually live.
 
I won't bother to see it but one review I saw said Will Farrel would have played the part better of "W"

Sunday, October 19, 2008


A Quick Review of 'W' [Kevin D. Williamson]
A few quick thoughts on Oliver Stone's new W:

I went into the theater prepared to like this film, hoping for some of the same cracked genius that made Nixon such a great piece of work. Unfortunately, W. is dreadful: badly written, poorly acted, boring, with a sense of drama that's as lost as last year's Easter eggs.

No Country for Old Men is one of my favorite American movies of the past several years, and Josh Brolin was first-rate in it. Oliver Stone would have been better off casting Will Ferrell, though, since Brolin's performance as the president feels like an impersonation of an impersonation. Truly awful. For comparison, Anthony Hopkins didn't look or, really, sound much like Richard Nixon, but his performance didn't have the quality of a Rich Little impersonation, either — his character transcended the limitations of playing a man whose career is part of fresh, living memory. Brolin fails to achieve that. One fully expects Tina Fey to pop out of a closet or the actor playing Rumsfeld to shout, "Live from New York, it's Saturday Night!"

Much of the George W. Bush story is tied up in language, in his use of words, the timber of his voice, his accent, and his oddball malapropisms. But nobody in this movie sounds right. I've rarely heard a convincing West Texas accent in a movie (not that you get the chance very often to judge) but the actors in W mostly fall into the trap of going Deep South, sounding like they're from Georgia or Kentucky. Elizabeth Banks couldn't sound less like Laura Bush; she sounds like Jessica Simpson as Daisy Duke. And if the real George H.W. Bush had one tenth the fierce charisma of James Cromwell, he'd not only have been re-elected, he'd still be president. Everybody else is in a farce; James Cromwell is in Julius Caesar. Toby Jones cannot be taken seriously as Karl Rove (where's Phillip Seymour Hoffman when you need him?).

The local color is pretty pale, too. Little things jump out: Rep. George Mahon's name gets mispronounced /mah-HONE/ as though he were some Irish-American mob boss missing the last syllable of his surname, instead of /MAY-hon/. Kent Hance, the Democrat (later a Republican) who gave George W. Bush his only electoral loss, is portrayed as a Jeebus-invoking fundamentalist hick; the real Kent Hance is a slick business lawyer and university chancellor. There are way more cowboy hats in evidence in this movie, about 50 times more, than one would see in the real 19th Congressional Distriction of Texas — or in a western-wear store, for that matter. Stone touches on the fact that W. sees himself as more of a Reagan than as his father's political son, but he never even mentions the issue that probably cost W. his congressional election, that of taking a principled Reaganite stance critical of farm subsidies. In the movie, W. complains that he got out-Christianed and out-Texaned, and there's something to that, but he also got out-farmered. It could be ignornance or politics, but that fact remains invisible. (And it's still an unfortunate fact of life; the present representative of the 19th, Randy Naugebauer, is a 99-percent conservative who is slightly to the left of Karl Marx on farm subsidies.)

Missing the psychedelic charge of Nixon, W. feels like a not-especially-convincing docudrama interrupted by overextended Saturday Night Live skits. (Is "overextended" redundant in that usage? Probably) The characters aren't real enough to carry the historical weight of the story or unreal enough to be pure entertainment.

Never mind for now the tententious politics of the movie, and we can certainly set aside the question of historical accuracy, this being an Oliver Stone production. The biggest mistake the film makes is the mistake that Bush's critics have always made: It condescends to its subject. Whatever else he is, Bush is not some frat-boy simpleton who just Forrest Gumped his way into the White House. There's more to Condoleezza Rice than nasal scorn. Dick Cheney is a lot of things, but he's not the Dr. Strangelove that Richard Dreyfuss gives us here. It's tempting to condescend, because to the condescender it feels as though he elevates himself, even though he doesn't, and it's a handy substitute for argument when he doesn't have one. Scorning high-and-mighty officeholders is a great republican virtue, of course, but the project to reduce Bush and his colleagues to a coterie of imbeciles — a "league of morons" to quote another disappointing film — is an intellectually dishonest exercise. And it shows in this film, which leaves one with the impression that Stone believes that there is something deeply wrong with the Bush administration but isn't quite able to understand it. Understanding it would mean taking account of the complexities that have shaped American politics in the past decade, which would also mean letting go of some of liberals' cherished myths, especially the myth of Bush as oedipally driven naif surrounded by oil-mad Svengalis.
 
Zim said:
Oliver Stone would have been better off casting Will Ferrell, though, since Brolin's performance as the president feels like an impersonation of an impersonation. Truly awful.
Click to expand...

Anyone who thinks Brolin gave a bad performance in this doesn't know anything about acting and loses credibility for me. He is the best thing about the movie...The only actor who I wasn't crazy about was Thandie Newton. Her performance was just bizarre. I think it's a case of a Brit trying to play an American and going overboard into caricature.
 
Brolin is 95% of the reason I wanted to see this in the first place... aside from that I don't find Bush all that interesting, good or bad. It'm feeling *yawn*... "whatever."

So if Brolin is good in it... I could get into it... if he's bad in it... then I most certainly couldn't.

I will say however... since Ferrell was brought up... that's probably a better judge of whether or not I'd agree with an opinion on this. If you think Ferrell does a good Bush, or that Ferrell is funny in pretty much anything... we probably won't agree on too much about movies :-)
 
After watching Frontline's incredible Bush's War, I feel like the bar has been raised. (By the way, it is available free to watch at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/.

There will be many more films about George W. Bush in the future, doc and non-doc; I might watch this at some point if it's on tv or something, but if I am going to be compelled to see something about Bush I want to know that it's not going to be so broad and politically constructed.

Now that someone cut and pasted a dogmatic review of a film where a conservative reviewer presents a case that the film is too liberally dogmatic I feel like this thread is complete, lol.
Oliver Stone and Kevin Williamson deserve eachother. In the meantime, I will wait for
a George W. Bush film that has a little more detachment from its subject.
 
Jim Klatt said:
After watching Frontline's incredible Bush's War, I feel like the bar has been raised. (By the way, it is available free to watch at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/.
Click to expand...

"Bush's War" is absolutely amazing! I watched when it first came online and have it on dvd now. And I actually feel it's part of the reason I was disappointed with W.

Anyone not sated with W. should definitely check out "Bush's War" (and at 4 hours you better clear a whole evening)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top