Dick Cheney

W. (2008): No Review Left Behind

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! It is time for the second review in my Election Days series! Today we are going to be talking about “W.,” starring Josh Brolin. The film is about the life of the controversial leader George W. Bush. It features a stacked cast and is helmed by a filmmaker whose respectable track record includes other films having to do with U.S. politicians such as “JFK.” Does this 2008 film earn a Texas-sized thumbs up? Or does “W.” take the L? Here are my thoughts…

“W.” is directed by Oliver Stone (World Trade Center, JFK) and stars Josh Brolin (No Country for Old Men, American Gangster), Elizabeth Banks (Slither, Spider-Man), Ellen Burstyn (The Exorcist, The Last Picture Show), James Cromwell (Babe, The Artist), Richard Dreyfuss (Jaws, American Graffiti), Scott Glenn (Urban Cowboy, The Right Stuff), Toby Jones (Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, The Mist), Stacy Keach (American Greed, Titus), Bruce McGill (Collateral, MacGyver), Thandiwe Newton (Mission: Impossible II, ER), and Jeffrey Wright (Angels in America, The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles). This film centers around the life of George W. Bush, the man who would become the 43rd President of the United States.

Like him or not, George W. Bush is an important U.S. President in my lifetime. Not because I agreed with his policies or because I liked him. Perhaps second to George Washington, maybe Abraham Lincoln, W. Bush is the earliest President I remember hearing about at some point in my life. Of course, with me being a child during the entirety of his two-term run, I did not immediately know the various aspects of his time in office that people talk about even today such as how he was President during the 9-11 attacks, No Child Left Behind, his response to Hurricane Katrina, his involvement in the Iraq War, and so on. The movie does not go deep into all of that, but it does not mean it is not a contained story. In fact, I would say I was surprised with how engaged I was with the film itself.

For the record, this is my second Oliver Stone film. I previously watched “Wall Street.” A film that I think does a really good job at capturing the hustle and bustle of the stock market and how much of a sport capitalism can be. So if you want me to compare this film to Stone’s other flicks involving U.S. Presidents, particularly “JFK” and “Nixon,” consider yourself disappointed. All I can say is that “W.” was better than I thought it would be. Though I really should not be surprised. It contains tons of great actors, moves at a brisk pace, and features several engaging characters.

The one thing I will say though about this movie, is that I wonder how people who do not know anything about George W. Bush, his family, or maybe live outside the U.S. would take this film. This movie came out in 2008. W. Bush was still in office at the time, making this is a topical picture during its release. I will let you be the judge as to whether 16 years is a long time, but that is how long it has been since this film has come out. There are people in high school right now who were born around the time Barack Obama first became President. I am not going to pretend I have the strongest opinions on W. Bush’s time in office because as I said before, he was President during my youth. During that time in my life, I was more concerned as to when would the next time I was going to Outback Steakhouse as opposed to the state of the economy. The film dives into the days leading up to Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and I am sure even a number of younger people who may end up watching the movie today would probably have an opinion on it. But such a topic is probably not going to have the same impact on those who vividly remember living through that time in history. At times, this feels like a 2008 film that was specifically made for a 2008 audience. I am not insulting those audiences, just to be clear. Those same audiences also got to witness timeless cinema like “Wall-E” and “Slumdog Millionaire.” But would “W.” hit the same way for today’s generation? Hard to say.

That said, the film is still quite universal in its story. It dives into W. Bush’s relationship with his father, which I thought was one of the best parts of this movie. Even though W. Bush comes from a family with a storied legacy, his relationship with his father is something I think a lot of people can relate to. Because we all have parents, and deep down, most of us want to do anything that will keep us from breaking their hearts. The two have a steady connection, but it is not perfect. Nor is it without rules.

My favorite deep dive in the film has to do with George W. Bush’s relationship with alcohol. We see how much drinking impacts his life in terms of the choices he makes, how it affects his relationships with other people, and his overall stability. The movie tends to present alcohol as an obstacle that keeps W. Bush from potential success. We notice as W. Bush ages and becomes more accomplished, mainly in politics, he gives it up. The movie shows how much drinking holds W. Bush back and how him giving it up seems to correlate with his achievements.

As for the performance of George W. Bush (right) himself, I have to say Josh Brolin did a good job in the role. Never once did I feel Brolin was trying to do an impression of the character. He kind of made the performance his own. He was bold in his presence and consistently commanding from scene to scene. Is it the greatest performance of a U.S. President in film history? No it is not. But to be fair, it is hard to compare with Daniel Day-Lewis as the lead of “Lincoln,” a film that came out four years later. In fact, during the same year “W.” was released, audiences were also treated to “Frost/Nixon,” and I would argue Frank Langella did an even better job as the titular leader in that film.

