Movie Reviews

Movie Review: W. (2008)

This one feels like it played it a little too safe and ended up rather boring

George W. Bush (Josh Brolin, far right) with Karl Rove (Toby Jones, second from right), Dick Cheney (Richard Dreyfuss, third from right) and Condoleezza Rice (Thandie Newton, fourth from right)
Photo: Lionsgate

More questions than answers are brought up with Oliver Stone's W., and not just in terms of the movie's content, but its creation as well.

Why make a movie about George W. Bush and release it only three weeks prior to the election escorting him out of the White House? That's the first one that comes to mind, but as the movie plays out you quickly realize there doesn't seem to be an agenda of any kind, at least not an obvious one, which only reinforces the question. Stone, a liberal more than willing to say his share when asked, treats the subject matter extremely honestly, so honest actually that it feels abridged and lacking guts. Of course, this is coming from someone that has been paying attention over the past eight years, others may be a bit for susceptible.

'W.'
Review
Grade: C+

W."W." is a Lionsgate release, directed by and is rated PG-13 for language including sexual references, some alcohol abuse, smoking and brief disturbing war images.

The cast includes , , , , , , , , , , , and .

For more information on this film including pictures, trailers and a detailed synopsis .

W. bounces around between Bush's college days at Yale, his time co-owning the Texas Rangers, running for Governor of Texas and waging war in Iraq. The thread used to keep the timeline together is W.'s determination to please his father. Josh Brolin falls perfectly into this character. He has all the personality, charisma and aloofness Bush used to win favor in the eyes of Americans but the one he couldn't sway, his father, George H.W. Bush (James Cromwell) appears as something of a rock in W.'s life, immovable and unimpressionable.

W. plays second to the favored son Jeb, but determination, a willingness to win and the supposed calling of God motivates W. all the way to the White House. Unfortunately a willingness to win doesn't make you the man for the job.

Second to the daddy story, W. is portrayed as something of a puppet President with Karl Rove as the primary puppet master and a team of dimwits helping him along. Condoleezza Rice as portrayed by Thandie Newton is a performance Newton certainly embraced, but is given nothing to do with. Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney, Scott Glenn as Donald Rumsfeld and Toby Jones as Rove serve as the primary "villains", almost using W. as a weapon to be influenced for their own gains. One scene in particular has Cheney almost playing a strategist you would expect guiding Alexander the Great or Adolf Hitler on their way to global domination. Scenes like that are particularly scary, and while screenwriter Stanley Weiser couldn't know what exactly was said behind closed doors there has been enough written about the administration that the liberties taken don't feel too far out of bounds.

If there is a hero to be found, or at least a man standing up for what is right, that would be Colin Powell played by Jeffrey Wright, which is quite possibly the best performance of the bunch. Wright is asked to be the ignored voice of reason and is virtually forced against his will to go along with the insane tactics he is asked to support despite protestation.

When it is all said and done, however, you come out with more questions than you went in with. Walking away you almost feel sorry for W., a man that never appears to have anything but the best intentions, but not the wherewithal to achieve them. The right words escape him and the right ideas never come to mind. Did Stone want us walking away from this film feeling sorry for a Daddy's boy that could never please his father, or does he want us to use this example to hopefully make better judgment as voting citizens in the future? I think he leaves the questions and answers up to you, which is probably the best way to do it, but as it turns out it makes for a rather boring film.

GRADE: C+
Thanks for Reading! Join the Community!
Support the Site! Make it Faster! No Ads!

Your support goes a long way in ensuring RopeofSilicon.com stays stable. For less than the price of one small popcorn, you can can help support RopeofSilicon and, in turn, visit the site every day without ads! Including this one!

Subscribe Now!

Related Links:

More Movie Reviews

'A Walk Among the Tombstones' (2014) Movie ReviewC+

A Walk Among the Tombstones (2014)

'Tusk' (2014) Movie ReviewC-

Tusk (2014)

'Wild' (2014) Movie ReviewB+

Wild (2014)

'Rosewater' (2014) Movie ReviewC+

Rosewater (2014)

Click to Browse Even More Reviews
  • RaTTleR_NL

    I can imagine not taking a hard stand can make it all a bit bland but it least it does leave judgement to the viewer. (as you said)
    It could've been something that simply said: "I thing GWB was an absolutely crap pres." but then why make a film instead of simply giving statements to the media anytime you can.

    If it was the intention to show people what happened (allthough not a completely unbiased view) to get people to think about it and about what next then no, it will not be an exciting flick. (for that we'll have to wait for Mr. Bay's remake)

    How does it compare to something like Good Night and Good Luck? Which allso wasn't an exciting film but it was captivating.

  • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com bradbrevet

    RaTTleR_NL said: How does it compare to something like Good Night and Good Luck? Which allso wasn't an exciting film but it was captivating.

    You know, I haven't watched Good Night and Good Luck in some time so I can't really compare, but at first instinct I don't think the two compare at all. There was an urgency to GNGL that W. just didn't have. W. just seemed to go through the motions and I think for me personally I talk about politics so much with friends and anyone that will listen that there just wasn't anything new for me.