W. (US - BD RA)
Gabe is sorely disappointed with Oliver Stones 'Fair and Balanced' biopic...
Feature
When it was announced that Oliver Stone was fast-tracking a biopic about President George W. Bush it seemed that we had an official, text book definition of ‘too on the nose’. Stone has spent most of his life in film expressing his not so subtle left-wing agenda, obsessing over the tribulations of the Vietnam War, and generally lashing out against the establishment. George Jr.s’ less than reputable presidential career is, liberally speaking at least, ripe for lashing. My problem with the whole situation, sight unseen, concerns not the question of ‘can’, rather than the question of ‘why’. Yeah, the filmmaker/subject ratio adds up, but it adds up so well that I wonder why any of us would care?

There was also the matter of timing. There are really only two reasons to make a film about Bush, the way I see, not counting the boring possibility of a tribute. Your first option is the ‘protest’ film. Michael Moore had the right idea here, and though I thought Fahrenheit 9/11 was a sloppy movie, he may have actually had a small effect on the minds of Americans just before Bush’s 2004 re-election. Your second option is a real recollection piece, which would encompass the man’s entire career, possibly made after his death, when his impact on history can be appropriately realized. W. comes either four years too late, or a couple dozen years too soon, depending on your point of view.
The film’s first scene immediately confirms pretty much every one of our trailer based suspicions. A bunch of A-list actors sit around a staged oval office doing goofy impersonations of Bush’s cabinet, poking jabs at some of the more controversial choices made following September 11th. Later, about fifteen minutes in, James Cromwell as George Sr. (stunt casting to the extreme) berates his son about his post-college life. Every line is so brutally scripted it practically bleeds the words ‘show, don’t tell’. I don’t believe for a second that H.W. posed ‘do you think you’re a Kennedy’ to his son. It’s too…what’s the phrase? On the nose? Yeah, that sounds right. W. is exactly what the conservative’s would expect out of ‘liberal Hollywood’, and as a card carrying bleeding heart I really hate to see all the stereotypes fulfilled in this manner.

There’s nothing in Stanley Weiser’s script that points towards any real insider information, or even a particularly impressive amount of research. The Cliff’s Notes, factoid look at Bush’s life presented here could be put together by anyone with access to a television and Wikipedia (for exact dates, of course). The story is told out of order (of course) with all the dependability of a nine year old shouting out ‘this happened, then this happened, but before that this happened…’. There’s none of the surprising intricacies or ‘what if’ scenarios presented in Stones Nixon, which he scripted himself. W. is just a series of moments. Finally, around the half-way point Stone finds something thematically interesting in Bush’s born again faith, but it comes almost an hour into the film, and things start to devolve again the closer we get to the Iraq war.
Nixon is a great film to measure W. against for a number of reasons. Beyond the obvious comparisons between the subjects, and the director himself, there’s the surprisingly gentle treatment of the often abominated subjects. In the case of Nixon this treatment came as a surprise, but in this case it strikes as placating. If Nixon was the story of a maligned president told as a Greek tragedy, W. is the story of another maligned president told as a dippy spoof movie (just look at the war room sequences, which are virtual fountains of unsubtlety). Nixon also runs on a series of genuine performances not based in characterizations. Just about every member of Stone’s more than capable cast opts for goofy impersonations of their subjects, that even most members of Mad TV would find distasteful.

At times it appears that Stone is trying to craft a poignant exploration of the terrors of the military industrial complex, while other times it appears he’s trying to create a Kubrickian satire of the whole mess. After enough floundering the director seems to find his tragedy during the Iraq debacle, but it strikes as an even bigger spoof than the early scenes of drunken debauchery. Though the biggest disappointment is how literally the once incendiary director treats a story we all just watched play out.
Video
W is presented in 1080p, 2.35:1 widescreen, and it looks just fine. Stone doesn’t go for any of his usual filmic tricks, opting to shoot most of the film in smooth focus, with standard lighting schemes, and somewhat muted pastel colours. A lack of hard contrast leads to a lack of super-sharp details, with memorable exceptions, mostly facial close-ups. The colour scheme gives the impression of an almost constantly overcast day in office, with soft, white lighting pouring from the sky, and through every window. The indoor shots are largely darker, which leads to smooth halos of soft light around subjects. None of these traits led to any compression difficulty. It’s not an overtly impressive transfer, but it’s also free of any real problems.

