The film Text copyright (c) Filmverdict 2006-present. Any film titles and artwork used are copyright of their respective owners.
At a stretch, W. can be called the third in Oliver Stone's "Presidents" trilogy, after JFK and Nixon, to sit alongside his vaunted Vietnam trilogy. But while both Nixon and W. are biopics, JFK is not, so perhaps a more appropriate grouping is Nixon, Alexander and W. - a trio of films looking at major world leaders with fundamental human flaws. W., which was shot at incredible pace in order to be completed before Tuesday's US election, deals mainly with the buildup to and fallout from the decision to go to war in Iraq, while flashing back periodically to the earlier life of George W. Bush, a structure that Stone experimented with to questionable success in the heavily slated Alexander. Here the back-and-forth structure works, but the sections dealing with his alcohol-fuelled younger years are in some ways the less interesting ones. They are, however, crucial to what Stone attempts to do here. This is not, by any means, a character assassination; instead, it humanises Bush to a degree that it even evokes sympathy for him.
And that, indeed, is one of the main faults with the film. It's too timid. After being the filmmaker known most for revelling in controversy of his own making, Stone now seems to want to shy away from it. To his credit, though, he succeeds at his stated aim, which was simply to show a man out of his depth. Stone's Bush clearly believes what he is doing is right, yet is just not really competent enough to be in charge of the most important country in the world. But deserving of as much, if not more, credit for making the screen Bush ring true is the man playing him, Josh Brolin. It's a spectacular performance and a complete triumph for the actor, who absolutely deserves to be the frontrunner for the Academy Award. If the statuette doesn't find its way into his hands, it will probably be down to the film's mixed reception, because his performance is one of the best in years. He completely convinces as Bush, to the extent that you forget you're not watching the real person. He becomes Bush.
Some of the supporting cast also impress, particularly the underused Elizabeth Banks as Laura Bush, who is shown to be a much-needed voice of common sense in W.'s life. Richard Dreyfuss's Dick Cheney is styled as the villain of the piece but successfully so, while conversely Colin Powell (Jeffrey Wright, the current Felix Leiter in the James Bond series) comes across as a saint. Standing out slightly, for the wrong reasons, is Thandie Newton as Condoleezza Rice, who pulls off the voice and the look pretty well but seems stiff and uncomfortable in the role.
Unlike JFK, Nixon, or to a much greater degree, Alexander, Stone doesn't have the luxury of years of hindsight, and it is only after some time has elapsed that both George W. Bush's presidency and the film itself will be able to be properly judged. At times, W. feels overly familiar, like a highlight reel from CNN, but also Stone sidesteps some very major events, 9/11 most importantly of all. It's a very odd omission for a drama dealing with the career of the departing president, as surely it's the defining moment in his whole life. Perhaps, having recently made World Trade Center, Stone just didn't want to return to that devastating day.
The summary
An interesting film that deserves to be seen for Josh Brolin's magnificent performance alone, W. nevertheless lacks real bite or insight.
Agree? Disagree? Say so in the Guestbook!