W. (2008)

Common wisdom suggests that hindsight is 20-20. But how soon is too soon to attempt hindsight? Director Oliver Stone takes on that question with W., a biopic about George W. Bush. Never before had a Hollywood film been made about a sitting U.S. President’s time in office.* Given all the flak Bush faced during his two terms in office, what with a controversial election and an unpopular war in Iraq, many wondered whether or not Stone was attempting to craft a serious biography or merely stoking the anti-Bush flames during a crucial election year. The answer surprised just about everyone.

W. never lingers too long in one era. The film begins in 1966, where Bush is being initiated into a fraternity at Yale University. We see glimpses of his young adult life, filled with arguments and issues with his accomplished father. Flash-forward to 1977, where Bush decides to enter the family game of politics. He loses his first bid for Congress but makes a name for himself by bringing in the most votes ever for a Republican in his Texas district. We jump ahead next to the 1980s. While jogging, Bush collapses and has a religious experience. He becomes a born-again Christian, helps his father during the 1988 presidential election and becomes part-owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team.

After laying all this foundation, the films jumps into more familiar territory. Bush runs for Governor of Texas, though against his parents’ wishes. This later propels him to running for President and two of his most defining moments: 9/11 and the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Stone devotes extra time to the meetings and counseling between Bush and his staff before making the call to invade Iraq. The film ends after Bush’s infamous ‘Mission Accomplished’ speech, leaving out any details of Bush’s second term in office.

Whatever you may think of it, W. is an interesting look at a controversial public figure. Uncompromising is the best word I can find to describe it but not in the way that you may be thinking. Oliver Stone is known for his very liberal political leanings, so many wondered if he was even capable of creating an accurate depiction of Bush’s life. While Stone does include a few of Bush’s less-flattering moments in W., he never piles it on. Those negative moments (binge drinking in college) are balanced with positive moments (meeting his future wife) and everything is shown from a neutral perspective. It seems like Stone was able to keep his personal opinions of the man out of the picture while nailing down pivotal life events that make Bush tick.

Josh Brolin may not look exactly like George W. Bush but he hits the accent, mannerisms and facial expressions quite well. His performance does walk a fine line between acting and imitating though, as Bush is played up to be more dim-witted and naïve than he is in real life. I can actually let this slide because Bush always carried himself in public as a regular guy and attempted to project a casual demeanor. That’s the Bush America knew from their TV screens from news coverage, sound bites and collections of his more amusing moments.

There’s more to Brolin’s Bush than what American’s know, however. Supposedly based on information gathered from sources close to the Bush family and administration (but notably not anyone with an actual firsthand account of the events depicted), we get to see the troubled side of Bush’s life. A rebellious young man, the eldest (but not the favorite) child in a large family, struggling to earn his father’s respect while being his own man; the long road to achievement and success; and the struggle to make the decision to invade Iraq. Seeing these events play out humanizes the man and you just might find some of your preconceived notions of him changed.

Elizabeth Banks does a fine job as Laura Welch Bush but several of the supporting players either don’t fit right or don’t get the job done. James Cromwell barely looks like George H. W. Bush and it seems like he never even tries to recreate elder Bush’s voice or mannerisms. On the flip side, Richard Dreyfuss has the look of Vice President Dick Cheney but completely overdoes it. It is clear that he relishes portraying a man that he hates (Dreyfuss is notoriously liberal) but his sneering, shifty performance is comical at best.

Then there are Thandie Newton as Condoleeza Rice and Toby Jones as Karl Rove. Newton appears to take the MadTV approach to her character (no, it’s not even good enough to suggest a poor Saturday Night Live act)- horribly stereotyped and totally off-character. Jones’ Karl Rove is a creepy Gollum-esque man who is constantly coming out of the shadows to whisper advice into Bush’s ear. You would think that these head-scratching hack jobs would derail the film completely but they only appear a few times (but enough to be memorably bad).

Again, I come back to the only way to describe this film- interesting. Some on the right will claim it goes too far to make Bush look bad. Some on the left will think it fails to go far enough. The rest of us will tilt our heads to the side and quietly wonder what exactly we just watched and whether we had any right to expect anything out of this film. It's only due to its uncompromising nature that I can put my finger on a rating and I'm not even sure if it's the right one, to be perfectly honest.

W. doesn’t make any advancements for film or acting but it makes a niche for itself in the biopic genre. It will be interesting to see if films about sitting Presidents become a trend or if Oliver Stone’s oddly-timed biopic will become little more than a footnote (or even an afterthought) of cinema history. I guess, as with what history’s assessment of George W. Bush’s presidency, only time will tell.