Audio
W. is a very dialogue centric film. The dialogue, and in turn, most of the on-set sound is largely centred. Though clean and consistent, there’s something awkward about the amount of sound crammed into the centre channel, including wind, cars, electronics, just about everything (except applause, which are quite loud). It’s not quite a flat representation, but considering the pedigree of a 7.1 DTS-HD Master Audio track, it’s kind of disappointing, even for a dialogue based film. When sound effects do bleed into the other channels it’s very obvious because the sudden liveliness of the LFE channel, which is otherwise pretty quiet. The stereo channels spring to life almost only with the score, which is pretty low-key, usually consisting of a single instrument. It’s kind of like the soundtrack of a Peanuts episode.
Extras
Guillermo del Toro commentary track are are guaranteed must listens, and Tim Burton tracks are guaranteed misses. Oliver Stone is almost a total crapshoot. Your odds are usually better than fifty-fifty, but you might end up with a nearly silent track sparked with occasional dull factoids. The director’s W. track is one of his better ones. Stone is continuously speaking, and not just speaking about the actions on screen, but giving his opinions on the events happening around the events on screen. By the end the track is actually a better biography of Bush than the film. I actually learned things from the commentary, and felt some kind of passion from the filmmakers. I agree with the conventional wisdom that says a filmmaker should mostly divorce his opinions from the facts, but the final film in this case is so wishy-washy I can’t believe it satisfied anyone. This track, more than anything, gives a voice to the movie that should’ve been made.

‘Dangerous Dynasty: The Bush Legacy’ continues the theme of extras that are vastly superior to the actual film. Though it features plenty of footage from the film, and contextualizes itself mostly within the events of the film, this documentary manages to delve into the actions of both Bushes with more intrigue, even at a rather brief seventeen minutes. The points of the doc are mostly partisan, but there’s little about Bush’s very extreme presidency that doesn’t beg somewhat partisan explorations. I suppose Lionsgate could’ve included an additional featurette from the pro-Bush point of view, but it would serve little point from a money perspective considering the degree of interest in the film from the right. In the end the featurette is too short to really get too excited about, but there are already about three dozen documentaries on the subject out there.
‘No Stranger to Controversy’ is a well made behind the scenes featurette, that doesn’t take the time to delve too far into the project (it’s only sixteen minutes), but comes at the subject from a sweet natured angle. Interviews with Stone, James Brolin, and screenwriter Stanley Weiser are mixed with rough behind the scenes footage. Again, there’s a lot of talk from the participants of the movie that could’ve been. Either I just didn’t get what they were trying to convey, or they lost the film in the writing process (possibly editing).

