W.

[mlsterben]

Just got back from this and I have some mixed feelings about it. First of all, I want to say that this movie was not nearly as critical on W as I expected. Not to W the person, anyway. As a human being, I thought the film was very sympathetic to our current president. Sure, he jumbled words and had a wild youth, but deep down he (at least in the movie) is still a nice guy who is trying his hardest to get out of his father's shadow. That's to say nothing of W as a president, of course, but I'll try to avoid political conversations.

Overall I liked the movie, but its biggest flaw is its lack of direction. There was hardly any story I noticed, with no real villains or heroes. It was just a series of entertaining events that ended with Bush learning there were never any WMDs in Iraq. (I could hardly call this a spoiler since it's all recent history)

The thing I took from this is that Bush is a lovable oaf who was given too much power. He had his problems in his younger days, but he turned his life around and took a position that many people would rather he did not.

[knives]

Personally I like disjointed stories like the one you're describing, All Quiet...The movie sounds more like something I'd enjoy the more I hear about it. Oh, before I forget there is an old thread about this

[LincM]

Overall I liked the movie, but its biggest flaw is its lack of direction. There was hardly any story I noticed, with no real villains or heroes.

That was actually something I liked about Forgetting Sarah Marshall. There was no character in that film who was entirely a good person, nor anybody who was essentially evil. Just people who made decisions and some were selfish, others were to help others. Sarah was probably the least likeable person, but you could see where she was coming from when she took it hard seeing Peter with Rachel, and also how she apparently was very earnest with trying to make their relationship work.

Did anybody else notice that all of the main characters in that have Hebrew names except for Aldous?

He had his problems in his younger days, but he turned his life around and took a position that many people would rather he did not.

Others are simply annoyed at the position he had to take based on what he believed, and are unhappy with the outcome, while it has its merits, wasn't what was promised or expected initially. He's kind of had to wear the bad lieutenant outfit for that one, even though intelligence pointed to it (even if that intelligence was Powell saying "Ummm, George, they've got them... I'm sure of it. We oughtta do something about it."

[Tom Brazelton]

My biggest complaint about the movie is by the end of the second act, it pretty much becomes "George Dubya's Greatest Hits" and the movie re-enacts all this stuff that we've already seen.

The performances are good - except for Thandie Newton, who goes overboard with her caricature of Condoleeza Rice. But Brolin was spot-on.

[joerules]

I just got back from this and was not impressed with it. It felt misguided, as if it knew the story it was trying to tell just had trouble communicating it. It's too light, too breezy. It's not the satire the liberals want or the heroic portrait conservatives are hoping for. It's a cartoon. It's a catastrophe. It's depressing and makes me think it doesn't matter who we elect this year, we're screwed no matter what. Or our kids are.

The movie keeps an odd pace but I found myself reacting more to the second half which focused on Bush seniors presidency from W's perspective, and his own time in office. I thought at first the connection was based on familiarity, but I realize now that it was the long term effects of the war talk and the performances form W's entourage (a group of familiar faces I'd assumed early on wouldn't be able to get past their celebrity to reach the characters) that had me turning a warmer reaction to this film.

Each one is given a moment to shine. As they show the sweeter side of Bush, the film absolutely vilifies Cheney. Every story needs a cowboy in a black hat I suppose. Powell is the voice of reason silenced by the crowd and Wright does a good job muscling through the "why are we going to war" speech taylor made for a specific corner of the audience. I was the most skeptical of Thandie Newton but I thought she nailed it. Dryfus and Cromwell can get away with not doing impression but there's no way audiences would have bought Newton as Rice without the fake grill, droopy eyes and specific speech pattern which she rattles out quite well. It's a caricature like any other but in a limited role like this it deserves the authenticity it's given.

This may sound odd but I was impressed with Bank's portrayal of ELizabeth Bush. It's a none part. she has a dozen scene and most of the time she's just set dressing, but there was one moment, just after W had announced his bid for Governor of Texas, where the press is hounding him and he's earnestly answering their questions as fast as he can, and she's just looking at him with such pride... Her face for those 15 seconds left the biggest impression on me.

The Brolin buzz is accurate. He's quite good but in what kind of movie? How often does the performance outshine the part?

I like Stone and it saddens me to see him make a film like this. A subject that is ripe with controversy you'd think would be something he'd want to exploit but W. does nothing of the sort. I suppose you could argue that his unbiased biography is a testament of restraint and art... but it's not that good of a movie. It's not worth debating.

**********

It's interesting that politics is arguably the most popular topic of conversation across America right now, but a biography about the sitting President who has lead us into war and a crumbling economy, can't manage to make 11 million dollars in its opening weekend. How can a President this bad be so absent form the headlines? Give the people what they want right? A movie about Obama and Palin solving crimes in space would have beaten everyone. including the talking Chihuahuas

[mlsterben]

I should probably post the actual review I wrote for the movie, because my only complaint is that the plot seemed nonexistent.

[opie301]

I should probably post the actual review I wrote for the movie, because my only complaint is that the plot seemed nonexistent.

But is that really a valid complaint? By definition, a biography is not plot driven. While there should be some sense of a narrative holding the whole thing together, they're not telling you a story in the traditional sense. You might as well complain that Mr. Holland's Opus doesn't really have a plot.

[mlsterben]

The problem was that it felt more like a really short miniseries. The scenes jumped from Bush's youth to his days as president pretty frequently, and I couldn't draw any parallels, besides the fact that he is slow and kind of lazy. I think I would have preferred if they just went with a straight start-to-finish kind of thing.

[Tom Brazelton]

joe's review

These are excellent points. I can't wait to talk about this on The Triple Feature tonight.

[LincM]

The problem was that it felt more like a really short miniseries. The scenes jumped from Bush's youth to his days as president pretty frequently, and I couldn't draw any parallels, besides the fact that he is slow and kind of lazy. I think I would have preferred if they just went with a straight start-to-finish kind of thing.

Like, completely sequential? Don't the words "Oliver Stone" mean anything to you? The only time he's done that has been with Any Given Sunday and well... I'll leave it to Aphr0 to field that (pardon the pun).

[mlsterben]

Actually, I've never seen an Oliver Stone movie before.

[LincM]

Actually, I've never seen an Oliver Stone movie before.

Natural Born Killers? Born on the Fourth of July? Alexander? JFK? Nixon?

Huh?

[mlsterben]

No..... I have an increasingly large list of movies that I need to watch.

[The REAL Brian]

While I haven't seen W, from what I've heard and read it sounds as though Stone was just giving people the facts on Bush's life and allowing them to draw their own conclusions about the man. But as the old saying goes, "American audiences don't like to think."

[joerules]

It's not that simple. Yes he shows an unbiased portrait of the President, but it doesn't mean it's a good film. I don't dislike the film because it challenges me to think. I dislike it because it just wasn't very good.