W. (Widescreen)
|
List Price: Our Price: $3.49 You Save: $11.49 (77%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.01 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of W. (Widescreen)
Movie Review: Brolin scores a bull's-eye
Summary: 4 Stars
****1/2
When attempting to dramatize well know events from the recent past - especially those involving public figures who are household names and faces - a filmmaker runs the risk of slipping over into caricature and parody if he isn't careful. This is particularly the case when the subject is someone like George W. Bush, whose twangy folksiness and propensity for verbal gaffes have made him a prime target for mimicry and ridicule on the standup-comedy circuit. Yet, in "W.," a biopic of the 43rd President, director Oliver Stone and writer Stanley Weiser have largely avoided falling into this trap by providing us with as fully rounded a portrait of the man as one could reasonably expect under the circumstances. Indeed, those anticipating a slashing satire or a Bush-bashing screed from the left-leaning Stone will be sorely disappointed by what they'll find in this film. By keeping the cheap shots down to a minimum, the filmmakers allow us to see Bush more as a figure of tragedy than of scorn, a son who could never fully live up to the expectations placed on him by his father and who, as a result, spent his entire life engaged in a kind of Freudian drama of trying to prove himself to the old man. In W's case, he also had to contend with competition from a younger brother, Jeb, a golden boy who was altogether smarter and more articulate than George, and clearly the apple of their father's eye.
The movie starts off in 2002, just as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Rove and Wolfowitz are making plans to "sell" the Iraq war to the American public. Using this time period as his outer framework, Stone then delves into a series of flashbacks stretching all the way back to 1966 when Bush was a frat-boy spending most of his time partying at Yale. From then on we see him as a largely rudderless young man, drinking heavily and unable to hold down a steady job, always looking to daddy - then Senator Bush - to bail him out of his scrapes. When he hits the age of forty, he undergoes a life-altering, "born-again" religious experience that inspires him to give up drinking. By stages, we see him turning to a career in politics, losing his first election to Congress, but then picking himself up off the floor and becoming a successful contender for Governor of Texas, surrounding himself with savvy political consultants like Karl Rove, who would ultimately help to propel him into the White House (interestingly, the run for the presidency and the voter debacle in Florida are not documented in the film).
It's true that the movie doesn't have much "good" to say about Bush - and even less about Cheney who appears as a Mephistophelean figure throughout, the obvious puppet master pulling the strings in their relationship - but Bush is portrayed more as a victim of his upbringing and of circumstances than as an evil or even ill-intentioned person in his own right. Much of the success of the film lies in the brilliant performance by Josh Brolin in the lead role. Not only does Brolin have Bush's mannerisms and vocal intonations down pat, but he makes sure that we see the inner workings of the man beneath all the swagger and bluster. Brolin's thoughtful, sensitive work here helps us to understand how Bush's dogmatic and stubborn nature might actually be the product of his overcompensating for feelings of inadequacy and a poor self-image. Of course, it is this very dabbling in speculative psychology that is most likely to drive the president's supporters apoplectic with rage while watching this film, but for the rest of us, such an approach actually makes Bush MORE appealing as a person not less so.
Beyond Brolin, there is fine work by James Cromwell as "Poppy" Bush, Ellen Burstyn as his mother Barbara, Elizabeth Banks as his wife Laura, and Richard Dreyfuss as the perpetually smarmy Cheney. There is only one truly awful performance in the film and that is delivered by the normally wonderful Thandie Newton, who turns Condaleeza Rice into a bizarre combination of twisted facial expressions and ear-grating vocal stylings.
As director, Stone's use of tightly-knit close-ups and a persistent - but not distracting - handheld camera brings a much needed quality of immediacy to the movie as it hurtles through the years at a near-lightning pace.
The script includes many of Bush's most notorious and fondly ridiculed malapropisms and tongue-tied moments - "Is our children learning?" "Fool me once...you can't get fooled again," "people are always misunderestimating me" - albeit in settings and contexts different from the ones in which they actually occurred. Critics of the film might view this as yet another example of Stone and Weiser playing fast and loose with the facts, but the goal of "W." is not to provide an etched-in-stone biography of this one specific man but rather a portrait of an individual who engages the audience with his all-too-human frailties and weaknesses. And at that it succeeds very well. I can't guarantee how any diehard Bush fan will react to this film, but if you are fair-minded enough to take the plunge, "W." may make you see the man in a somewhat different - perhaps even more favorable - light.
Movie Review: A closer look at the most hated man in the world...
Summary: 4 Stars
I will say this for Mr. Stone; he is a very brave man. He's known as one of our most controversial directors and he continues to push the envelope, not only with subject but also with construction. Because of that he is a very `love him or hate him' kind of director. Look at his work on films like `World Trade Center', `JFK', `Platoon' and `Natural Born Killers'. These are all films that are so strongly opinionated and controversially designed that the illicit in the audience a reaction of acceptance or repulsion.
