Neither sharp satire, nor deep, or a particularly insightful (or damning) treatise on the failures of George W. Bush, Oliver Stone’s “W” is a mostly fair, but ho-hum and uneventful rendering of the 43rd United States President.
Stone might be a controversial filmmaker, but considering all we already know about Bush, “W” isn’t a particularly controversial film. It’s almost dramatized journalism and in that respect is a little dull and timid, never wanting to make too-specious of claims.
In attempts to be balanced, Stone’s even-handed (relative for him of course) has little bite, no spark and not many truly engaging moments. When the director does decide to pull some punches – a montage of the first 100 hours of Iraq’s fall set to patriotic jingo music is particularly buffoonish – he fumbles with clumsiness.
Stone’s refusal to go for the jugular or the cheap laughs is a wise and admirable move on paper, but much like the character it aims to depict, most of its condemnations or plaudits are tepid and tentative. Its as if the handcuffs of Stones legacy of a provocateur prevent him from going to deep in either direction. The fear of being called out perhaps (but then again, the film sticks closely to the script).
Likewise, Brolin’s performance is good, but not as astounding as some would have you believe. It certainly doesn’t scream Oscar winner and perhaps not even contender. Don’t be surprised if he doesn’t make the final five (but then again the way this year is shaping up… and now that Viggo is prolly out of the frame).
Semi-tangentially, negative marks must go to David Poland for singling out Thandie Newton’s performance as one of the films highlights. This is a blunder. Not only is her cringe-inducing caricature spectacularly bad, its perhaps one of the worst performances of the year. Every second she’s on screen makes you want to stab daggers into your eyes. Is she under the impression that Condoleezza Rice is afflicted with some facial tic spasm? So painfully distracting was this misstep, it may prove to be even Razzie-worthy. Many of her cabinet co-horts can’t also help but feel a little hollow and one-dimensional (Bush is perhaps 2D).
Where “W” does mostly succeed is as a father and son tale — a man who has to live underneath a long shadow and the depressing realization he has boots he can never fill.
Stone makes us feel sympathy for Bush, but only in the backanded compliment manner that this is a poor stooge way over his head. Don’t get us wrong, we’re not asking for a black and white purview. But asking for a captivating/entertaining film isn’t too much to ask is it?
That’s slightly unfair — the first twenty minutes of “W” move like a ruthless shark, not wasting a frame of time in the editing room, and it’s slightly fun and amusing initially, but as the film settled it, it began to drag and made us feel restless and listless (was it 2 1/2 hours? Sure felt it).
“W” is a movie that makes you scoff, not laugh and likewise it slightly slightly vexes you instead of creating outrage or indignation. Bush is not a clown, he’s an average man who overachieved, but instead of that conveyed as a remarkable feat, it’s just as middling as the man himself. Now we’re not sure what else Stone could have done in the interest of fairness. Perhaps hims arms were tied by aiming to illustrate a rounded portrayal of the President, but what we do know is that a political film about a current president shouldn’t leave one feeling mostly indifferent or just mildly amused. [B-]
