Hey! An actual, timely movie review!
Well, I actually saw the movie W two weekends ago (on opening weekend, even!) so my review is late, but at least the movie is still actually out. In theaters.*
Now, I of course see many movies. Although I have come to loathe much of the actual movie-going experience, I really enjoy film and am a huge fan. I don’t write about all of the movies I see, because A) I am not a movie critic and my reviews usually consist of phrases like “I laughed ‘til I cried” or “John Cusack was so cute in this film!” B) There just ain’t enough hours in the day. I do have a job, people. What do you expect of me? Get off my back already.
As a rule, I only write about films if they make a unique or especially noteworthy impression on me for some reason (good or bad). Or, you know...if I have nothing else to write about.
I feel the need to write about this particular movie because of recent reviews I have read which are just not kind. I think most reviewers are totally missing the entire point of this movie. And since, you know, Oliver Stone and I are like this (you will just have to envision my fingers entwined together), I feel secure in speaking for him, why he made this movie and what its point is.
*ahem*
Well, I actually saw the movie W two weekends ago (on opening weekend, even!) so my review is late, but at least the movie is still actually out. In theaters.*
Now, I of course see many movies. Although I have come to loathe much of the actual movie-going experience, I really enjoy film and am a huge fan. I don’t write about all of the movies I see, because A) I am not a movie critic and my reviews usually consist of phrases like “I laughed ‘til I cried” or “John Cusack was so cute in this film!” B) There just ain’t enough hours in the day. I do have a job, people. What do you expect of me? Get off my back already.
As a rule, I only write about films if they make a unique or especially noteworthy impression on me for some reason (good or bad). Or, you know...if I have nothing else to write about.
I feel the need to write about this particular movie because of recent reviews I have read which are just not kind. I think most reviewers are totally missing the entire point of this movie. And since, you know, Oliver Stone and I are like this (you will just have to envision my fingers entwined together), I feel secure in speaking for him, why he made this movie and what its point is.
*ahem*
Granted, Peter Case may not work as a film critic to earn a living, but he gave the movie a big thumbs down on his blog the other day. He described the film as “a whitewash. It doesn't come close to portraying the deceit practiced by that bunch in nearly every area...”
I don’t mean to pick on Mr. Case, whom I adore. Others have given similar critiques, saying the film misses the opportunity to hold the Bush Administration accountable, at least on film, for its many crimes. They have said it is more like a series of SNL clips than anything of substance.
People, people…W (the movie) is not about the history of the presidency of George W. Bush. It is not meant as an indictment of his shady campaign tactics, his deception, his policies. The movie is not about the Iraq War or Swift Boat attacks or tax policies or Hurricane Katrina or social security or any of the “soul cancer” (to quote Peter Case) we have been subjected to over the past 8 years. What the film aims to be is a character study. It is not about what Dubya did, it is about the man who did those things. What is behind that personality? When digging in to that, the movie by extension becomes an examination of Dubya’s relationship with his father and the family dynamics at work.
If you look at the movie within that framework, as I did – it’s a gas.
Josh Brolin is hilarious as Dubya. He looks like the guy and acts like him, without becoming a caricature. I don’t know how he managed that, but he did. I don’t exactly care about the President in this movie, but Brolin does a good job at giving us glimpse in to the human being behind the buffoonery. Granted, Brolin is a little long in the tooth to play Dubya during his college years, but that amounts to only a few minutes of screen time and we can all forgive him his crows’ feet.
The other actors are all really great, as well. The thing that truly makes this movie enjoyable, in fact, is the acting.
Thandie Newton as Condie Rice is priceless, especially when you consider how graceful and lovely Thandie Newton is in real life. Have you ever noticed how “bound up” Condie Rice seems on a daily basis? You will, after you see this movie.
The only curious performance in the movie is that of Richard Dreyfus as Dick Cheney. I doubt it is Dreyfus’ performance, per se, which makes Cheney curious in the movie; but he is portrayed in a rather sympathetic light, which is odd considering the real man is the personification of the Bogeyman. He is shown at meetings or even during meals, planting devious things in Dubya’s miniscule brain as if they just come up in casual conversation and not as if he has been planning them for years and finally has a patsy in power who he can manipulate. While I can see Cheney working Dubya in that way, they never show the Dick Cheney we have all come to know and love – the one whose arrogant face seems to be telling us all to fuck off even before his mouth utters the words.
Specific incidents such as Bush choking on a pretzel or saying ludicrous things out of stupidity are hilariously highlighted (although usually not within the same context as they happened in real life). However, the film never addresses specific incidents which have defined this Presidency, nor does it take political positions in regard to actual events. The only events which are mentioned in the film are not really played out to fruition, nor are the generally shady tactics the Administration used in dealing with them. They appear or are mentioned only as a backdrop to the man’s personality, which is the main focal point of the film. The Old Man and I remarked upon that very thing after the movie was over, but we did not mention it as a critique. It was obvious to both of us that this movie was not about stoning Dubya for his many crimes. It is just a portrait of a dumb dude who has some serious father issues and is the only one in the room who is not shocked that this dufus is actually President of the United States.
