Review of W. (2008) by Michael S — 22 Jan 2010

To see a film for what it is, and not what it 'should' be, is key. And I can say that Stone's film is very well made and acted by a large, seasoned cast but by its final frame seems like a largely indifferent film from one of our most passionate of filmmakers.

Stone says he wanted to treat the man fairly, and he does. This is a largely sympathetic portrait of a man driven by insecurity and responsibility, with the cliches of a domineering father and sibling rivalry spurring him on.

There is nothing of the feverish penetration of his previous presidential epics and what actually comes off the screen makes it all seem as if the subject was rather uninspiring to the filmmaker. Perhaps it was made too soon? The subject is indeed treated so fairly that there never seems to be a moment of criticism on a larger level.

When Bush is flustered in front of a press conference, when asked if he could pinpoint his mistakes from an audience who knows that mistakes are all he is going to be known for, the scene simply occurs and dissipates.

I've seen more dramatically powered scenes in countless other films with similar themes. The sad thing about this film is that it seems like the best made-for-TV film ever made. It should be angrier and more passionate.