W. (2008)

Perhaps the most shocking thing about W. is that shock-grabbing director Oliver Stone has directed with this film a somewhat flat piece that seems better suited for HBO than for the big screen. Once you get over the novelty of the stunt casting of the film, I'm not sure that you have enough left.

Because Stone has not allowed enough time to pass before making W., he isn't able to put the controversial revisionist spin on his retelling of the Bush presidency that he put on "J.F.K." Nor does he have the distance from events to produce a presidential bio-pic with the richness of "Nixon."

Perhaps one of Stone's flaws was, in fact, the timing. He released a film pointing out the flaws of George W. Bush at the height of Bush-bashing mania, and I suspect that this garnered him more favorable reviews by association. Sure, naysayers will point out that the film seems to focus mostly on events that have been documented as fact (which is true) and that Stone presents a surprisingly sympathetic view of the president instead of going for left-wing bashing. But it's tough to overlook the fact that this film rides far more heavily on the kitch of the performances than it does on the story.

It's also worth noting that Stone seems to have ditched elements of his zippy style such as the MTV-style editing that turned "J.F.K" into a first-rate espionage thriller. Aside from his trademark blending of actual archive footage with new footage, there is little to suggest that this is an Oliver Stone film at all.

As for the performances, well, there are some great imitations and a few terrible ones. Brolin is as good at playing Bush as Will Ferrell is, and therein lies the problem. W. feels like a 2 hour SNL skit without the punchlines.

There are many aspects of the Bush backstory that deserve the film treatment. The subject is worthy and the concept relevant. But the timing isn't right, and W. falls flat in its efforts to be rushed onto screens in time to effect the past presidential elections, as if Oliver Stone's services were even necessary in the first place. After all, the Bush years themselves helped to put the Obama train on the tracks to Washington.

I enjoyed spots of W. -- don't get me wrong. But those spots were almost exclusively the moments that explored the president prior to ascending to the office. I can't help but throwing on to the end of my review the fact that W. is not quite as "non-biased" and "objective" as liberals think it is, either. Sure, Bush's own bad choices are incriminating enough, but Stone mocks religious conviction and highlights family drama almost better than Tyler Perry.

2.0 out of 4