In a decidedly ambiguous review, Variety's Todd McCarthy seems to give Oliver Stone's latest offering thumbs mid-way up. While he describes the film as "unusual and inescapably interesting," he also takes issue with various less successful elements (e.g., "some of the song choices are downright sophomoric in their too-obvious irony"). McCarthy does praise Brolin's work:
"W." has the benefit of filmmaking energy and good performances where they count, beginning with Josh Brolin's arresting turn in the leading role. One can't say Brolin is George W. Bush - the real one is still all too noticeably with us - but the actor offers a more than reasonable physical approximation and an interpretation that's convincingly boisterous and determined. Aspects of the man unknown to the public are put forward that may or may not be true, but are sufficiently believable to make one go with them in a movie.
It is a curious exercise: a biography of a severely unpopular, incumbent U.S. President. And based on McCarthy's review, it does appear that Stone did not fall flat on his face as most of us thought would happen when we first heard of the project.
Posts
2 comments:
Wow, that really is a decidedly ambiguous review. And it doesn't seem like there's any overwhelming praise for Brolin.
I think I might be more interested in this film if it were made, I don't know, five or ten years from now. I'll admit that the latest trailer has caught my interest, but I just don't feel any urgency to see this film this month or even this year.
I try and honor Mr. Stone by seeing all his films, but after the last fiasco I know he will be hard-pressed to find his footing. True, his previous 'political biographies' were noteworhy, JFK and NIXON, but they were a long time ago and the approach with this film is far different. That said it is still "telling" that McCarthy is claiming that he did not remotely come close to "falling on his face." I'll see it, but I won't be wearing bells!
Post a Comment