RATING: 3 out of 5

*Documentaries don't count and the only other film released about a sitting President was PT 109, which was about John F. Kennedy's time during World War II and not his time in office.

Swing Vote (2008)

Every four years, Americans take to the voting booths and elect a President. Some races have been landslide victories while others have been flat-out nail-biters. Candidates and pundits like to tell us that every vote matters and Swing Vote latches onto that election-time mantra. The result is an amusing, thought-provoking, and subtly cynical look at the American electoral process.

Bud Johnson (Kevin Costner) is a single father in New Mexico. He doesn’t strike you as the kind of man who has a lot of ambition. He lives in a trailer, he drinks too much, and he just got fired from his latest blue-collar job. When the Presidential election comes around, Bud’s daughter Molly (Madeline Carroll) tries to get her father excited about his civic duty to ‘help shape the country’s future’ by voting. Bud promises he’ll vote, seeing as it means so much to his little girl. Realizing that her father isn’t going to vote, Molly sneaks into their polling place and attempts to cast a vote for her father. Just as the vote is being registered, the polls close and the machines are unplugged.

The next morning, Bud and Molly wake up to find that the election is down to the wire- a virtual tie! In fact, the whole race comes down to New Mexico and the popular vote was tied as the polls closed. However, authorities learn that when the poll shut down the voting booths, Bud’s vote was in process but not recorded. This means that he needs to re-cast “his” vote, which will determine the outcome of the entire election. Over the next few weeks, Bud is hounded by the Republican and Democratic candidates, courted by campaign advisers, and scrutinized by the media. In the end though, he has to make a choice.

Let’s face it- the likelihood of this scenario playing out in real life is virtually nil. Sure, some elections have come down to a matter of a few thousand votes in the past but it’s a statistical improbability that a state's popular vote would be separated by just one vote. But Swing Vote is not trying to present this as a serious situation; it’s merely asking ‘what if?’ By keeping things light, the filmmakers are able to keep viewers interested and they are also able to get plenty of jabs in at politics and the media.

I loved watching the flip-flopping that the Democrat and Republican vying for Bud’s vote resort to in a shallow attempt to win him over. Republican incumbent Andrew Boone (Kelsey Grammer) and his Democratic challenger Donald Greenleaf (Dennis Hopper) end up switching their stances on ideological issues as the media reports Bud’s casual remarks about several hot-button political issues like abortion, immigration and the environment. It’s funny but it’s also sad because it shows just how shallow politics can be. I highly doubt party big-wigs will ever make such dramatic policy changes but it emphasizes the fact that professional politicians will say and do just about anything to get elected.

I must also take the time to give the filmmakers credit for playing their story out largely right up the middle. Let’s not forget- this is Hollywood we’re talking about here. This film could have easily been critical of just one side of the election. Fortunately, swipes are taken at both Republicans and Democrats. I approve of this equal-opportunity skewering because neither party is faultless or blameless. Ever.

I do feel like the film has a slight bias to the left though. Much of the media scrutiny that Bud is faced with revolves around his fitness to be the one to make such a crucial decision. He’s not the brightest crayon in the box and fits the lower-class bumpkin mold that seems to be a stereotype of Republicans and conservatives of the South and Southwest. The media pundits take aim at the fact that Bud has never shown any enthusiasm towards political decisions. I couldn’t tell if this cynical look at the main character was meant to reinforce how elitist and out of touch the media is or if this was a way for the writers to get their own opinions out in a veiled way.

Swing Vote is critical of everyone to a point. The politicians are obvious targets and the media are rightfully portrayed as vicious and opinionated. But it’s hard to tell where the filmmakers draw the line for calling us, the electorate, out. Because his decision matters the most, Bud is expected by everyone to research the issues and stances of the candidates. It’s only natural for everyone to want the crucial voter to be informed but this also makes a likely majority of the public to be hypocrites.

How many people actually research their choices before voting? How many simply read the propaganda sent in the mail or airing on TV commercials? I certainly hope people seeing this film will come away with it determined to take the civic duty more seriously. The filmmakers probably have this same goal in mind. Perhaps they are not looking at Bud the same way the media does. Lord knows that millions of “Bud Johnson’s” vote every year. Maybe the message here really is apolitical.

Still, Swing Vote leaves a semi-bitter taste in your mouth because it does paint a slightly negative picture of the general public. As a part of the general public, I take some offense. Sure, we’ve got a lot of work to do before everyone in the country can make accurately informed decisions but we’re not all as bad as Bud Johnson. The truth is, though, that every single one of us could be found 'objectionable' by our peers if put in the same situation.

