Maybe Oliver Stone was right when he said he wasn’t sure whether his new film would succeed.
Depending on your perspective, early reviews for Stone’s George W. Bush biopic, “W” are either mixed and slightly better than Bush’s actual presidency (as Vulture says), or are displaying a pretty “mild buzz” as Slashfilm says. In other words. No one’s really doing backflips for the film, which is a bit sad, cause we kinda loved the satire and absurdity of the script and were/are looking forward to this (note PR has still not gotten back to us, wtf?).
You’d hope the polarizing Stone would deliver a film that people would either love or hate, but reviews are pretty tepid and lukewarm across the board which is even sometimes worse (lord knows it gets to be hard to write a review of a film that’s not terrible, but not good).
Variety and the Hollywood Reporter are mostly on the fence. The formers Todd McCarthy says, “For a film that could have been either a scorching satire or an outright tragedy, ‘W.’ is, if anything, overly conventional, especially stylistically” and the later writes, “It’s a gutsy movie but not necessarily a good one. Its greatest strength is that it wants to talk about what’s on our minds right now and not wait for historians.”
Jeffrey Wells, seemingly a large supporter of the film (or at least someone much like us who was eager to see it), has some faults with the film “(“Josh Brolin‘s performance as George W. Bush being dead perfect but — and this, I believe, is a crucial distinction — appropriately hollow. Which means that on some level the performance, like the film itself, leaves you feeling a wee bit flat and wanting more.”), but in the end gives it his stamp of approval. “[‘W’ is] one of the most startling and surprising films of the year. The damn movie leaves you feeling sorry for this fucker at the finale, and that ain’t hay.”
David Poland thinks Brolin should get an Oscar and liked the film, but isn’t claiming it’s the greatest political satire in the world either. “It is not [‘Dr.] Strangelove’ in any way. It doesn’t aspire to be. We laugh at the familiar and it is often funny, but it is not a comedy, really. It’s a life, unexpected. But the Big Theme appears, on this viewing, to be missing in action.” He also has a lot of praise for Thandie Newton as Condoleeza Rice. Her “performance shows a skill set that is unexpected in an actress best known for her beauty,” he notes.
“At its best, it holds up as a dramatized character study of the father and son presidents which will be watched keenly in years to come. At its worst, it is submerged by an over-populated cast of characters and a tone which shifts awkwardly between dramatic storytelling and smartass political comedy. … [T]he film is not a biopic by any means.” writes Screen Daily’s Mike Goodridge.
Everyone seems to be onboard with Brolin, but not so much the entire film.
Well, shucks, where does this leave the rest of Americah, huh? Will Palin go see this or will Joe six-pack? Hmm, probably not huh? If this film bombs at the box-office, we’re pretty sure that’s damning proof the way the election is going to unfortunately go. Look, the country just voted for a movie about the Taco Bell dog. What does that tell you about its taste and acumen?
Did you see the debates last night? On CNN, the viewers in Ohio whose metrics were being tracked thought Obama had won the debate singlehandedly, but then asked, “Ok, if you were to vote right now, who would you vote for?,” and they stammered, “Uhh, Mcain.” We’re all fucked.
