The review may contain spoilers
In a way, this was an atypical Oliver Stone film. He is known as a provocateur: Witness the quintessential example of that, JFK, and also, in their own ways, films like The Doors, Born on the Fourth of July, and Reversal of Fortune.
However, as anti-system and anti-Republican as he may be, Stone, in this film, as in Nixon, decides not to put in many possibilities for bite that he could have. Instead, he looks to essentially paint an interpretive portrait of the current (as I write this) President. Nixon, when Stone made his film, well, that was a while before.
Still, there are differences between W and Nixon. Nixon was a far more complex and intelligent man than Bush (I would like to meet a person who disagrees with that statement). So, inherently, Stone came up with things in the background and makeup for Nixon that constituted food for thought. Maybe some of this reflects that there was more knowledge about Nixon with the passage of more time. But I think that the main point is that Bush has a more simple personality and makeup. Indeed, I would qualify my own statement about an "interpretative portrait" as it applies to W as opposed to Nixon. For in many ways, W is more like a straight documentary that does not portray much that is profound in Bush's childhood, in his character and chemistry, or in the decision-making of the key players in starting the Iraq War.
Most everyone knows Bush as a simple-minded type. While he could have fits of emotion and anger, he is not a redneck. But he does have a cowboy mindset. If there is anything that this movie emphasizes, it is that Bush in no way represents the Eastern aristocracy of his father and mother. Rather, he is a non-intellectual, not-so-well-spoken Christian Texan with roots nowhere but Texas, with a fraternity boy mentality. Everyone is "folks." W was not successful academically, like his brother Phi Beta Kappa brother Jeb. He had some difficulties with success in various jobs and had some trouble with the police. His father had more expectations for Jeb than for older brother George, which George resented.
Nevertheless, W has an ego, and authentically believes, as is widely known, that he is on a mission from God to serve in public office and do Christian good in this World. That means the War in Iraq is a justified war (and, er, the deaths and maimings of U.S. and Iraqi soldiers and civilians) to promote democracy and Christianity. Bush takes the word of his advisers and other sources on WMD evidence, etc. Stone, interestingly, does not portray the folks in the positions of power as wanting to exaggerate and fake evidence, and does not submit much contradiction early on save a doubting Colin Powell. This could have been done on, e.g., Cheney and Nigeria/Uranium, with respect to which the general public knows that Cheney deliberately did not tell the truth. It also was never suggested it was for oil. On the other hand, and importantly, the sense is that from the start, people like Cheney and other advisers save Colin Powell wanted war rather than to avoid it.
As for the casting and acting, it was definitely good. The best lookalike was Thandie Newton as Condoleeza Rice, but Josh Brolin, who did a great acting job with mannerisms, etc., as W; Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney (perhaps many an old curmudgeon could have looked like him, tho); and Elizabeth Banks as Laura Bush were also great lookalikes. Ellen Burstyn is good as Barbara Bush with less wrinkles.
So, to reiterate, Stone seems to mostly want to tell us some facts, in a simplistic way, without showing the complexities of what really was coming into play (e.g., ties to oil interests of Bush and Cheney, interests of other U.S. parties). To each his own; W is a good or bad President, depending on the eyes of the beholder. The badly mutilated American casualties from Iraq (and the female relative of the Latin one to whom Bush speaks to in Spanish) give grudging, restrained acknowledgment to the visitor President's words of caring and sympathy, but Stone subtly suggests they may be thinking something else inside. As is this commentator.
In a way, this was an atypical Oliver Stone film. He is known as a provocateur: Witness the quintessential example of that, JFK, and also, in their own ways, films like The Doors, Born on the Fourth of July, and Reversal of Fortune.
However, as anti-system and anti-Republican as he may be, Stone, in this film, as in Nixon, decides not to put in many possibilities for bite that he could have. Instead, he looks to essentially paint an interpretive portrait of the current (as I write this) President. Nixon, when Stone made his film, well, that was a while before.
Still, there are differences between W and Nixon. Nixon was a far more complex and intelligent man than Bush (I would like to meet a person who disagrees with that statement). So, inherently, Stone came up with things in the background and makeup for Nixon that constituted food for thought. Maybe some of this reflects that there was more knowledge about Nixon with the passage of more time. But I think that the main point is that Bush has a more simple personality and makeup. Indeed, I would qualify my own statement about an "interpretative portrait" as it applies to W as opposed to Nixon. For in many ways, W is more like a straight documentary that does not portray much that is profound in Bush's childhood, in his character and chemistry, or in the decision-making of the key players in starting the Iraq War.
Most everyone knows Bush as a simple-minded type. While he could have fits of emotion and anger, he is not a redneck. But he does have a cowboy mindset. If there is anything that this movie emphasizes, it is that Bush in no way represents the Eastern aristocracy of his father and mother. Rather, he is a non-intellectual, not-so-well-spoken Christian Texan with roots nowhere but Texas, with a fraternity boy mentality. Everyone is "folks." W was not successful academically, like his brother Phi Beta Kappa brother Jeb. He had some difficulties with success in various jobs and had some trouble with the police. His father had more expectations for Jeb than for older brother George, which George resented.
Nevertheless, W has an ego, and authentically believes, as is widely known, that he is on a mission from God to serve in public office and do Christian good in this World. That means the War in Iraq is a justified war (and, er, the deaths and maimings of U.S. and Iraqi soldiers and civilians) to promote democracy and Christianity. Bush takes the word of his advisers and other sources on WMD evidence, etc. Stone, interestingly, does not portray the folks in the positions of power as wanting to exaggerate and fake evidence, and does not submit much contradiction early on save a doubting Colin Powell. This could have been done on, e.g., Cheney and Nigeria/Uranium, with respect to which the general public knows that Cheney deliberately did not tell the truth. It also was never suggested it was for oil. On the other hand, and importantly, the sense is that from the start, people like Cheney and other advisers save Colin Powell wanted war rather than to avoid it.
As for the casting and acting, it was definitely good. The best lookalike was Thandie Newton as Condoleeza Rice, but Josh Brolin, who did a great acting job with mannerisms, etc., as W; Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney (perhaps many an old curmudgeon could have looked like him, tho); and Elizabeth Banks as Laura Bush were also great lookalikes. Ellen Burstyn is good as Barbara Bush with less wrinkles.
So, to reiterate, Stone seems to mostly want to tell us some facts, in a simplistic way, without showing the complexities of what really was coming into play (e.g., ties to oil interests of Bush and Cheney, interests of other U.S. parties). To each his own; W is a good or bad President, depending on the eyes of the beholder. The badly mutilated American casualties from Iraq (and the female relative of the Latin one to whom Bush speaks to in Spanish) give grudging, restrained acknowledgment to the visitor President's words of caring and sympathy, but Stone subtly suggests they may be thinking something else inside. As is this commentator.