*** Official W. Review Thread (1 Viewer)

[mattCR]

Caught this over lunch. First, due to forum rules, a great deal of the content will not be discussed.

The film isn't bad. At the same time, despite the early buzz, it's not nearly as satirical or funny as it could be, or even as I think it believes itself to be.

The film suffers from the problem that the analysis is very thin, there isn't a lot offered here outside of quirky jabs that often fall flat. The acting comes across as somewhat uneven.. it's very reminiscent of "That's My Bush" (Comedy Central) or "Lil' Bush" rather then a work like say, "Nixon".

The film's punchy demeanor makes it difficult to really take as any assessment of anything. If the film is viewed by those with one political bent or another, it may play to or against their held views - but it does so in such a saccharine way that it's quickly dismissed as a punchy comedy rather then any real discussion of anything.

I'm very divided on what to make of it as a whole. I'd probably advise people to pass, wait for video - but I realize political leanings what they are, this should draw a fair size box office. But I wonder if many of those going, even those who have a viewpoint that may completely agree with Stone, may find their political pocketbooks taken advantage of as they sit through a tedious, fairly unfunny and not that well acted second act.

C-

 

[Robert Crawford]

This thread is now the Official Review Thread for "W.". Please post all HTF member reviews in this thread.

Any other comments, links to other reviews, or discussion items will be deleted from this thread without warning!

If you need to discuss those type of issues then I have designated an Official Discussion Thread.



Crawdaddy

 

[Robert Crawford]

One last reminder for everyone to adhere to our posting guidelines. We will not tolerate any type of political talk one way or another so please, think before you post such comments. Thank you.






Crawdaddy

 

[PatrickDA]

I also saw "W." this afternoon.

Good points...
- Josh Brolin's performance (esp. the White House years - Best Actor nom!)
- James Cromwell as George H.W. Bush
- Elizabeth Banks as Laura Bush
- Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney
- Jeffrey Wright as Colin Powell
- Ellen Burstyn as Barbara Bush
- W meeting Laura at Texas cookout (wonderful acting, editing, & writing!)
- 11 minute cabinet meeting laying out the groundwork for Iraq war (I really thought Dreyfuss as Cheney presented whole bottom line Neo-Con viewpoint far more clearly than President Bush did at the time of the actual events)
- Music selections (as usual for a Stone film...Budd Carr is a master)
- Bush and company getting lost while walking at his ranch
- Bush 43 and 41 battling during the first and second acts
- Bush and Cheney lunch in the first act. Bush is such a pig for eating and talking at the same time. Dreyfuss is great!
- Minor Cheney Vs. Powell sub-plot
- Costume design
- Cinematography (based on reviews I thought it would look like crap, but I was actually knocked out by a few scenes considering how rushed the production was and the small budget)
- Had the same tone as "The Queen," which worked for the most part (read below)

Not so good points...
- Third act just doesn't add up in its current form. Too short.
- Last press conference scene needed two or three more questions from the reporters to have a real impact. I didn't buy Bush running up to his private room, closing the doors, and...what? I didn't get what we were supposed to think at that moment!!! The guy hasn't shown any real self-doubt about his decisions and actions, but we're supposed to buy he is at that moment. I don't think so. The whole third act needed a good re-write in my opinion.
- Thandie Newton as Sec. Rice (pure SNL)
- Stacy Keach as Rev. Hudd - His performance was fine, but the character as written (and directed) didn't work for me.
- Scott Glenn as Donald Rumsfeld (bad casting)
- Sound design (rather flat throughout)
- You have to question whether including the 2000 election and 9/11 would've made for a better third act. On the other hand, it would've pushed the running time well past what Lionsgate wanted.
- Too much like "The Queen" without that film's excellent script

Overall, I'd give it a B+ and I plan on seeing it again real soon. I usually have to with Stone's films to get the full measure of the piece.

 

[Sam Favate]

I thought it was very good, and often very funny. Great performances from Brolin, Cromwell and Banks, among others.

