W. (2008)

Positive Experience/Entertaining? Definitely--Oliver Stone is a good filmmaker. I don't always agree with the message he puts out through his movies, but his films are always entertaining and well made (in my opinion, anyway).


Technically any good? It seems like the film's script was based solely on the coverage of these events in the press. As a result, the film feels a little shallow. We did get to see humanity behind most of the characters, but not much humanity. The acting was spot-on. Brolin should get an Oscar. Thandie Newton should not. She was the only actor who seemed to be there for (unintentional) comic relief (to be fair, her Condi Rice impression was hilarious, however). Over all, the movie was surprisingly subtle (though, somehow it still felt a little ham-fisted in spots). The music was minimal (which was nice) but still managed to be overused (in only one spot, though). The casting was great and, of course, the directing was invisible. Only a few times did I see the Hand of Oliver (or the HOO) in the film.


How did it leave me feeling? Satisfied, but I can't help but think Stone should have waited until W. had left office to make this movie. For now it seems like a movie that could have been written by anyone--it's a reflection of what we all know of George W. Bush. Usually, to be really useful a film needs to be made with more of a perspective, with more distance from the events it portrays. I'm not sure what we're supposed to take from this movie aside from entertainment.


Final Rating? SIYL - See If You Like. I doubt Republicans will get a big kick out of this film. It definitely gives the benefit of the doubt from a more lefty side of things--still, it does give Bush the benefit of the doubt, which I think is awfully kind. It's certainly more than Bush deserves.

---

Orignal From: W. (2008)