W. (Movie Review)

Movie Review
W.
Dir. Oliver Stone
Starring: Josh Brolin, James Cromwell, Elizabeth Banks, Richard Dreyfuss
Runtime: 2:09

This is a hard movie to review because the strength of the movie relies on the importance of the main character in the non-fictional world. Oliver Stone in his boldness decided to make a film about former U.S. President George W. Bush, simply titled W. The film takes an interesting look at one of the most controversial western leaders in history. However, if the film was about someone that did not reflect the lives of most of the world, it doesn’t hold up as much. It’s a good film because of a character that influenced the film. The film isn’t good on it’s own merits.

Josh Brolin plays President Bush as the story moves back and forth between his younger years and the controversies that surrounded the presidency for the last couple of years; most notably the war in Iraq and the failure to find any weapons of mass destruction. James Cromwell plays Bush’s father, the other Bush president, George H.W. Bush. The main conflict in the story is not the failures in Iraq but the tension between father and son as for the most part, Bush Sr. thinks that Bush Jr. is a screw-up while Bush Jr. just wants to be appreciated by his family.

The performances are lacking, which is surprising for an Oliver Stone film. They sometimes seem comical which doesn’t fit the tone of the movie. The opening seen makes it seems as if some of the characters came straight from a wax museum and set to life. Instead of trying capture the essence of the characters that the actors are supposed to be playing, most of them seem to be doing really bad impersonations of the people they’re portraying. Brolin and Cromwell do an ok job but at times seem to be treating the film as a long Saturday Night Live sketch. The only real solid performances to speak of is the usually underappreiciated Elizabeth Banks as Laura Bush and Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney. Both Banks and Dreyfuss do not try to emulate the people they are supposed to be but rather seem to take their roles seriously; they are not pretending to be the person they are supposed to be copying in real-life but acting the role as if it were written on a script. They don’t let their own personal biases affect their performance and it shows. Toby Jones as Karl Rove and Thandie Newton as Condoleezza Rice are doing the exact opposite of Banks and Dreyfuss. They’re playing up their characters to the point they become caricatures. It becomes distracting at times and pull the movie into multiple directions.

Speaking of multiple directions, the story is all over the place. Why Stone and writer Stanley Weiser decided to dedicate a majority of the film to the relationship between George W. Bush an his father seems to be a mystery. They totally ignore many parts of the Bush presidency like the controversy surrounding his election win in 2000 and sort of fly over the events of the World Trade Centre attacks in 2001. They film’s sole two focuses are about the conflict between father and son and the war in Iraq. Everything else is an afterthought and may disappoint those who are looking for a more narrative tale about the entire story. Even though the story doesn’t stay in the time period (it goes back and forth between Bush before and after he is elected president), it still feels as there are holes in the story.

W. is an interesting movie to watch because it’s about an interesting character in our history. If the true-life characters were replaced with fictional characters that people have never heard of, the film would not be all that compelling. As stated earlier, it’s hard to review a film like this because the non-fictional character the film is based on defines the movie. It does not add anything to the lore and history of George W. Bush. A movie should be evaluated on it’s core content and it’s merits as a film and not on the emotional response it brings on the real-life person it is reimagining. In essence, W. seems poorly written, horribly acted, and uninteresting. In fact, if you hate Bush, you may be angered at the fact that the film paints him in a sympathetic light and mostly scrutinizes those around him. The only thing that saves the movie is the person the with in the film. Watch if you’re fascinated about George W. Bush (for better or for worse). Don’t watch if you’re looking for an enjoyable film.

☆