‘W.’ Unleashed
As the crap really begins to fly in yet another depressing American presidential campaign (my guy is pulling ahead and yet the whole thing is leaving a bad taste in my mouth…how sad is that?), Oliver Stone’s W. has finally been seen by journalists and the word so far is mixed.
Variety’s Todd McCarthy calls it “unusual and inescapably interesting,” but adds that it “feels like a rough draft of a film it would behoove [Stone] to remake in 10 or 15 years.” Surprisingly, he says W. is “a relatively even-handed, restrained treatment of recent politics.” His main regret is that it’s “overly conventional, especially stylistically.”
Meanwhile, The Hollywood Reporter’s Kirk Honeycutt says “It’s a gutsy movie but not necessarily a good one.” Honeycutt seems to have wanted Stone to come out swinging only to find “he wants to let the facts speak for themselves.”
Variety’s Anne Thompson wonders whether a film that focuses on the Iraq War at a time when the nation’s attention has shifted to the cratering economy will have the necessary urgency.
More interesting is Jeffrey Wells‘ reaction over at Hollywood-Elsewhere. He’s a first-class Bush hater and he’s been anxious to see this thing since he first read the controversial script. While it’s clear the movie wasn’t quite as good as he wanted it to be, he brushes aside the acknowledged flatness of the first part of the film as a set up for the final unexpected sucker punch which actually left Wells feeling a little bit sorry for Bush. The last person on the planet you’d expect to humanize George W. Bush is Oliver Stone, but according to Wells he’s done it.
Interesting.
One thing all the critics I’ve read seem to agree on is that Josh Brolin’s performance as Bush is amazing. Elizabeth Banks also gets good notices as Laura Bush. The rest of the cast is more hit and miss, but the general impression is very positive.
From the minute W. was announced, I’ve been unsure of what to make of it and the more I find out about it, the more confused I am. I still think it’s too late for useful satire and too early for accurate history, but it appears Stone ended up with a different movie altogether. It sounds like he’s actually trying to understand this guy. I’m not sure I’m ready to go there, but I admire the effort. In the end, despite all my skepticism, I’m eager to see Brolin’s performance in this. In just under a year, he’s become one of those actors whose involvement in a project automatically gets me interested and it sounds like he does not disappoint here.
Filed under: Buzz
Tags: Elizabeth Banks, Josh Brolin, Oliver Stone, W.
I see this on Tuesday…I can’t wait!
You’ve been pumped for this one for quite a while, no? I look forward to your reaction.
Despite the luke warm reaction in the trades and despite my initial skepticism, I’m looking forward to it after all.
I don’t know when I will see this, but I am looking forward to it, if that’s the right expression. I am curious. Very curious.
Yeah, I’m trying to get excited for it. At all. But everytime I think objectively about my main interest (Brolin’s performance) I keep thinking I’ll have to sit through 2 hours on W, which I have no interest in.
It is curious that Stone has chosen the war as his point of interest on Bush when the economy may end up being Bush’s biggest legacy. He may have fiddled away while Rome, Wall St, and his party are burning to the ground. Only time will tell.
I’ve suffered far too long with this guy as President. Whether Stone satirizes him, makes him seem human, or points out the utter absurdity of the entire situation is somewhat irrelevant to me. I have no interest in spending any more time thinking about George W Bush. No matter who wins, January can’t come soon enough.
I’m a Stone fan, so I’m looking forward to it, even though I have no idea what to expect from it when I see it (which might prove beneficial to the viewing experience actually).
Ever since this project was announced, it’s like every single article written about the film has said something different. It’s like people were asking Stone questions like “Is this a satire?”, “Is it a human portrait?”, “Is it dark in tone?” and Stone responded to every question by saying “Yeah, kind of.” I really have no idea what I’m about to see.
I watched Oliver Stone last night on CNN’s Larry King show.
Between his comments (essentially, repeating his lines about being an artist whose function is to empathize with his subject) and the clips they showed, I have to admit, I’m fully aboard for this now.
I’ve been sayin’ for a long time: Brolin looked amazing from the first second I saw him in that trailer some months back. Looks good enough for an Oscar nomination to me.
Whether you love him or hate him, Stone has that classic director look and mannerism. He’s like a much more nervous, far less suave John Huston when he’s being interviewed. I’m going to have to see Nixon once more before W comes out.
