W.

Bea says: I really, really like Oliver Stone, so I knew even before I went in that I would like this. And I did. With a light touch and Stone's impeccable attention to detail, the film tells the story behind the man who until very recently has held one of the highest offices in the world via the docudrama format. Oddly, when his rise to presidency is considered, W. comes across as a failure. Perhaps there's nothing odd about that really - he has been spoofed and mocked so often I haven't been able to take him seriously for years - but somehow the film managed to remind me what a powerful position he has been in, arguably the most powerful, and yet he remains a failure. And that's kind of the key to the film; casting my mind way, way back to A levels the word "pathos" comes to mind, although it perhaps too strong a word... W. is almost likeable, and much more understandable after watching this, and although Stone does not spare him he doesn't go in for the kill either.

The actor playing W. is just a little too attractive (being attracted to W. felt strangely disturbing!) to be quite believable, although this is possibly on purpose. Thandie Newton does an interesting turn as Condaleeza Rice, who unlike W. is spared nothing and comes off very badly in the film. Intelligent librarian Laura Bush is the most interesting character portrayed - I just kept thinking "why"?

A must see.

****1/2

Cecil says: What is it about George W. Bush speeches that makes them so incomprehensible? It's surely something to do with how he delivers the words; something to do with the complete lack of emphasis on any particular word; or is it the speed of each sentence he utters, with a pause in between; or maybe it's his eyes never looking like they mean it; or because you always get the feeling he is just reading out the words somebody else has written? I ask all these questions because that's what I've been wondering for the last 8 years, and the problem with the actor playing W. was that he was too understandable, too clear in his speech-making. Yes, the way W. apparently scoffs his food seemed believable, but as Bea says the actor is too good-looking and too articulate to be the man we have had to watch for the 2 presidential terms...

Now, I've never met either George W. or Condoleeze Rice, so I can't say for sure how accurately they were portrayed, but surely nobody who has been Secretary of State for so many years can possibly really have been so puppet-like? I mean, her mannerisms on the screen became so annoying by the end that all I could think of was some sort of character from Thunderbirds; and her contribution to solving the world's problems was portrayed as little more than picking up the phone to put in a call for W. to Tony Blair or Jacques Chirac. I'm not SUCH an admirer of Oliver Stone to believe that this has not been exaggerated a little. Surely??

What was missing for me, since so much of the film was about family relationships, was some sort of treatment of the 'hanging chad' affair in Florida in 2000 and the way this affected or was affected by W.'s relationship with his brother Jeb.

And in a funny way, this film reminded me of how I felt about "The Queen" when I saw it a couple of years ago: I had assumed "The Queen" would be some sort of portrayal of her life or at least her reign; I was rather disappointed that it basically dealt with a few days in her life around the time of Diana's death. So with W., there seemed to be so much missing: I don't mind that the actual reaction to 9/11 was missing from the film, but there were so many relationships I felt could have been delved further into throughout his life that I left the cinema feeling a little bit cheated.

** 1/2