The supporting cast in this film also manages to put their best foot forward. Elizabeth Banks is a standout as Laura Bush. Richard Dreyfuss does a good job as Dick Cheney. And I thought James Cromwell as George H.W. Bush (right) was excellent casting. Across the board, I cannot name a single performance in “W.” I did not like.

But I have to give props not only to Josh Brolin for having the presence one would expect of a flawed but charming leader, but also to the writer of this film, Stanley Weiser, for bringing some decent material to the screen. Unfortunately, it is not all perfect. Despite the film never once feeling boring, it is a tad bewildering at times. The film comes off like I am in history class, and we are doing a unit on the Bush era of politics, whether that is W.’s time or his father’s, maybe with a brief cameo from Jeb here and there. But the unit does not have a clear path. It kind of jumps from place to place and it is not that organized. I guess in a way you can call “W.” a nicely laid out mess. Because I understand the film and what was presented to me. The final product did not melt my brain. I am just not sure if maybe the specific non-linear route the story took was as compelling as it was trying to be.

In the end, “W.” is not a movie I intend to watch again within the next year, but it is one I can definitely see myself revisiting at some point in my life. Again, I am a bit of a novice when it comes to Oliver Stone. “W.” just happens to be a third film in his trilogy revolving around U.S. Presidents. Given how I enjoyed “W.,” it makes me want to go back at check out “JFK” and “Nixon” should the chance ever come up. Is this movie for everyone? Probably not. It is about a controversial leader, so therefore I would not expect it to be for everyone. But it has the hallmarks of a good movie. Decent storytelling, good acting, solid production, and while it is a bit jumbled, I did appreciate Oliver Stone’s vision and what he brought to the table. I am going to give “W.” a 7/10.

“W.” is now available on DVD, Blu-ray, and on VOD. As of this writing, the film is available to stream on Peacock to all subscribers, and can be watched for free on Tubi, Philo, and the Roku Channel.

Thanks for reading this review! My next entry to the Election Days series is going to be for “On the Basis of Sex,” a film about Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the second woman to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. If you want to see this review and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “W.?” What did you think about it? Or, do you have a favorite Oliver Stone film? Which of his U.S. President movies would you say is your favorite? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Vice: 2018’s Biggest “Dick Pic”

Posted on by Jack Drees

MV5BMTY1NjM0MzgxMV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc4NTY0NjM@._V1_SY1000_CR006401000_AL_

“Vice” is directed by Adam McKay (Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, The Big Short) and stars Christian Bale (The Dark Knight, American Hustle), Amy Adams (Nocturnal Animals, Arrival), Steve Carell (The Office, Battle of the Sexes), Sam Rockwell (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, F Is For Family), Tyler Perry (Diary of a Mad Black Woman, Gone Girl), Allison Pill (American Horror Story, The Newsroom), and Jesse Plemons (Game Night, Friday Night Lights). This film is based on the true events, or as the movie suggests, as true as possible, revolving around Dick Cheney, a prominent figure in the US government, and his story of how he changed US history as we know it.

This film is directed by Adam McKay, a name who I do know primarily for comedy. He has done a lot of work with Will Ferrell including “Anchorman,” “Step Brothers,” and “The Other Guys.” Also, he was one of the writers for “Ant-Man.” And while “Ant-Man” may technically be regarded as an action flick with superheroes, part of me would also argue it is a comedy because like some other films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe like “Spider-Man: Homecoming” and “Thor: Ragnarok,” it has many attempts at humor riddled throughout. He seems to have recently made a transition to serious films, most notably with 2015’s “The Big Short.” No, I have not seen the movie. But with a plot revolving around the mortgage market, some serious s*it is to be expected. I will say when it comes to McKay’s direction, it’s pretty well done, but the real highlight to me when it comes to McKay’s work here is the writing, which transitions into not only one of the trippier movies of the year, but also one of the best edited films of the year. I won’t go into detail, but there is a segment where apparently they start rolling credits during the middle of the movie. F*cking brilliant. Also, this is trying to be a serious film, but also it has that feeling of a Wes Anderson-esque film. It’s serious, but it also knows when to have good old quirky fun.

I will say though, going into the film, I knew this film was already well reviewed (for the most part). It has a leading total of six Golden Globe nominations, a couple of SAG nominations, and the concept sounded like something that would generally create buzz. As for my thoughts, I thought it was pretty good, but maybe not best picture good. I mean, looking at the Golden Globes nominees, I’d probably choose “Vice” as the musical/comedy winner, but that doesn’t say a lot. I have not seen “Crazy Rich Asians,” “Green Book,” or “Mary Poppins Returns,” and as for “The Favourite,” without spilling my ultimate thoughts on it (review coming soon), it was just not as likable as “Vice.” The biggest problem I can think of when it comes to this film more than any other is that it mislead me in terms of expectations. The marketing made me think this was heavily going to revolve around the George W. Bush administration, but it is really more about Dick Cheney’s life as a whole.

