Review of "W"

Seth Ward reviews Oliver Stone's, "W". He writes:

Sadly, the problem was in the filmmaking. The film lacked all the emotional virtuosity that we are used to in Stone films. The movie didn't know what to be about. Was it about the war? Was it about Bush Jr.'s relationship with his father? Was it about Bush Sr.'s failures? Was it about Bush's Christianity? Was it about the way in which the people surrounding Bush were too great of an influence? I don't know. And what about the election? What about 9/11? In classic Stone-style, we got little vignettes in the form of flashback. However, flashbacks are only effective if they serve to amplify the present tense situation or the overall POV the director is trying to emphasize. They sorta did, but the the flashbacks were entirely too long and too self-conscious and as a result we soon forgot about the main plot, whatever it was, altogether. You can get away with much using flashback in film. In writing, you can't. There are cardinal rules you must follow and most times they are summarized and without dialogue. It's okay in film if they are short and emphasize a point- again, a point that supports the greater point of the film. They were just the opposite here. The film would have worked better linearly.

But again, and I don't think Stone knew exactly what he was going for, so he threw them altogether in a pot, shook it up, and called it art. Consequently, the film lacked center, reality, and a sense of real truth. I just didn't buy it.

The best thing about "W" was Josh Brolin. He did a very good job portraying Bush amidst a culture that is filled with people who are long-standing established masters of the Bush impersonation. Somehow, Brolin was able to bring some authenticity to the character without shooting for laughs. He took the character serious and in doing so, he brought a few shades of character to Stone's caricature.

Read the whole thing.