W.

Since this is a political movie and everyone demands I reveal my deepest, inner most beliefs/biases, here’s your disclaimer. I hate all of the politicians. I hate the Republicans. I hate the Democrats. I won’t even vote for Ron Paul. Now, let’s talk about THE MOVIE.

W. stars Josh Brolin as George W. Bush (the real deal or the character?). As he and his team plan the War in Iraq and manage the War on Terror, the audience sees the events that made W into the man he is today whether or not all of these events really took place.

Oliver Stone’s biggest problems with W. might be the desire to avoid controversy and an inability to find the right tone. W. isn’t quite a parody or satire. W. isn’t quite a true story. W. isn’t quite a drama. W. isn’t anything.

In the beginning, Stone and the cast satisfy our immediate curiosity. The audience wants to see if Brolin can capture the essence of Bush like Frank Caliendo and other comedians have. We want to see whether or not Thandie Newton will sound like Condoleeza Rice, and we want to see Richard Dreyfuss’s take on Dick Cheney (complete with a sneer and wringing of hands, he only needs to twirl a mustache and the characterization would be complete).

However, W. runs out of steam as Stone loses sight of the original plan, which was to show us the unlikely rise of the party boy and cheerleader to the highest office in the land. He captures some of our attention with a storyline about strife between W. and George Bush (James Cromwell, who doesn’t try to sound like the actual George Bush) as we watch W. struggle to win Dad’s approval and get as much love, praise and attention as brother Jeb. However, after an interesting approach of mixing in W.’s history with his actions during the build up to and execution of the war in Iraq, Stone drops it too soon.

Worst of all, he leaves out two of the most defining events in W.’s life – the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the 2000 election. If we are supposed to learn something about the character W., how do you leave out those monumental moments? Also, Stone seems to be leaning towards making W. into some Greek tragedy as we watch the rise and fall of the man, so why not show his highest moments to compare him with who W. is at the end of the movie?

Even when he does try to stoke the audience’s passion about W., Stone misses the mark. Once in a while, he throws in a well known Bushism to keep the Bush haters happy and excited, but he never uses them in the actual context or event where they took place, which most in the audience who want to see W. will notice immediately.

Yet, Brolin emerges from this movie as an actor who has elevated his game and stature. After two fantastic performances in 2007 (American Gangster and No Country for Old Men), Brolin does the unthinkable. He’s even better in this movie! While the tone of W. is not always right or clear, Brolin always delivers the right performance for the moment. He is hilarious in scenes where W. is supposed to be a bit goofy. He’s earnest as W. starts to find himself and redefine his life as a reborn Christian. He’s even a bit likable when we start to see W. in a different light. I guess you have to realize that he is not playing George W. Bush. He’s playing the character of W. You will hear this from me a few times as we start to get into the Oscar race, but I think Brolin earned himself a nomination even if the movie is not perfect.

W. doesn’t give anybody exactly what they want, but Brolin is almost amazing enough to make it worth your time.

W. is rated PG-13 for language including sexual references, some alcohol abuse, smoking and brief disturbing war images.