If you want to see The Movie that Tackles the Administration (and I for one would love you forever if you do), you need to go out and make it yourself. But don’t hold your desire to see that film against this one, which is really good when judged on its own merit.
And can I just say that, Tina Fey as Sarah Palin aside, SNL has not been this funny in more than a decade.
*My sisters and I had an exchange this morning about Halloween costumes. My Blonde sister’s costume is Eleanor of Aquitaine, so we went off on a bit of a tangent for a while about The Lion in Winter, among other things. Great movie, but that is not my point.
Blonde sister emailed that she had seen the movie in the “theatre”. My response was: what are you people, British?
It is called a TheatER!
Next you'll be saying that the colour of this font is bleu. And let's take the lift to the third floor so I can go to the loo.
I don’t mean to pick on Mr. Case, whom I adore. Others have given similar critiques, saying the film misses the opportunity to hold the Bush Administration accountable, at least on film, for its many crimes. They have said it is more like a series of SNL clips than anything of substance.
People, people…W (the movie) is not about the history of the presidency of George W. Bush. It is not meant as an indictment of his shady campaign tactics, his deception, his policies. The movie is not about the Iraq War or Swift Boat attacks or tax policies or Hurricane Katrina or social security or any of the “soul cancer” (to quote Peter Case) we have been subjected to over the past 8 years. What the film aims to be is a character study. It is not about what Dubya did, it is about the man who did those things. What is behind that personality? When digging in to that, the movie by extension becomes an examination of Dubya’s relationship with his father and the family dynamics at work.
If you look at the movie within that framework, as I did – it’s a gas.
Josh Brolin is hilarious as Dubya. He looks like the guy and acts like him, without becoming a caricature. I don’t know how he managed that, but he did. I don’t exactly care about the President in this movie, but Brolin does a good job at giving us glimpse in to the human being behind the buffoonery. Granted, Brolin is a little long in the tooth to play Dubya during his college years, but that amounts to only a few minutes of screen time and we can all forgive him his crows’ feet.
The other actors are all really great, as well. The thing that truly makes this movie enjoyable, in fact, is the acting.
Thandie Newton as Condie Rice is priceless, especially when you consider how graceful and lovely Thandie Newton is in real life. Have you ever noticed how “bound up” Condie Rice seems on a daily basis? You will, after you see this movie.
The only curious performance in the movie is that of Richard Dreyfus as Dick Cheney. I doubt it is Dreyfus’ performance, per se, which makes Cheney curious in the movie; but he is portrayed in a rather sympathetic light, which is odd considering the real man is the personification of the Bogeyman. He is shown at meetings or even during meals, planting devious things in Dubya’s miniscule brain as if they just come up in casual conversation and not as if he has been planning them for years and finally has a patsy in power who he can manipulate. While I can see Cheney working Dubya in that way, they never show the Dick Cheney we have all come to know and love – the one whose arrogant face seems to be telling us all to fuck off even before his mouth utters the words.
Specific incidents such as Bush choking on a pretzel or saying ludicrous things out of stupidity are hilariously highlighted (although usually not within the same context as they happened in real life). However, the film never addresses specific incidents which have defined this Presidency, nor does it take political positions in regard to actual events. The only events which are mentioned in the film are not really played out to fruition, nor are the generally shady tactics the Administration used in dealing with them. They appear or are mentioned only as a backdrop to the man’s personality, which is the main focal point of the film. The Old Man and I remarked upon that very thing after the movie was over, but we did not mention it as a critique. It was obvious to both of us that this movie was not about stoning Dubya for his many crimes. It is just a portrait of a dumb dude who has some serious father issues and is the only one in the room who is not shocked that this dufus is actually President of the United States.
If you want to see The Movie that Tackles the Administration (and I for one would love you forever if you do), you need to go out and make it yourself. But don’t hold your desire to see that film against this one, which is really good when judged on its own merit.
And can I just say that, Tina Fey as Sarah Palin aside, SNL has not been this funny in more than a decade.
*My sisters and I had an exchange this morning about Halloween costumes. My Blonde sister’s costume is Eleanor of Aquitaine, so we went off on a bit of a tangent for a while about The Lion in Winter, among other things. Great movie, but that is not my point.
Blonde sister emailed that she had seen the movie in the “theatre”. My response was: what are you people, British?
It is called a TheatER!
Next you'll be saying that the colour of this font is bleu. And let's take the lift to the third floor so I can go to the loo.
Did you see Richard Dreyfuss on The View, promoting this film? Crazy!
http://defamer.com/5070038/richard-dreyfuss-intent-on-deflating-w-oscar-buzz-single+handedly
I haven't seen the movie but we were at a charity fundraiser last night and I won W. shot glasses. Think I'll use them to toast goodbye to him Tuesday night.
Posted by: Andrea | Thursday, October 30, 2008 at 05:49 AM