The extras are finished with six deleted scenes, an annotations guide, and a selection of trailers. The scenes are mostly complete, like all the other extras are presented in high definition, and feature optional commentary from Stone. None of these scenes would’ve added too much to the final film, but one scene features underrated character actor Michael Shannon, and there are two amusing fantasy sequences. The annotations guide is a good thing to have, but is a bit cumbersome in scope and navigation.
Overall
W. is a weak film from a filmmaker that ought to know better. If the name above the marquee were Bret Ratner’s, John Turtletaub’s, or any other mediocre director-for-hire, I may’ve been more willing to give up ideals for leniency, but this is Oliver Stone we’re talking about. I could’ve expected a bad movie out of the man, but I’m shocked at the limp noodle, literary approach to such ‘controversial’ subject matter (admittedly, I still haven’t seen Alexander or World Trade Center). The disc looks quite nice, the sound features only minor issues, and the extras, though brief, paint a decent portrait of what might have been.
*Note: The images on this page are not representative of the Blu-ray release.
Review by Gabriel Powers
Advertisements
Existing Posts
I know, but you know what would be really funny BBF1983? If the liberal whack job would've made the movie the asshole deserved, and if people b***hing about the politics of movies actually took the time to see them first. But that would be crazy.
Sorry...can't help but chuckle everytime I see promos for this movie. Liberal whack job makes movie about Bush...meanwhile we're getting documentaries trying to revise history that Jimmy Carter was actually a decent president. Gotta love the liberal mainstream.
Chris Gould wrote: I know he was your president and all, but what a thick c**t. Honestly, how that bloke ever got the 'most powerful job in the world' (twice) is beyond me.
Massive LOL! Being a recovering Republican myself, I have an answer for that. Simple version: People wanted to feel safe, he got us into a mess and some people not only thought it wasn't a mess, but that since he was the one to start it we might as well let him finish it. (They even used the adage, "Why switch horses in midstream?" during campaign season.)
Massive LOL! Being a recovering Republican myself, I have an answer for that. Simple version: People wanted to feel safe, he got us into a mess and some people not only thought it wasn't a mess, but that since he was the one to start it we might as well let him finish it. (They even used the adage, "Why switch horses in midstream?" during campaign season.)
I'm going to side with the group that likes this movie. I just watched it last night (I'm mostly deaf so I have to wait for things to come out on disc before I can watch them). This movie was very reflective of the way I view Bush. And I thought the final scene of the movie was very much my view on his presidency. He lost the ball in the lights. I know most will disagree with me, but thats my two cents.
Gabe, great review...I think that "from the guy who brought you" Platoon, Natural Born Killers and JFK (!!!) now brings you World Trade Center and W....two very 'politically correct' movies who don't try to create any controversy.
I felt he gave us this movie to show us what Bush really is, just a normal guy who wanted his father's respect and got elected to the presidency to prove him...and a regular guy who made mistakes.
I by no means think Bush is an 'evil monster'...and to be honest, I don't think any other president in the near future will entertain us with their mishaps, or, 'bushisms', like "fool me once...fool me twice..."
I can see how people won't like this movie, specially because of it not making Bush seem like the 'bad guy', specially among younger audiences (like my 17 y/o brother who after 40 minutes decided not to continue with the movie).
The casting is great, specially Dreyffus, just great.
I felt he gave us this movie to show us what Bush really is, just a normal guy who wanted his father's respect and got elected to the presidency to prove him...and a regular guy who made mistakes.
I by no means think Bush is an 'evil monster'...and to be honest, I don't think any other president in the near future will entertain us with their mishaps, or, 'bushisms', like "fool me once...fool me twice..."
I can see how people won't like this movie, specially because of it not making Bush seem like the 'bad guy', specially among younger audiences (like my 17 y/o brother who after 40 minutes decided not to continue with the movie).
The casting is great, specially Dreyffus, just great.
triply wrote: Gabe, not trying to be too pedantic, but I think "W. is just a serious of moments." should be "W. is just a series of moments.
I'm sure Chris somehow did that during his editing.
I'm sure Chris somehow did that during his editing.
What I meant, Gabe, was that the electoral college is how people voted him into office. It may have been a swindle to an extent (re: the whole voting snafu and the subsequent disenfranchisement of certain districts) but for better or in this case worse, the college is what's to blame.
I liked the idea of a movie about "W." but the way they explained it went completely wrong. Nice review, though.
Gabe, not trying to be too pedantic, but I think "W. is just a serious of moments." should be "W. is just a series of moments."
Nice revew though. I did like the movie, but it could be because I have a soft corner for Oliver Stone. But I can see how the movie would not have satisfied anyone.
Nice revew though. I did like the movie, but it could be because I have a soft corner for Oliver Stone. But I can see how the movie would not have satisfied anyone.
Simon Abrams wrote: Electoral college, Chris.
I couldn't disagree more, Gabe. I'm very thankful Stone didn't got the DOORS route and make another spazzy freak-out of history because, well, that's too easy, in my opinion, especially when it comes to Dubya. He's an easy target and to let loosey-goosey Stone go nuts on him would be like asking a speed freak to be your pharmacist. As disgusting a president as he was, Bush, as he was portrayed in the film, really came across as a real person though the film's agenda of making him Powell seem like the odd man out and Bush like a confused martyr that just need to prove himself wasn't finessed as well as it could have been in parts.
