With all of that baggage, I went to see W. and hoped for the best. With Oliver Stone I do not think anyone can be positive of what to expect. Will it be the conspiracy theorist of JFK? Perhaps the historical epic of Alexander (how many cuts of that are there now?)? Perhaps the sentimentalist of World Trade Center? Maybe even the absurdist commentator of Natural Born Killers? I mean, seriously, considering the subject and Hollywood's general distaste for the current political climate, I seriously expected some sort of hatchet job, or at least more comedy. Based on the trailers, I definitely expected it to be funnier than it turned out to be, and that is not necessarily a bad thing.
Anyway, this nearly sold out screening was filled with people whose goal seemed to be to see the sitting President get skewered by a controversial filmmaker. I could tell by the reactions to the funny moments, where it was easy to laugh at him. I could also tell by the oddly hushed response when the credits began to roll.
The film itself? It felt oddly fair and balanced, like FOX News (only not). To be sure, I am positive that this is the not nearly the whole truth. I believe their is a healthy dose of reality, but like any biopic the broad strokes have been emphasized over the small details and some events enhanced for dramatic (or comedic)
W. is an interesting work from an interesting director. Whether you like him or not, his movies always elicit a response. As for the man himself, it would seem safe to assume that Oliver Stone did not intend to make a fair and balanced film. I find it much more believable to think that he entered into this with intentions of bringing George W. Bush down, or at the very least offer this as a final parting gift during the final months of his tenure. What happened is that as he and screenwriter Stanley Weiser did their due diligence in researching their subject, they found something underneath, something that, dare I say, they respected? Whatever the case, the final product is as interesting as it is uninvolving.
The movie follows George W. from his college days pledging his father's fraternity, to his days jumping from job to job before becoming owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team, to his decision to run for public office, and ultimately the presidency. Interspersed throughout are clips of a more recent time, discussing the invasion of Iraq following Afghanistan.
So what makes W. interesting yet strangely hollow? This is the million dollar question and I cannot put my finger on it. The film was definitely interesting and most of the performances were fine, but there were stretches of the film that dragged, taxing my attention. In the end, it was good at not being what I expected and giving a different image of an unpopular figure, while also dragging it out to the point that I nearly stopped caring.
Josh Brolin does a fantastic job of channeling George W. Bush. He has the expressions, the voice, the mannerisms, he does it all well. Brolin is surrounded with a cast filled with good performances. Toby Jones as Karl Rove was very good, as was Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney. I also like Elizabeth Banks as Laura Bush. Now I could go on down the cast list but I won't, just let it be known that all were fine. Although, there was one performance that was very comical and nearly took me out, that is Thandie Newton as Condoleezza Rice. Man, does she really talk like that? I know her speech patterns are a little off, but this is ridiculous. I found it humorous and distracting.
Bottomline. In the end this is a movie that is worth seeing, although it may not live up to your expectations. Not as great or as funny as expected, but you cannot say that Oliver Stone doesn't deliver.
Mildly Recommended.
0 comments:
Post a Comment