W.

[The Batman]

http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/images/2008/08/05/w.jpg

I saw this tonight. I don't know yet how I feel about it quite honestly. It was an odd, yet enjoyable filmgoing experience. The film is incomplete and open ended, and really, I think it needs to be in a way because W's story isn't quite yet over.

Rather than condemnation, Stone attempts to understand Bush without excusing and arrives at a place, I think, of sympathy without redemption. Stone's Bush is brash, uncomplicated, and sincere. A true believer that freedom is right and good and worth sharing with the world that becomes a complicit victim of the schemes of others more calculating and cynical than he. He is a man driven by a need to win the approval of his father after a lifetime of disappointment.

The Bushisms are there but the film avoids caricature. In no small part is this due to Josh Brolin who doesn't so much mimic Bush and morph in to him. In a great cast, he was the clear stand out.

But Stone doesn't let Bush off the hook. Just when you're getting comfortable with Bush as some harmless, well-meaning clown and laughing along with this comedy of errors he shows you, in the form of footage from the Iraq War, that this is real and that there are human consequences to this folly. It's a gut punch and it's one well delivered. And though it will go down in history as Bush's War, Stone reminds us that he didn't get there alone by showing us John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Joseph Liberman and a cast of extras applauding his announcement of the war. Stone says that yes, this is Bush's war but it's also our war too.

It's Oliver Stone so we've got to take all this with a grain of salt. He's after all a dramatist, not a historian. Things are missing, it's incomplete. We don't get much of the 2000 election and we don't go past 2003.

I think, to make this movie work, you might have to be willing to do what Stone did; to look at Bush as not a figure of scorn and ridicule and condemnation no matter how deserved, but as a human being. And for some, that might be too much to ask.

[rick]

I'm going to see it this afternoon.

I'm actually quite interested in seeing Stones take on the man.

[WyldCard4]

http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/images/2008/08/05/w.jpg

I saw this tonight. I don't know yet how I feel about it quite honestly. It was an odd, yet enjoyable filmgoing experience. The film is incomplete and open ended, and really, I think it needs to be in a way because W's story isn't quite yet over.

Rather than condemnation, Stone attempts to understand Bush without excusing and arrives at a place, I think, of sympathy without redemption. Stone's Bush is brash, uncomplicated, and sincere. A true believer that freedom is right and good and worth sharing with the world that becomes a complicit victim of the schemes of others more calculating and cynical than he. He is a man driven by a need to win the approval of his father after a lifetime of disappointment.

The Bushisms are there but the film avoids caricature. In no small part is this due to Josh Brolin who doesn't so much mimic Bush and morph in to him. In a great cast, he was the clear stand out.

But Stone doesn't let Bush off the hook. Just when you're getting comfortable with Bush as some harmless, well-meaning clown and laughing along with this comedy of errors he shows you, in the form of footage from the Iraq War, that this is real and that there are human consequences to this folly. It's a gut punch and it's one well delivered. And though it will go down in history as Bush's War, Stone reminds us that he didn't get there alone by showing us John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Joseph Liberman and a cast of extras applauding his announcement of the war. Stone says that yes, this is Bush's war but it's also our war too.

It's Oliver Stone so we've got to take all this with a grain of salt. He's after all a dramatist, not a historian. Things are missing, it's incomplete. We don't get much of the 2000 election and we don't go past 2003.

I think, to make this movie work, you might have to be willing to do what Stone did; to look at Bush as not a figure of scorn and ridicule and condemnation no matter how deserved, but as a human being. And for some, that might be too much to ask.You have summed up this movie perfectly.

Only Cheney was shown in a truly negative light, everyone else in the film was a good man or woman who did what they thought was right, it gave me more respect for the man to see his life presented like that both good and bad.

I'm going to see it this afternoon.

I'm actually quite interested in seeing Stones take on the man.

I strongly recomend this movie for anyone who sees Bush as a man who made mistakes for the right reasons.

The extreme ends of either party will likely dislike this movie, but it did show him in a fair light.

[VincentD]

I think I will have to skip this movie for a few years. Right now my mind just wouldn't be open minded enough.

Mass graves all over the world for as far back as one wants to go are full of corpses put there by the actions of men doing the wrong thing for what they believed were the "right reasons".

So yeah, right now, I'm one of those that this is just too much to ask of. :smile:

[Cyke]

Only Cheney was shown in a truly negative light, everyone else in the film was a good man or woman who did what they thought was right, it gave me more respect for the man to see his life presented like that both good and bad.