Case in point; I hated `World Trade Center' yet I consider `JFK' to be one of the strongest character biopics I've seen.
So, continuing his quest for offence, Stone decided to make a biopic on the man we all have grown to unabashedly condemn as the single worst human being brought into power in the history of the world. Okay, so not everyone feels that way; and personally I won't even go there (since this particular subject is such a sore spot) but the general consensus is that Bush hacked up the country. The fact that Stone wanted to do Bush's biopic is not the controversial part. What is though is the fact that Bush was still serving as President when the film was released. He didn't even wait for the term to end before he jumped in the director's chair and publicly critiqued the man's life.
He may have been the most hated, but technically he was still the most powerful.
Well, after seeing the film I can finally weigh in on how I feel Mr. Stone has done. Stone and I have had a rocky past. I've publicly denounced his seemingly vapid attempts to shed light on the atrocities of 9-11 or his attempt to humanize a certain rockstar, and yet, as I mentioned, he floored me with his powerhouse of a film called `JFK' and a recent viewing of `Platoon' has cemented the film in my soul. So, lets say that I was excited to see what he could do with Bush, yet I wasn't getting my hopes up too high.
I liked this much more than I thought I would have.
Stone was smart in his construction here, which totally helps with the films pacing and storytelling ability. Instead of telling the story chronologically, Stone opted to tell the story in vignettes that shift back and forth from college years to Presidency to his time as Governor. This way the film always stays engaging. I was shocked, but the film also never felt confusing, which sadly can happen with this style of storytelling. The script is centered enough to keep the focus grounded and keep our attention. I'm not a very political person and even I understood everything that was going on. The inspired casting is also a huge bonus. Much has been said of Brolin's performance, which is close to perfection here; but he isn't the only one. Richard Dreyfuss, James Cromwell and Toby Jones all deliver understated yet powerful performances (Newton may have nailed her character, but she does so at the expense of the film, creating a caricature as apposed to a genuine person), especially Cromwell who embodies Bush Sr. with a sense of self-centered sympathies needed in aiding ones understanding of Bush Jr.
So, with that said, Brolin delivers the performance of his career as President George W. Bush. What is so impressive about this film is that while it never condones any of the horrific decisions Bush made, and it in no way shape or form paints him to be an intelligent or considerate person, it allows the audience to sympathies with the man's very human issues. We see him being manipulated by the people around him and his genuine feelings. Whether he is striving for his father's approval (I felt the films opening and closing with Bush in the roaring baseball stadium were perfect symbolisms of his desperation for acceptance) and struggling to find his own voice amidst the suggestions of others (that last press conference is a sublime example of this man's utter loss of individuality), `W.' paints Bush as a man, plain and simple. No matter what your feelings are on this man and what he has done to the world, Stone delivers a sympathetic look at what could have led things to go as wrong as they did. I was very impressed with this because it would have been very easy to spend two hours condemning a man for his mistakes. Instead, Stone chose to point them all out yet he (along with Brolin) give this man enough of a soul that we can almost sympathize with his failure.
What is so commendable about Brolin is that he doesn't just deliver mimicry but embodies this man with passion and uncovers who he really was, or at least who Stone perceives him to be.
So, regardless of how accurate this one is (Stone has always been more intent of delivering his personal interpretations, which is what any visionary director SHOULD do) it is still a very insightful, enlightening and engaging portrait of a man we all think we know. It has its flaws (some of the scenes can feel like a series of overlong conversations strung back to back) but it also has its shining moments. If you can take the good with the bad (or visa-versa) than this is a film you should see.
Movie Review: Interesting Profile of a President
Summary: 4 Stars
The idea of watching an Oliver Stone movie without a sever political bias seemed almost impossible to me when I first saw the film with some friends, his reputation alone had already brought heavy accusations of bias from my more conservative friends with my more liberal friends secretly hoping that the "eventual indictment of his idiotic character" might come by the end of the film, as the only moderate of the group I was brought along ultimately to render my verdict on its political biases. To be clear there were four republicans and four democrats in the group and like any good swing vote I was wedged between them in the theater. What I saw was something I think that neither party had expected.