You’ll laugh, you’ll squirm, and you’ll never believe this premise to be possible. In the end though, Swing Vote is worth watching, especially as our election cycles grow ever more contentious.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

Thankfully, after the angst-ridden Order of the Phoenix, the Harry Potter series gets a lot less hormonal and a little more interesting. Where Phoenix was almost pure stall tactic, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince features a significant amount of setup for the seventh and final installment of the wizarding saga. While it may run short on stand-alone plot, Prince has enough pop, sizzle and intrigue to make up for it.

While Harry Potter is in his sixth year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Lord Voldemort is gaining power and influence throughout the magical world. Harry keeps himself busy with a lot of things: captaining the Grffyndor Quidditch team, crushing on his best friend’s sister, mastering Potions class thanks to the margin notes of a former student calling himself the ‘Half-Blood Prince,’ and not to mention secret meetings with Headmaster Dumbledore regarding Voldemort’s past. You know, just another year in the life of Harry Potter.

Meanwhile, saucy Slytherin student Draco Malfoy has a secret assignment from Lord Voldemort. Despite his best efforts, Harry figures out that he’s up to something. Naturally, everyone dismisses Harry’s suspicions of Malfoy because the two have been rivals for five years running now. Harry finds himself torn between exposing his fellow student and helping Dumbledore uncover a terrible secret about Lord Voldemort’s past that could be the key to his undoing.

While this sounds like an awful lot to inject into one film, it’s actually not. Half-Blood Prince is two and a half hours long. Learning about Voldemort’s past is stretched out throughout the film but the titular Half-Blood Prince component is largely glossed over and the big reveal is anti-climactic. The book featured more build-up for the Prince and the film fails to deliver that. Everything else is wedged somewhere in between these pieces.

My initial take on this film was that it was every bit as much a piece of filler as Order of the Phoenix. Additional viewings have brought me back from that assertion. While all the romance, class work and suspicion of Malfoy are mostly superfluous, Voldemort’s history is important to take in. It may seem like a big waste of time but it’s laying the groundwork for the next chapter. In terms of setting up back story and mythology, Prince is very much like Prisoner of Azkaban. Cogs are set in place and pieces are put in motion. It’s subtle at first but easy to recognize later on.

Half-Blood Prince is not, however, Prisoner of Azkaban’s equal. Where the third installment had a footloose quality to dispensing the necessary information, Prince holds your hand similar to Dumbledore assisting Harry through the apparation process. The information given to us is more important than before and its nature is much darker so the filmmakers take care to make sure we download and process it properly. I was a little dissatisfied with this approach but it was also one of the shortcomings of the book, so we’ll leave it there.

As important as uncovering Voldemort’s secret is, there is a surprising lack of urgency presented in the film. Perhaps it only comes off that way because I have read the book and know what’s coming, but I was hoping for Harry to be a little more frantic in his approach- you know, the way he persistently goes after Malfoy. That whole plot line was a little uninteresting because in the book it was unclear what Malfoy was up to. In the movie, there is no subtlety and Malfoy’s methods are revealed early on (though the ends he is working for remains a secret until the final reel).

I like the brooding tone of this film. It works because Harry is now 16 years old and author J.K. Rowling wrote Harry very age-appropriate for what he is tasked with. I wasn’t as crazy about the first two Potter books or films because I’m not big into childrens stories. I understand that the target audience was for kids but I can’t help but prefer a dash of darkness, having cut my popular fiction teeth on Stephen King. The filmmakers go a little overboard on the digital grading but they get the mood right nine times out of ten here.

I like Prince for bucking a few trends for Potter stories. First, Voldemort only appears in flashbacks. Just like Prisoner Azkaban, Harry isn’t predictably thrown into some kind of confrontation with the Dark Lord in the end only to miraculously escape. It’s nice to be outside of Voldemort for a change. Second, I actually enjoyed the further reduction of Hogwarts classroom instruction. All the spells were cute in the beginning but alliterative charms and cleverly coined incantations sound goofy coming out of the mouths of teenagers.

One thing I didn’t like about the film was the ending. A key scene from the book is cut out that provided both a moderate amount of resolution and a terrific launching point into the seventh and final chapter of the Harry Potter series. Instead, the filmmakers deliver an awkward fade-to-black moment that works on a ‘okay, things are really uncertain now’ level but there is no driving force leaving us to believe that we are about to embark on the final leg of the journey.

In the end, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is par for the course. You would think that it would be easier to judge this film, having digested five films before it. The story is sufficient enough to not be disappointing but the effects are a little off too much of the time. Perhaps I will be better able to put my finger on this film once I see how all the groundwork laid out here plays out in the two-part finale, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Until then, this one is right up the middle.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5