I loved the cast, especially Brolin, Dreyfuss and Jones and thought the film was actually a lot better than it could've been, especially considering it was an Ollie Stone pitcha.
I guess I didn't make it very clear that I really don't like Stone's flashy movies, I like his earlier work like Salvadore and Platoon. My overall statement isn't a very good sum of my thoughts I suppose.
And Chris, I don't know what to tell you. I tried to make the review solely about the movie (because this site isn't about politics, and it isn't my personal soap box), but it was hard. I do think Stone should've probably portrayed the guy as the monster I believe he is, and not an idiot who just didn't understand what was going on. We actually can't blame the faulty electoral college for the second election, the best I can come up with was Kerry was a wishy washy mess of a candidate, and 50% of the country was too shell shocked over 9/11 to move on.
I couldn't disagree more, Gabe. I'm very thankful Stone didn't got the DOORS route and make another spazzy freak-out of history because, well, that's too easy, in my opinion, especially when it comes to Dubya. He's an easy target and to let loosey-goosey Stone go nuts on him would be like asking a speed freak to be your pharmacist. As disgusting a president as he was, Bush, as he was portrayed in the film, really came across as a real person though the film's agenda of making him Powell seem like the odd man out and Bush like a confused martyr that just need to prove himself wasn't finessed as well as it could have been in parts.
I loved the cast, especially Brolin, Dreyfuss and Jones and thought the film was actually a lot better than it could've been, especially considering it was an Ollie Stone pitcha.
I guess I didn't make it very clear that I really don't like Stone's flashy movies, I like his earlier work like Salvadore and Platoon. My overall statement isn't a very good sum of my thoughts I suppose.
And Chris, I don't know what to tell you. I tried to make the review solely about the movie (because this site isn't about politics, and it isn't my personal soap box), but it was hard. I do think Stone should've probably portrayed the guy as the monster I believe he is, and not an idiot who just didn't understand what was going on. We actually can't blame the faulty electoral college for the second election, the best I can come up with was Kerry was a wishy washy mess of a candidate, and 50% of the country was too shell shocked over 9/11 to move on.
The featurette entitled "No Stranger to Controversy" made me laugh out loud. What the hell was controversial about this biopic? Is stating that George W. Bush was not a very good president some bold stance I'm not aware of?
I found this movie to be way to sympathetic to a man who has lead many people to their deaths. And by lead I meant sent.
I found this movie to be way to sympathetic to a man who has lead many people to their deaths. And by lead I meant sent.
Many have missed the point of this movie and that is that we can never something like this happen ever again. To let such incompetence rise so far and control something with such reckless abandon must never happen again. It comes down to an editorial piece or lesson that as Americans we have a responsibility to ensure the stable, consciencious evolution of our country and cease letting those who are incapable of competent leadership foul our country so greatly in such a short period of time.
I sleep easier at night knowing that a little town in the southern region of our country now has it's population restored.
I sleep easier at night knowing that a little town in the southern region of our country now has it's population restored.
Electoral college, Chris.
I couldn't disagree more, Gabe. I'm very thankful Stone didn't got the DOORS route and make another spazzy freak-out of history because, well, that's too easy, in my opinion, especially when it comes to Dubya. He's an easy target and to let loosey-goosey Stone go nuts on him would be like asking a speed freak to be your pharmacist. As disgusting a president as he was, Bush, as he was portrayed in the film, really came across as a real person though the film's agenda of making him Powell seem like the odd man out and Bush like a confused martyr that just need to prove himself wasn't finessed as well as it could have been in parts.
I loved the cast, especially Brolin, Dreyfuss and Jones and thought the film was actually a lot better than it could've been, especially considering it was an Ollie Stone pitcha.
I couldn't disagree more, Gabe. I'm very thankful Stone didn't got the DOORS route and make another spazzy freak-out of history because, well, that's too easy, in my opinion, especially when it comes to Dubya. He's an easy target and to let loosey-goosey Stone go nuts on him would be like asking a speed freak to be your pharmacist. As disgusting a president as he was, Bush, as he was portrayed in the film, really came across as a real person though the film's agenda of making him Powell seem like the odd man out and Bush like a confused martyr that just need to prove himself wasn't finessed as well as it could have been in parts.
I loved the cast, especially Brolin, Dreyfuss and Jones and thought the film was actually a lot better than it could've been, especially considering it was an Ollie Stone pitcha.
I know he was your president and all, but what a thick c**t. Honestly, how that bloke ever got the 'most powerful job in the world' (twice) is beyond me.


Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13
Disc Details
Release Date:
10th February 2009
Discs:
1
Disc Type:
Blu-ray Disc
RCE:
No
Video:
1080p
Aspect:
2.35:1
Anamorphic:
No
Colour:
Yes
Audio:
DTS-HD Master 7.1 English, Dolby Digital 5.1 French
Subtitles:
English SDH, French, and Spanish
Extras:
Director Commentary, ‘Dangerous Dynasty: The Bush Legacy’, ‘No Stranger to Controversy’, Deleted Scenes, Annotations Guide, Trailers
Easter Egg:
No
Feature Details
Director:
Oliver Stone
Cast:
Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks, Ioan Gruffudd, J. Grant Albrecht, Sayed Badreya
Genre:
Comedy and Drama
Length:
129 minutes
Ratings
Amazon.com
FOLLOW DVDACTIVE
Follow our updates
OTHER INTERESTING STUFF
Latest Reviews





New Easter Eggs





Released Soon





Most Talked About




