Rating: 3/10
The Oliver Stone-directed film spans the life of George W. Bush (Josh Brolin) from his years in the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity at Yale to his presidency. The movie, while seemingly devoid of a plot, attempts to get inside Dubya’s head. It takes the events of his youth and adolescence and uses them to try and explain his actions today.
Since everyone knows the ending of this story, the movie is about how this man became the 43rd president. It is never clarified, however, whether the film is telling the viewer to crucify him or pity him. What is clear, however, is Oliver Stone really hates Dubya and attempts to portray him in the worst, and most exaggerated, light possible. He’s portrayed as a doofus partying harder than he should (even though he ended up graduating from an ivy league school, so obviously he couldn’t have been a doofus or an exceptionally heavy partyer.) As he gets older, Bush Sr. (James Cromwell) appears as the clear antagonist, jabbing little Bushie (who you can mentally envision as someone viewed as barely competent enough to wear a beanie) Junior every chance he gets.
“Who do you think you are? A Kennedy? You’re a Bush. Act like one!” he says, outlining young Bush’s journey through the entire movie to become the beloved son.
In a more confusing scene, Bush is determined to “get his miles in” after a heavy night of drinking. On his run, the picture blurs and swirls with white light. Bush collapses, and the next scene depicts him attending a Bible study group.
Whether this was the point at which Bush found God, or if Mr. Stone is saying all church goers are drunken louses, or what the purpose was is very unclear. In many scenes like this, Stone’s reasoning fails to come through. The filmmaking is convoluted, and the viewer isn’t sure whether to laugh at the satire or be solemn for the dramatic effect. The only thing clear is that Mr. Stone did not do any fact checking in his slander piece.
The casting for the movie was superb (hence why it has 3 out of 10. Josh Brolin’s performance as the president was good. One can easily see the exaggerated actions of the president in Brolin’s performance. Richard Dreyfuss, on the other hand, was not so good. He is reminiscent of Dick Cheney in physical appearance, but his acting just was not up to his own performance history (Mr. Holland’s Opus and Kippendorf’s Tribe where he demonstrated far superior acting skills).
In the end, the viewer is left leaving the theater in a bewildered state, left stranded to find any meaning at all from this movie.
One has to wonder, with a movie THIS BAD, why Oliver Stone did not push harder to get it released before An American Carol which was a hilarious movie with a very poignant and salient point that everyone in the audience can understand and a moral that everyone could easily identify and incorporate. Honestly, I think my opinion of this movie may have been one or two points higher if I had seen it before An American Carol, but when comparing the two (and both are exaggerations of prominent people, W. portrays Bush Jr. and An American Carol lampoons Mr. Moore) I have to say without any hesitation that if you could only see one of these, then you should go see An American Carol.
I should emphasis, this is a discussion about the MOVIE not the man and not the politics of the man. Just a critique on how well or poor you think Oliver Stone and the Cast did in the performance of the MOVIE.
You mention “Kippendorf’s Tribe” for Richard Dreyfuss? :?
What about Jaws, Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind?!? And what about What about Bob??? We need to get you on some decent movies, stat.
Anyway, about W. Cinematically, it looks well produced (which is typical of Stone), but I just don’t care to see it. It’s not appealing to me, and it just seems like a dumb subject for a movie, especially while the main role is still active in politics.
An American Carol, while should be more appealing to me as a comedy, looks just as dumb, if not more for the sad fact that it would be much more relevant 4-5 years ago. I already have Team America making fun of Moore satisfactorily, I don’t need another 2 hours of a simulated Moore getting slapped around in every scene (that was ALL the trailer I saw showed).
Yea, I saw jaws, Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind and What About Bob. Just the two with Richard Dreyfus that came to mind were Kippendorf’s Tribe and Mr. Holland’s Opus.
Team America kinda sucked, IMHO. An American Carol is MUCH better. Then again, I happen to enjoy Kelsey Grammer as an actor. It was doubly splended when I found out that Lesslie Neilson only plays a bit part here and there and won’t be in the entire movie screwing up otherwise good jokes.
I also agree that releasing a movie to lampoon a man who is still a major figure in politics is in poor taste. I don’t think I would have approved of a movie lampooning Clinton in the 90’s or Reagan in the 80’s for the same reason. Afterwards is okay. I love Guarding Tess (Nicholas Cage) and that’s basically a movie about Nancy Reagan and not putting her in the best of possible lights either (not a comedy though.) It was, however, released well after she was no longer an active member of the political arena.
Dunno. I really have not found anyone who wants to defend “W” as a rivetting film yet. Couple of “guys” (aka football jocks more interested in having sex than anything else, IMO) thought it was “okay” but I don’t want to consider that rivetting or even an endorsement of any real caliber. (I wouldn’t be surprised if they thought The Devil Wears Prada was okay if they thought they could get sex afterwards.)
I saw the movie on the first day. I thought it was amusing and not too much of a Bush bashing, while it was kinda over the top in parts. Its not a documentary, but an interpretation of a persona and if you view it like a SNL skit it wont effect anybody except in the manner it was intended… as a comedy.
I didn’t like the way they portrayed Bush 41. The actor was not believable in that role.
I have never had a taste for Oliver Stone movies.
me too. like 95% of them are the same idea transposed no matter how unlikely it fits to reality. Its like that Moore fellow…same thing but i little less as ridiculous, but still far out.
@Cmdr:
Team America kinda sucked, IMHO.
First of all Team America did not suck.
Second, you should take the H out of IMHO cuz there is never anything humble about your opinions.
Finally, ''W", though I have not seen it yet, is just a movie. And Bush himself is becoming a back drop aka old news… thank Judas.
@Imperious:
…if you view it like a SNL skit…
That may be my problem, I think that SNL really, REALLY sucks compared to how they were in the 1980s, maybe the early 1990s as well.
@stuka:
@Cmdr:
Team America kinda sucked, IMHO.
First of all Team America did not suck.
In my, most humble and amiable opinion, it did. That sex scene was WAY too long. Some of it was funny, but it is not something I would classify as a work of art or something I would tell anyone had any intrinsic value. But as I said, that’s my, most humble, opinion on the matter. You are free to enjoy it all you want. :lol:
@stuka:
Second, you should take the H out of IMHO cuz there is never anything humble about your opinions.
As always, I am but your humble and obedient servant. However, I do believe that all of my opinions are humble and contrite and only given in the best interests of all mankind. If I were to keep my, humble, opinion to myself, how could I help the wee little children? Oh won’t anyone PLEASE think about the children!!! They need my voice added to the cacophony of ideas they are subjected too in this tumultuous world!
@stuka:
Finally, ''W", though I have not seen it yet, is just a movie. And Bush himself is becoming a back drop aka old news… thank Judas.
I would like to, please, ask you to refrain from discussing President George W. Bush. We are ONLY referring to the quality of the cinematic experience that is the movie “W” by Mr. Oliver Stone - may his ancestors rest in peace.
@ABWorsham:
I have never had a taste for Oliver Stone movies.
@Imperious:
me too. like 95% of them are the same idea transposed no matter how unlikely it fits to reality. Its like that Moore fellow…same thing but i little less as ridiculous, but still far out.
You know, I never really paid much attention to who the director/producer was to a movie until Clint Eastwood started making movies left and right.
That said, I felt this particular movie (the writing, the producing, the camera shots and some of the acting) was so particularly bad, and the advertising for the movie so religiously harped on who directed and produced it, that I had to attribute this disaster of a film to Mr. Oliver Stone.
