- Joined
- Jan 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,067
Note:I am not here to talk politics, I know its not allowed on the forums so I'm going to leave my political opinions out of the review. It'd be best you do the same.
Going into W., I had pretty low expectations, and while they may have been exceeded, they weren't matched by much. Maybe the reason I had such low expectations lies in the director. I don't really care for Mr. Stone. I liked "The Doors," sort of, but only because I like The Doors and I thought Val Kilmer actually did a decent job of acting for once. My mum tried to convince me that "Natural Born Killers" was good, and I liked the concept and there were a couple O.K. moments but it was killed by direction that has probably killed anybody with Epilepsy who dare watch it. It makes your head spin, and not in a good way. JFK and Nixon came up with stupid theories and stupid falsehoods. I did like Platoon O.K., but I don't think its as great as so many people make it out to be. Seeing a few glimpses of Stone's purview of politics/war/etc. I figured "W." probably wouldn't be very honest and might be another pretentious seizure spewed out on screen.
In the end, "W." was surprisingly honest. Too honest. I don't mean that it should be saying bad things, what I mean is that it doesn't give us anything new or interesting. Anyone who has followed politics since Bush got his presidency will know everything W. has to show. Even my wife, who spent a fair amount of that presidency in her home country of Japan, knew just about everything the movie had to say. This is the films real down fall, its just not very interesting. It's like retaking a history class you already got an excelling grade in for the third time. While its nice that Stone doesn't pull a dumb theory from his behind or try to attempt to force a meaningless visual metaphor into the background of meaningless scenes, it would've been nice if maybe he dug around and found something to say about Bush that isn't public domain. Whether he is on Bush's side or not, I'm sure there is something out there Stone could say. If not, I'd be very shocked.
The only real thing I liked about the film was that the acting was competent. Brolin pulls off the role great, and everyone else fell into place perfectly. Otherwise, there really isn't anything to say. The only people this film could possibly interest are people who missed out on Bush's presidency and want to know about it through a visual medium rather than read. I can't think of many people that fit that description though.
4.0/10
Going into W., I had pretty low expectations, and while they may have been exceeded, they weren't matched by much. Maybe the reason I had such low expectations lies in the director. I don't really care for Mr. Stone. I liked "The Doors," sort of, but only because I like The Doors and I thought Val Kilmer actually did a decent job of acting for once. My mum tried to convince me that "Natural Born Killers" was good, and I liked the concept and there were a couple O.K. moments but it was killed by direction that has probably killed anybody with Epilepsy who dare watch it. It makes your head spin, and not in a good way. JFK and Nixon came up with stupid theories and stupid falsehoods. I did like Platoon O.K., but I don't think its as great as so many people make it out to be. Seeing a few glimpses of Stone's purview of politics/war/etc. I figured "W." probably wouldn't be very honest and might be another pretentious seizure spewed out on screen.
In the end, "W." was surprisingly honest. Too honest. I don't mean that it should be saying bad things, what I mean is that it doesn't give us anything new or interesting. Anyone who has followed politics since Bush got his presidency will know everything W. has to show. Even my wife, who spent a fair amount of that presidency in her home country of Japan, knew just about everything the movie had to say. This is the films real down fall, its just not very interesting. It's like retaking a history class you already got an excelling grade in for the third time. While its nice that Stone doesn't pull a dumb theory from his behind or try to attempt to force a meaningless visual metaphor into the background of meaningless scenes, it would've been nice if maybe he dug around and found something to say about Bush that isn't public domain. Whether he is on Bush's side or not, I'm sure there is something out there Stone could say. If not, I'd be very shocked.
The only real thing I liked about the film was that the acting was competent. Brolin pulls off the role great, and everyone else fell into place perfectly. Otherwise, there really isn't anything to say. The only people this film could possibly interest are people who missed out on Bush's presidency and want to know about it through a visual medium rather than read. I can't think of many people that fit that description though.
4.0/10