Good point, and I think that makes a good chunk of sense, if art is to imitate life. 20% of the population will still defend Bush; there are a good chunk of people who'll support Condolezza Rice. But I have absolutely no idea who's coming to Cheney's defense these days (or these years).

[ultramandingo]

........... i need to see it for the pretzel choking scene alone -

http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/1671/bushbruisebx9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

"My mother always said when you're eating pretzels, chew before you swallow."

[Treqqor]

Six friends and I saw this last night. I had been eagerly anticipating it since I first heard about it. Oliver Stone has never disappointed me. Well. Rarely.

I was scared at first that this was going to turn into parody and paint Bush in the most negative light possible. I was quite surprised at how even and fair it all played.

The film was highly enjoyable, and could not be recommended more. Brolin certainly will get an Oscar nomination. Maybe more. :cool:

[jesse_custer]

I thought Oliver Stone did a good job (http://theusualreview.blogspot.com/2008/10/w-oliver-stone-on-leash.html).

[Your Imaginary Pal]

Watched it last night. Not bad, as people have said it appears to be a pretty fair view on the President. It depicts him as well meaning but woefully unprepared, loyal and pitiable, well, likeable. Kind of like a dim James Stewart.

Overall it was a filled with amazing performances , not caricatures or impressions but the actors more immersing themselves in their roles.
The only personality/character that seemed biased was Cheyney, he was like a James Bond Supervillain.

It's a good conversation piece, that has a "too soon" feeling to it. If we ever recover from this dim economic situation, we might be able to look back on this movie as a portrait of a man and his rise to power, but presently, emotions are too raw to look at the film objectively.

[david r]

The actress who plays Condoleeza Rice gave one of the funniest impersonations I think I've ever seen. :biggrin:

And I was surprised how impartial it was to George W. No conspiracies here. Except the one tantalizing scene where Dick Cheney spells out the REAL reason to invade Iraq (oil, folks.)

[Redem]

Overall it was a filled with amazing performances , not caricatures or impressions but the actors more immersing themselves in their roles.
The only personality/character that seemed biased was Cheyney, he was like a James Bond Supervillain.


Well the scene set in a secret underground lab where Cheyney pet a cat while aiming his death ray to France and laughing maniacly do feel a little overtop in the criticism

[ultramandingo]

............. hopfully this will be the image of cheyney history will remenber

[david r]

Dick Cheney is portrayed as a master schemer. He always has a smirk on his face.

Colin Powell is portrayed as grimacing. I mean, every single scene in W. has Powell with a look of distaste on his face.

Donald Rumsfield is a soft-spoken, smooth talking operator. He knows just what to say to make his President happy.

Condoleeza Rice is portrayed in a truly hilarious fashion. Really, this is one of the most amusing movie portrayals I've seen. You have to see this film to understand what I'm talking about.

George W. is portrayed as a well-meaning guy, who surrounds himself with "Yes Men". He feels his beliefs are shared by God, so therefore, his beliefs must be made into laws. He is portrayed very earnest, with a constant need to measure up to his father. The whole movie says W.'s real ambition is to satisfy his dad.

[Jared]

How is Bush Sr. From what I've seen Cromwell doesn't look or sound anything like him. Of course, Dana Carvey's parody was so devastating that when I remember Bush, I tend to picture Carvey's "not gonna do it" guy first.

[jesse_custer]

Cromwell is great. Second best performance behind Brolin.

[spider kovacs]

im gonna have to disagree with u there.

i thought cromwell put no effort into even trying to sound like Sr. he didnt research his role well. Sr. has manerisms and little things that he should have done as well.

i thought the movie was just ok. my personal opinion on Bush did no reflect my opinion of the movie, because the movie simply wasnt well made. it felt rushed, and unfocused. it was by no means a biopic because is only covered a little of his younger years then while he was in office about to invae iraq. ust not good movie boring. brolin was fantastic though, as well as dreyfues (sp?) and whoever played carl rove.

but to each is own!

[Alex]

My problem with Oliver Stone is that i don't really like his movies.
He puts stuff out and i think "Oh, i'd like to see that." so i watch it and i'm just let down.
I don't think i've ever made it through JFK, though i've tried many times. Nixon had some great performances, but the direction was jumpy and it felt disjointed.
...
Alexander exsists, that's a few hundred points against him.
And now he does a movie about a president while said president is still in office? It just smacks of getting a movie out while the guy is still unpopular and relevant so i can make money.
I dunno, i just don't dig the guys movies, and it has nothing to do with any liberties he takes with history, it's totaly his style of direction i don't like.
He did Wallstreet and Platoon right? I liked both of those.
Maybe i just don't like him when he tries to do historical figures.