 

[Jose Martinez]

I was quite surprised how lenient Oliver Stone was towards Bush. Josh Brolin portrayed him as a sympathetic character. The real villains came out to be Vice and Rummie and Stone seems to like Powell as he came out pretty much the lone dissident among Bush's inner circle. I too thought Thandie Newton's portrayal of Rice was way over the top and more of a SNL character. Even though I knew there would be half truths, overall, I think it was a pretty good film that was interesting and fascinating to watch. (and yes I'm a Republican, although a Colin Powell Republican

).

ps I think the best line in the film was Cheney's (to Powell)

Your biggest mistake was you could've been president.

 

[TravisR]

This movie is much better than the trailer and commercials led me to believe. It also generates a surprising amount of sympathy for George Bush. The performances from Josh Brolin, Richard Dreyfuss and Jeffrey Wright were all excellent. Of course, Oliver Stone nails it as always (even working with the smaller budget and quick schedule that Patrick cited).

 

[Robert Crawford]

A very good film that gave me no real surprises to the real people that were portrayed in the film. I thought Stone did an excellent job telling the story without going over the top. I thought the acting was tremendous including Newton because even though it was SNL-like, I thought I was watching real Rice in this film.






Crawdaddy

 

[Patrick Sun]

Oliver Stone's "W" attempts to give us a cautionary tale of putting into the Oval Office a man with meandering ambitions and political pedigree who appears to be ill-equip to handle the demands of his 2-term presidency when challenges of 9/11 give rise to an inadvertent agenda against terrorism that would box him into a narrow field of initiatives (domestic and foreign).

Josh Brolin carries the film with ease as W from college-aged f-up to our 43rd President of today. I didn't think Brolin had this performance in him, but it's a very solid performance where he is simply W on the big screen, with no trappings of being Josh Brolin.

The complexities of the Iraq situation are focused on the players involved in W's response to 9/11, mainly Rumsfeld, Cheney, Tenet, Rice, Rove and Powell. Stone constructs the tale to build up W's father's own struggles with Saddam in the early 1990's, which gives more impetus to focus on a response towards Iraq, rather than the more obvious route. Powell (Jeffrey Wright in a good performance) is the only one who comes out without much blame in W's response. Rove is very creepily played by Toby Jones because he comes across as the uncharismatic strategist riding W for all he's worth, as he does it while playing up to W's ego. Cheney (in a nice supporting performance by Richard Dreyfuss) is portrayed as the defender of oil prospects in the middle east which gives W the overlay and plan to kill 2 birds with one stone, but it would not work out that way. Rumsfeld (an ill-casted Scott Glenn) would end up alienating the inner cabinet with his own views of the situation. Rice (in a horrific performance by Thandie Newton) doesn't fare well at all as W's closer and facilitator.

Stone's take on W is of a man subconsciously (and consciously) wanting parental approval from a father whose life was filled with solid accomplishments and ideals, but W was never quite able to glean the proper tenor of such approval that was given to his brother Jeb. Whether that is somewhat the truth, it is Stone's underlying motivating force for W as he bounced from job to job in his post college years (many of which were set up by his father), and then falling into politics only after the brother deferred to help with the '88 campaign. We barely get a sniff of W's governor years, nor much of the 2000 campaign bruhaha. Stone is more concerned with how W handled the reins of the presidency, while glossing over the mile markers in the 1990s that would propel W to national prominence a scant 16 years after his father left office. It feels like Stone regards W's road to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to be accidental in nature, almost the perfect storm of political acsension, but with disasterous results of such of a rise to the highest office in the land.

It is true that Stone paints a very sympathetic portrait of W as a man without the necessary curiousity for the world, present and past, which would handicap his responses to crises in his 2 terms of the Presidency, leaving the US with the Iraq quagmire. All W wants to do is play a simple childhood game and get away from the demands of the world. He is done.

I give the film 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.

 

[Chris Atkins]

9/10

Enjoyable, satiric look at the Bush presidency. Shouldn't be taken seriously either as a portrait of W or as a critique of his policies, though.

 

[mona_r]

I thought Dreyfuss was amazing!!! and the convo. in the white house between him and Dubya over lunch was phenomenal, probably the best scene in the movie!!!