Post by Josh on Feb 24, 2009 20:55:04 GMT -8
Have any of you seen Oliver Stone's W. yet?
Rose and I watched it recently. I really liked it- I found myself actually captivated.
When I first saw the preview, I didn't realize it was a Stone film and actually thought it was just going to be a goofy parody.
But, it turned out to be, in typical Stone fashion, a pretty nuanced biopic which for the most part didn't resort to cheap shots.
Picking up after 9-11 (wisely), the film focuses on Bush's road to war in Iraq interspersed with progressive vignettes from Bush's college days onward.
There's a father-approval sub-plot that sometimes gets a little wearying, but does provide some glue to the story and affords Bush some humanity.
Overall, as a Christian, I was impressed with Stone's portrayal of Bush's faith, though of course there were some distrubing implications he was trying to draw out (emphasizing prayers at cabinet meetings leading up to the war). Bush comes across as sincere but.... well, I won't say naive because I was actually pleasantly surprised that Stone didn't make him look like an idiot... maybe just a bit out of touch with abstract reflection.
Perhaps one of the best scenes is the Cabinet meeting where the green light is given for the Iraq invasion. Cheney (played well by Richard Dreyfus) gives his appeal for why such a war is necessary. And, I might disagree with his ultimate rationale, Stone doesn't just prop up a straw dummy. Cheney's argument has logic and force.
Stone has chosen not to indulge conspiracy theory. He portrays the events leading up to the war as a very realistic panorama of misinformation, conviction, bluster, illusion, revenge, concern, miscommunication, and reactions both reasonable and drastic.
In my opinion, Colon Powell comes off a bit too squeaky clean, innocent, and bullied. But then again, I wasn't there- who knows? That's a weakness of biopics like this.
Rumsfeld was played well, though the actor didn't look like him at all.
Carl Rove was funny but not sinister.
The worst portrayal was of Condaleesa Rice. In her case, in my opinion, Stone did resort to parody. She comes off looking really lame, with bit lines and excessively silly facial gestures.
George Bush Sr. is well played but comes off like a philosopher-king compared to his Bush Jr. Maybe there's some truth in that, but who knows if the tension between them is played up or not?
Lastly, Josh Brolin makes this movie. He makes a very compelling and spot-on Bush in my opinion, especially in his Presidential, older years. It's a bit uncanny at times.
Stone didn't take cheap potshots in the movie at Bush's tendency to butcher the English language. Bush comes across as a publicly confident, shoot-from-the-hip, chompin' on food with zest, genuine guy. The viewer is sold a pretty sympathetic view of Bush.
Anyway, enough of me. I want you to watch it and let's discuss it.
Rose and I watched it recently. I really liked it- I found myself actually captivated.
When I first saw the preview, I didn't realize it was a Stone film and actually thought it was just going to be a goofy parody.
But, it turned out to be, in typical Stone fashion, a pretty nuanced biopic which for the most part didn't resort to cheap shots.
Picking up after 9-11 (wisely), the film focuses on Bush's road to war in Iraq interspersed with progressive vignettes from Bush's college days onward.
There's a father-approval sub-plot that sometimes gets a little wearying, but does provide some glue to the story and affords Bush some humanity.
Overall, as a Christian, I was impressed with Stone's portrayal of Bush's faith, though of course there were some distrubing implications he was trying to draw out (emphasizing prayers at cabinet meetings leading up to the war). Bush comes across as sincere but.... well, I won't say naive because I was actually pleasantly surprised that Stone didn't make him look like an idiot... maybe just a bit out of touch with abstract reflection.
Perhaps one of the best scenes is the Cabinet meeting where the green light is given for the Iraq invasion. Cheney (played well by Richard Dreyfus) gives his appeal for why such a war is necessary. And, I might disagree with his ultimate rationale, Stone doesn't just prop up a straw dummy. Cheney's argument has logic and force.
Stone has chosen not to indulge conspiracy theory. He portrays the events leading up to the war as a very realistic panorama of misinformation, conviction, bluster, illusion, revenge, concern, miscommunication, and reactions both reasonable and drastic.
In my opinion, Colon Powell comes off a bit too squeaky clean, innocent, and bullied. But then again, I wasn't there- who knows? That's a weakness of biopics like this.
Rumsfeld was played well, though the actor didn't look like him at all.
Carl Rove was funny but not sinister.
The worst portrayal was of Condaleesa Rice. In her case, in my opinion, Stone did resort to parody. She comes off looking really lame, with bit lines and excessively silly facial gestures.
George Bush Sr. is well played but comes off like a philosopher-king compared to his Bush Jr. Maybe there's some truth in that, but who knows if the tension between them is played up or not?
Lastly, Josh Brolin makes this movie. He makes a very compelling and spot-on Bush in my opinion, especially in his Presidential, older years. It's a bit uncanny at times.
Stone didn't take cheap potshots in the movie at Bush's tendency to butcher the English language. Bush comes across as a publicly confident, shoot-from-the-hip, chompin' on food with zest, genuine guy. The viewer is sold a pretty sympathetic view of Bush.
Anyway, enough of me. I want you to watch it and let's discuss it.