W

Having not read the reviews, I approached W with an open mind. After all, I have enjoyed many of Oliver Stone's films in the past, and I think Josh Brolin is on the type of acting roll that creates Oscar winners. However, I also have a bit of apprehension about any politically motivated skewering of one of the most controversial presidents in the history of our country, not to mention the current leader of the free world.

I was surprised and pleased that the film focused less on the mistakes that George Bush has made (although those were certainly incorporated) and more on the growth and path that led him to the white house. Perhaps the most interesting and entertaining aspect of the film was the supporting cast of players, who all did an exceptional job with the exception of Thandie Newton, who I can't tell if she intentionally made Condoleeza Rice look like an ignorant puppet, or if that's just how it turned out. Anyway, from Dick Cheney, to George Bush, Karl Rove and Donald Rumsfeld, the actors hit the characters with stellar accuracy.

Especially remarkable were the performances of Jeffrey Wright playing Colin Powell, and Josh Brolin playing W himself. I fully expect Oscar nominations for Brolin as well as either Cromwell or Dreyfuss based on the pivotal scenes and likenesses of character. The story is compelling if not a bit uncomfortable, but the personal perspectives of the director are subtle and restrained. I fully enjoyed the ride, although it did start to slow down a little bit toward the end.

Where the film missed the mark is in the absence of critical information to the development of the story. For example, Bush's campaign for governor of Texas breezed through the process without a hint of how he found himself in the position. Likewise, with flashes back and forward from his prolongued adolescence to the aftermath of 9/11, there is no time spent dealing with the event that polarized our country forever. Additionally, for a man who has difficulty holding down a job, how exactly does he find himself as the owner of a major league baseball team? The business sense he gained from Harvard's business school should have been more than mentioned in passing, as that accomplishment alone warrants some attention.

We, as viewers do achieve a sense of the motivation and political influence of the prestigious Bush name, and to Stone's credit, it is quite well done. The acclaim belongs to the players though.

A very interesting story; it makes you think about the changes in the political world over the past 20 years, and that although many things have changed for the better or worse, the old school wealthy grey-haired Ivy league politicians still rule undisputably. Worth seeing whether you are a supporter or not. 7/10.

Body of Lies

I read David Ignatious' book in 2007 and thought it was a riveting CIA story about an operative who finds himself torn between the real-time intelligence that he receives in the volatile Middle East, and the bureaucratic red tape in Washington that dictates his rules of engagement.

Ridley Scott's adaptation is an exciting thrill-a-minute action movie, but too much of the mystique of covert operations is wasted behind an absurd power struggle between the man on the ground (DiCaprio) and his supervisor in the safety of an air conditioned office (Crowe). The interaction between these two is cool, but Crowe's character is despicable and callous not to mention ignorant of Middle Eastern customs and language. Qualities that certainly do not qualify someone to head a division even in the black ops realm of the CIA.

The film belongs to DiCaprio. He displays his inner action star, but does so with a bit of nobility. Films like Blood Diamond and the Departed showed a glimmer of his potential in this arena, and he brings quality acting to the table as well as a believable character. Crowe simply brings a second big name to the mix. He could have played this part in his sleep, and it's obvious.

Ridley Scott accentuates the technological capabilities as well as the ethical grey areas as it concerns the global war on terror. There are no boundaries or rules when dealing with extremist groups who want nothing more than to punish the infidels. Scott makes sure that the viewer realizes this, and it helps the film.

What does not help the film however, is that it is far too long. At 2 hours and 8 minutes, it seems more like 3 hours, and the multitude of plot twists that made Ignatious' book so entertaining have found themselves on the cutting room floor save one mildly unexpected twist.

The film comes and goes, and there is no real satisfaction or resolution. The climax comes far too quickly during the pivotal scenes near the end, and although the intent is to be a smart, realistic, spy thriller, Ridley Scott should have milked the action angle a little more for entertainment value since he scrapped major plot points.

Some of the action is commendable - particularly with regard to the military and intelligence scenes, but the action is dulled by interludes of nonsensical romantic tension that is seemingly only placed in the film because there was nothing else to put in it.

I loved the book, but only moderately enjoyed the film. Perhaps my standards are skewed and a comparison is unfair. If you have no basis for comparison, this would be one of the better films in recent years to tackle the subject of terrorism, but in many ways it is still just a waste of talented actors, writers and director. By the way - William Monahan (the Departed) wrote the screenplay for this one, and fails in my book. I'm looking forward to more of DiCaprio's films in the near future. 7/10.