The film opens on a scene of Josh Brolin (portraying Bush) playing baseball to raucous cheers in an empty stadium, it is a reoccurring fantasy throughout the film changing slightly as it progresses and depicting a place of both psychological comfort and glory for the character. From there we flash forward to a meeting discussing the future of the War on Terror and the eventual invasion of Iraq, this is largely used to set up the main characters and their current natures, reminding us ultimately of shaped his administration. What is interesting here and as the film progresses however, we see that it truly does focus less on the controversial decisions which would come to shape the Bush White House and more on the nature and character of the former President making it a true profile piece. Documenting his upbringing, search for meaning, decline into alcoholism, and eventual return to god, something that the President has only commented on in vague detail but which the film does an excellent job of depicting without going to an illogical extreme. One of the better aspects of the film is gradual development of his friendship with Carl Rove, Condoleezza Rice, and the other key players who would shape President Bush's early policies, which allows a certain insight into the deep levels of trust he placed in these people and the various ways in which that trust was either proven right or betrayed (as in the case with former CIA Director George Tenet who in a rather somber scene is forced to admit that the CIA's recourses in Iraq were severely limited and lead to the incorrect belief that Saddam had WMD). Finally the most insightful parts of the film comes in the gradual development of President Bush's relationship to his father and the emotional toll that takes on him. In the end I thought it was an excellent film taking some swipes when necessary but largely retraining itself from descending into a character assassination piece. The acting is excellent with Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks, and Richard Dryfuss all playing their parts to perfection, overall I think that it is defiantly worth seeing for anyone that is interested in developing a better understanding of the culture of the White House and the nature of President Bush.
Now, while the movie was light and surprisingly balanced in its approach but the one thing I couldn't over look and that was the fact that it was released while the President was still in office. In the end this prevented me from ever becoming a true fan of the film as I felt ill at ease with the concept of such a portrayal and the nature of its socio-political impact on the Unites States and the White House, both at home and abroad. At the same time I am willing to concede that had they not released it then that the film wouldn't have received the same box office success it did, with the surge turning Iraq from possible failure to possible success, and the economy in decline and the President heading the efforts to save millions of jobs the idea of a satirical profile piece was becoming less and less appealing. Especially once it became clear that whoever the successor was that the United States couldn't simply turn tail and run from Iraq or Afghanistan and may have to follow at least a portion of the Bush Doctrine out of sheer necessity. This left me in a lingering middle ground where most people I know who saw the film find themselves to this day, the more ardent liberals disappointed in the films more moderate portrayal and unable to exorcise their angst on the big screen were annoyed at how human the President seemed. While at the same time the more stringent right was bothered by the films progressive humanization and subtle undercutting of a President they had elected and form many continued to believe in. Still as I said before if you want to take a more in-depth look at one of the most controversial Presidents of the last fifty years and perhaps at your own biases I would defiantly recommend the film, just don't be surprised if you're not sure what to think after the credits roll. As a friend of mine pointed out once, sometimes when you go looking for answers all you find is information, this film defiantly fulfilled that statement for much of its audience.
Movie Review: "George, stay out of the barrel. Just trust me."
Summary: 4 Stars
Oliver Stone's "W" had the most uncomfortable effect upon this viewer of generating actual pity for George Walker Bush, a man who has wreaked more destruction and sorrow on the planet than any President in the history of the United States.
My basic attitude toward any Stone film is "big deal" without necessarily seeing the film. I've never understood the OS phenomenon. Particularly with respect to his "political" films, filled with disinformation so far reaching and absurd that one is tempted to call them propaganda. (The film "The Doors" was absolutely awful and a complete waste of a great subject. It's "success" is a consequence of the naivete of the viewers and the "music video" strain in early 90's film.) "JFK" was entertaining in a horror/intrigue sort of way, but at no point was it remotely in contact with reality. "NBK" was just futile depravity shot in really "cool" hues of studio light.
This film, though, garners some real respect. There is not one scene in this move that is sensationalistic or cannot be verified factually. All one need do is crack open a respected bio(psy) of George W.'s reign of terror to corroborate information. "State of Denial" by Bob Woodward was obviously a big influence.
Ellen Burstyn is an actress who has a talent for playing women in some scary/miserable situations. One recent example is "Requiem For A Dream", playing a drug addled mother imbibing speed constantly to avoid acknowledging her son's rapidly escalating heroin addiction. I maintain that I would rather be the mother of the demon possessed Regan MacNeil in William Friedkin's classic "The Exorcist" than the mother of George W. Bush or Bush Sr's wife. As the woman who once told the press that there was no need for her to waste "as beautiful a mind as her own" on the messy business of body counts launched by her husband's insurrections, Burstyn does a fantastic job. All steel.
The madness of the Bush/Cheney administration is given a by turns comical, depressing, and sad treatment. Josh Brolin looks nothing like Bush, but he acts *just* like him: the baseless self confident monkeylike confidence in his every word and physical movement, the innocent Texan swagger which would eventually shoulder it's way through the constitution and economy, and, of course, his complete lack of reading comprehension or intelligible communication skills.
Brolin gives a devastating performance as a never truly grown man who makes every wrong decision possible, all in the interest of pleasing "Poppy", Bush Sr. All he wants to do is please his father, also played brilliantly by James Cromwell. Since he has neither the talent, ambition, intelligence or political skills to do so (as his father gently indicates when Bush bullies his brother out of the Florida Governor's election) this becomes his one goal in life. To be what he cannot be.