When it comes to Dick Cheney, I felt this interpretation of the character was very well done, and Christian Bale could have a chance at getting some awards. I gotta also give praise to the makeup department, because HOLY CRAP. Christian Bale is in his forties right now and the makeup in this movie makes him look like he’s a lazy grandpa on a generic sitcom that never got good ratings. I watched a movie that came out last year, you guys may know what I’m talking about, “Darkest Hour,” which starred Gary Oldman. The makeup for Dick Cheney in this movie is about on par as the makeup for Winston Churchill in “Darkest Hour.” In “Darkest Hour,” you have Gary Oldman, who at the time wasn’t “young” per se, but he still looked relatively youthful given his age. In “Darkest Hour” he transformed into, well, Gary the “Old Man.” In “Vice,” the same can be said for Christian Bale, who actually happens to be younger than Gary Oldman.

Another standout performance comes from Amy Adams as Cheney’s wife, Lynne. The way they showed her off in this movie was kind of intriguing. It shows the power of a lovely husband and wife. Cheney would occasionally need to bow out from his campaign for one reason or another but his kick-ass wife would occasionally step in. Also, yes, from an acting perspective, Adams is SUPERB. I became rather invested in her character for some time, not to mention her relationship with Dick Cheney. I cared about their family, their daughter happened to come out as gay, and despite coming off as conservative, they clearly understand their daughter. I wouldn’t call this movie LGBT propaganda, which I think is cool because propaganda is something I usually don’t want in my media, but it just shows you how human people can be. Granted, this is a Hollywood movie, and Hollywood nowadays is full of liberals, so there is a good chance that there is a liberal agenda attached here somewhere, but still.

My personal favorite acting job in the movie was done by Sam Rockwell. Last year he won an Oscar for his role in “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri,” so therefore it should be no surprise that the dude has acting chops. Honestly, I think he might have a shot at another one. He plays George W. Bush like angry ten year old plays “Fortnite.” He’s lean, mean, and he just does it oh so beautifully. Last year when I saw “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri,” Rockwell might as well have done my third favorite acting job in that film. Here, he’s probably at my top spot. And again, the makeup department did a great job here! No debate about it.

I will say that I might have an interesting perspective when it comes to this movie because I actually grew up during the Bush adminstration. I actually wasn’t old enough to remember 9/11. My earliest memory of hearing about it was in the year 2011, when I was eleven years old and watching a commercial on Nickelodeon while “Spongebob Squarepants” was on or something like that. This movie manages to capture the fear of the 9/11 event from inside government headquarters. It also manages to showcase how Cheney was able to get s*it done, and really, he seemed to have gotten more done than George Bush. There is a scene where the two are sitting down and having chat, some time before Bush became president and Cheney just suggests he’ll deal with foreign policy, bureaucracy, whatever any normal human being would find boring about working as the president of the United States.

Also, one last thing, I mentioned that Adam McKay wrote a Marvel movie, but now it can be argued that he directed a Marvel movie. Stay for the credits because there is a good scene to watch if you pay attention. I WILL NOT go into detail, but it takes a bunch of people who are in the movie for a scene and just basically puts them in a funhouse of our modern society. Look forward to it.

In the end, “Vice” was not exactly disappointing, but it also wasn’t the “Best Picture” that the Golden Globes seems to be calling it. To me, this is another “Moonlight.” It’s good, but not “Best Picture-worthy.” I would love to however give massive kudos to the editing, writing, acting, and makeup department. Everyone affiliated with those categories, you rock, you’re awesome! There’s a good chance I’ll watch the movie again at some point, but when it comes to award-bait this year, to me, “Vice” is no “First Man.” I’m going to give “Vice” a 7/10. Thanks for reading this review! Pretty soon I’m going to have my review up for “The Favourite,” which is going to probably be my final review of the year. I want to see “Aquaman” at some point, but part of me is not sure if I’ll get to it on time before the new year begins. But speaking of the new year, be sure to stay tuned for my top 10 BEST movies of 2018 and my top 10 WORST movies of 2018. Those lists will be up once 2019 arrives. Be sure to follow Scene Before with a WordPress account or email so you can stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see “Vice?” What do you think about it? Or, what do you think is going to happen at the Golden Globes this year? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!