W. (2008) ****

History tends to be kinder to presidents the further ahead we go. Compare the way people felt about Nixon in 1977 as opposed to a decade and a half later at his death. It amazed me how people were coming forward and praising this man who was the poster boy for evil politicians in the 1970's. History had softened itself. I wasn't surprised that Oliver Stone was going to do a film on George W. Bush. Stone loves history even if he butchers it at times- JFK and Nixon being two prime examples. I was surprised on the timing. Shot in the last year of his Presidency and released a month before the 2008 elections I figured it would be an 2009 release to have a little aftermath attached to it. W. is a story that jumps around from past to present with the present being focused on the invasion of Iraq. You see how the back door dealings may have gone on (may being the operative term. I'm not sure how much is fact and how much is a writers fantasy). You also gets to see Dubya's fall and fall and fall, and rise until he sees himself landing in his fathers chair in the White House. All the players are here as it clicks its way to "Mission Accomplished". John Brolin continues his hell of a couple years playing Bush 43 to the point that you forget that you're watching a movie- you think it's CNN or the History Channel. What struck me about the film is that he plays Bush as a guy that wants to do the right thing and protect America. The antagonist is actually Dick Cheney, played by Richard Dreyfuss in one of his best roles in decades. He has swagger and he nails the facial expressions to the point that you just feel unclean watching him. These are the two main acting standouts, but some other powerful performances come from Jeffrey Wright (Colin Powell), Elizabeth Banks (Laura Bush), James Cromwell (George H.W. Bush), and Thandie Newton (Condoleeza Rice in an almost creepy portrayal). Two things struck me about W. The first was that this wasn't a typical Oliver Stone film with a bunch of different films stocks switching from black and white to color and hard angles. It's Stone, but it's a more down to earth portrayal, mainly because most of us remember the Saddam statue coming down. The second was the fact that Stone portrays Bush as the victim to Cheney's obsession with a middle eastern oil empire. It seems as though Bush is just wanting to do what's best for the people and depends on his cabinet for support and fails to get it or is manipulated to their own ends. I don't know how accurate it is, but you come away not being quite as mad at Bush 43 for what he did, though you feel angry because he was easily led astray. It's hard to say what kind of time capsule W. will be or how history will actually view the 43rd President. I see the tone lightening up a few decades from now, depending on what the next few presidents get accomplished. Perhaps Stone has a trilogy planned with this first act being how we made our mess and the remaining acts on how we cleaned it up are TBD.