I’m somewhere between Joel and Alynch and Alexander, but leaning more and more toward the favorable.
Like Alynch, the fact the film seems to defeat easy categorization makes it more interesting to me.
At the project’s inception, I assumed it would be straight-up satire or just an anti-Bush history lesson, but it sounds much more complicated than that. And that’s a good thing.
We’ll see.
Yeah I’ve been looking forward to this one for a while. It’s a marriage of two of my greatest passions – film and politics. I’ve always been a political junkie, so much so that I even hang out at the local Republican headquarters sometimes just to be around the election atmosphere (and as a major, die-hard liberal…that’s really saying something).
They don’t have a Democratic campaign office in your town Matthew?
The general desire to be rid of GWB, I predict, will be why this movie gets generally ignored and flops in a couple of weeks. Ironically, the conservatives will say that it’s anti-Stone, anti-liberal Hollywood that is the reason when it’ll be precisely the opposite.
Yeah Joel we do, we have a Democratic headquarters AND an Obama headquarters – I hang out at all of them…haha. But I find it infinitely more fascinating to hang out with people I don’t agree with than those that are like minded.
“it’s too late for useful satire and too early for accurate history”
well said. Still, I’m curious enough to go see it. I was supposed to go to the press screening next week… but I’ll be in Madrid instead :-) Anyway, it’s coming out on the 30th here, and I know quite a few people who’ll be glad to go with me.
I’ve seen the trailer a number of times in the theatres in recent weeks, not to mention on a number of the blogging sites. I’m not so sure what to make of it yet, but it seems safe that it won’t be an abomination, which for Stone is certainly a step in the right direction. Even factoring in election campaign malaise (which Craig and others have admitted being afflicted with) the subject is still irresistable, and the director, despite his numerous misfires, is still someone to pay some attention to.
Ever since news broke about this project, I don’t remember anyone predicting the film would be great. The rush that ensued to get the film ready for fall distribution supports the notion that it wouldn’t be Stone’s best work but that it might be timely in a morbid sort of way and more likely to make a little money now rather than later.
I’m curious to see it, at any rate, and will be doing so at a preview this coming Tuesday.
I’m not surprised that Stone says he’s trying to find the central character’s humanity, but I’m simply interested in seeing Josh Brolin tackle a challenging role and discovering what Burstyn can do with Babs Bush.
After having watched him on Larry King recently, I’m convinced that, at the moment, Stone isn’t capable of making a really good film.
Hmmm…Madrid…W….Madrid….W….Madrid….
Yeah, it’s not really a question, is it Hedwig?
Someone somewhere wrote of the parallels between Bush and Stone that if I’d heard before I quickly forgot (neither of them being my favorite people).
Both had successful, overbearing fathers. Both went to Yale (Stone quit), both had a stretch of aimless years before turning their lives around and finding “that thing.” The big difference is one went to Vietnam and the other didn’t.
Anyway, if this really is an attempt to get inside of Bush’s head, it’s not so hard to see why.
I’m also ready to just have Bush gone for a while, but in a real sense he has been for at least the last year. His recent feeble attempt to rally the country and congress around the bailout package pretty much made him look like “The Man Who Wasn’t There”
As a confirmed bush-hater myself, I’m not sure I want to see it. It’ll just piss me off, I know.
And when has a Stone picture ever had unmixed reviews? (ok, maybe the 9-11 thing).
I actually avoided Stone for years after JFK. Not because i disagree with his poltics, but I disliked his unsubtle “frying pan to the face” methods. Believe it or not, WTC was the first of his movies I saw since JFK.
It had its moments and Michael Pena was excellent if I recall.
I’ve been meaning to go back and watch all the Stone films I’ve avoided over the years, but I haven’t gotten around to it. I finally did it for Bruckheimer though so you’d think I’d be able to get over myself.
Wow Craig, that surprises me. For me, JFK is Stone in peak form, and I don’t even believe in most of the conspiracy theories. The only films of his that top it are Nixon and Salvador. If you’re planning on seeing W, I highly recommend that you at least check out that new Director’s cut DVD of Nixon before seeing it. Those two films seem ripe for comparison.
I know, it’s weird. I”ll make up for it, I swear.
See the Director’s cut DVD of Nixon, Craig. (Especially since I plan on looking at it again and reviewing it before W. comes out, heh.) I don’t think Stone will ever even close to that peak again, much less ever top it.