When I'd originally heard that Richard Dreyfuss was playing Dick Cheney I laughed. Real loud. The guy from "Jaws" affecting that chilling growl of a voice and hawklike blade of a gaze seemed absurd. (A little like Tommy Lee Jones wearing a dead racoon on his head as Clay Shaw.) I was wrong. He pulled it off, and then some. Cheney casts a dark shadow over every meeting, using every opportunity to push this confused man child's aggressive impulse to "even score with Saddam" and thus outdo his father.
And it works. There's a bit of the "unholy trinity" here: Scott Glenn cuts down Jeffrey Wright's reasonable minded Colin Powell at every opportunity, Toby Jones is fantastic as Rove, the power minded minister of propaganda who teaches Bush the four food groups: and then Cheney, who swoops down every attempt at avoiding war like a starving bird of prey biting into his first newly born worm.
This is a chronicle of failure seen through the eyes of the man held responsible for it as unemployment rises and we slide in to a recession unprecedented since the time of Roosevelt. Millions have died in a senseless war.
The last shot is of a George W. Bush in a baseball field while it rains. He is holding a a glove open, eager to catch the ball. He doesn't.
I felt terrible for Bush by the end of this movie. Do I now, a few days later? No.
Movie Review: Misunderestimated No More
Summary: 4 Stars
Put aside your feelings about George W. Bush and his administration (hard, I know, but try) and just sit back and marvel at what Oliver Stone and his stellar all-star cast have been able to achieve here. Despite an anti-Bush sentiment, Stone has produced a surprisingly compassionate portrait of our 43rd President, focusing on the central force driving him--the strained and prickly relationship between the ne'er do well son and his remote, super-competent father. Stone theorizes that the younger Bush was driven to the White House in a quixotic quest to prove to his father that he could, finally, make good. Considering that W.'s Presidency has ruined the political influence of the Bush dynasty for generations to come, it only highlights the inherent pathos of the man who, even after ascending to the highest office any human being can hold, still labors in the paternal shadow, and worse--in the shadow of international scorn.
The non-linear narrative begins during an Oval Office meeting to craft the "Axis of Evil" speech, and thereafter jumps back and forth between events of Bush's early life as a Yale frat pledge, party boy, job slacker, failed businessman and drunk to events of his first term leading up to the 2003 Iraqi invasion. Closed-door conversations are dramatically recreated, but otherwise the plot follows well-documented sources. The episodic, almost picaresque plot is not the reason to watch, however. That would be Josh Brolin's centerpiece performance as W. He does not so much imitate as channel George W. Bush--though the facial resemblance is slight, the squint, the cowboy swagger, and most importantly, the vocal mannerisms are all there. I challenge anyone watching this doppelganger of W. to not at times, if only for a minute, forget you are watching an actor and not the genuine article onscreen. Following last year's career-resurrecting turn in "No Country for Old Men", Josh Brolin (whose rocky early career and dynastic connections mirror his subject's own) emerges as an American acting powerhouse, to be misunderestimated as a pretty-boy lightweight no more. As W., the younger Brolin follows in his father's footsteps by portraying a past Republican President. (James Brolin played Ronald Reagan in the HBO movie "The Reagans".) Had the younger Brolin's subject not been so deeply, brutally unpopular, he might have received a very deserved Oscar for his work here. Brolin receives support from an all-around excellent cast who embody various figures from the Bush family and W.'s Cabinet. Much has been made of Richard Dreyfuss' curmudgeonly turn as skew-jawed, power-hungry Dick Cheney (who W. called "Vice"), and he is very good, indeed. But the real scene-stealer here is James Cromwell as the patrician patriarch, G. H. W. Bush, who gets off the best lines of the movie as he's remonstrating with Junior about the integrity of the Bush family name. Also deserving of a singular mention is Thandie Newton as Secretary of State Condolezza Rice, who undergoes a total, vaguely creepy metamorphosis to play Bush's #1 yes-woman. The diminuative Newton nails Rice's hairstyle, posture, facial expressions, and nasally inflections to an eerie degree, but lacks the elegance of the statuesque Rice, and subsequently the screen presence to make her Rice more than a rather cruel caricature. Still, it's amazing to see this tiny British thespian transform herself into a completely different woman with the aid of some pretty fantastic makeup effects. The rest of the cast hardly puts a foot wrong in their respective roles. Bravura turns all around.
At the end of this journey with Stone and Co., you may still be infuriated about the Bush years, but hopefully you will gain at least a little more illumination about the flawed yet driven individual at the center of it all. Regardless of your political affiliations or your opinion of previous Stone movies, I call this one a don't-miss for the performances alone.