Snowden

Director: Oliver Stone
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Shailene Woodley, Melissa Leo, Zachary Quinto, Tom Wilkinson, Scott Eastwood, Logan Marshall-Green, Timothy Olyphant, Ben Schnetzer, LaKeith Lee Stanfield,
Rhys Ifans, Nicolas Cage
Running Time: 134 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

At what cost? That question runs through Oliver Stone's Snowden, and the controversial figure around which his film revolves, government whistleblower Edward Snowden, who in 2013 infamously leaked to the media classified information on mass surveillance being conducted by the National Security Agency. Such a hot-button topic would seem ideal for Stone, the maverick director and Vietnam vet who's made a career of tackling socially and politically charged material with an "in your face" style in films like JFK, Natural Born Killers and Nixon. But that Oliver Stone is gone. Already showing signs of it with his relatively fair, if even somewhat sympathetic, treatment of President George W. Bush in 2008's underrated W., Stone's interest in pushing buttons has diminished considerably in recent years. On one hand, it's a shame since it's never been more necessary, but on another, it's easy to argue he's earned the right and can't be expected to keep repeating himself. A straightforward but exceptionally well made biopic, Snowden represents more of this new, slicker, mainstream Stone uninterested in courting "controversy."

What this does contain is ideas and a sense of urgency surrounding an issue that shouldn't really be all that controversial on paper. It's pretty simple and boils down to whether you feel the moral price of our security is worth the cost of giving up a certain amount of our constitutional freedom. But where you stand on that issue may determine not only to your personal feelings on Snowden and his actions, but perhaps even which side of the political fence you fall. In that sense, it's touchy, and the film does a compelling job dramatizing both sides of that ethical dilemma, even in scenes you wouldn't expect. It also contains a romantic subplot that doesn't feel like one, less a throwaway than a natural and pertinent extension of the main plot, featuring characters whose futures we care about despite our familiarity with the outcome.

As tame as Stone's become, anyone expecting complete impartiality won't get it, with the screenplay clearly showing an allegiance to Snowden, played by a scarily well cast Joseph Gordon-Levitt as kind of a tragic antihero to be revered and celebrated for his sacrifices. Make of Stone's stance what you will, but anyone that shocked or even offended the government has these capabilities probably have their heads buried in the sand. Snowden wasn't telling us anything we really shouldn't have assumed already. The real question was whether he had the right to do it and the potentially dangerous precedent that's set when someone does.

Based on two non-fiction books covering the events, the film picks up in 2013, with Ed Snowden (Gordon-Levitt) hauled up in a Hong Kong hotel room secretly meeting with documentarian and Citizenfour director Laura Poitras (Melissa Leo) and journalists Glen Greenwald (Zachary Quinto) and Ewen MacAskell (Tom Wilkinson). Preparing to spill his guts to them while simultaneously releasing of the NSA's top secret surveillance data to the media, flashbacks paint a complicated picture of Snowden, an antisocial conservative who finds himself working for the cyberwarfare arm of the CIA after being discharged from the Army.

Snowden picks up the intricacies quickly, becoming a star student of  Deputy Director Corbin O'Brian (Rhys Ifans) before moving on to the NSA and making some disturbing discoveries about how the government is acquiring data and potentially violating citizens' rights. As his disillusionment grows, the only constant is free-spirited girlfriend Lindsay Mills (Shailene Woodley), an Obama-supporting liberal who tolerates his opposing political beliefs up to the point where even he starts to doubt them, the stress of his job eventually threatening his health and that of their relationship. Armed with incriminating evidence that can shake the U.S. government to its core, Snowden makes a fateful decision, insuring that his life will never be the same again.

A lot of information is dispensed about Snowden's background and what there is to glean of his personality, which can best be described as "robotic." It's an adjective he's even assigned to himself, as he often comes across as someone suffering from some kind of anti-social disorder, demonstrating behaviors that don't seem all that dissimilar from Mark Zuckerberg in The Social Network. While lacking that character's worst narcissistic tendencies, Snowden's intelligence is undeniably his worst enemy at times, as well as his most dangerous weapon. Holding political beliefs in direct opposition to what he eventually does, his time in the CIA and NSA trenches establish him as an important cog in the government's machine, his cyber skills essential in their burgeoning electronic surveillance program. But as his climbs the ranks, the more he sees, and the more his anxiety and guilt grow.

This isn't an easy role to play as far as real-life public figures go, or even otherwise, as in the place of a distinctive personality, Snowden is imbued with a rote, mechanical sense of duty that's eventually shaken. Lowering an already deep voice a few octaves lower, JGL has the flat affect and emotionless verbal delivery down pat and looks enough like his subject, but where he really excels in capturing Snowden's inner struggle. The government's actions contradict everything he signed on for but risking the comfort and security his occupation provides Lindsay and himself in the name of "doing what's right" may not be worth the price.

It's a credit to Stone and Kieran Fitzgerld's screenplay that Edward's relationship with Lindsay isn't treated as an afterthought with the latter having thoughts, complaints and opinions worth listening to and fighting about, as an impressive Woodley confidently sidesteps the trap that too often marginalizes girlfriend characters in male-driven biopics. Strong in a role she seems ideal for, audiences will undoubtedly draw parallels between the actress and the idealistic hippie she portrays. The presentation of Snowden as a selfish, thoughtless boyfriend consumed by his job could be viewed as the director's conscious effort to pacify potential critics of the character's fairly reverent treatment throughout. Or it could just simply be true.       

The action doesn't necessarily move at a breakneck pace and we aren't marveling at the editing as we would with Stone's classic 80's and 90's offerings. And while crisply photographed by Academy Award-winning cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle, you'd be hard-pressed to find supporters championing it for a spot in the top tier of the director's best looking films. It speaks volumes that even Nicolas Cage's virtual cameo (as a U.S. Intelligence official) isn't crazy at all, perfectly serving its function like most of the other moving parts in the story. And that's completely fine. Stone trusts the extraordinary subject do most of the work, recounting events presumably as they happened with little space for editorializing.

Toward its third act, it fully evolves into this gripping thriller, culminating in a jarring transition that melds real life and movies in a way you've never quite seen before in a biopic, making you appreciate the lead performance that much more. Controversy isn't everything when it can be just as effective taking a logically straightforward approach to telling an exceptional story. With Snowden it rings especially true, as the scariest part of it all is just how flawed and relatable the protagonist is, offering up the very real possibility that anyone placed into similar circumstances are capable of making the choices he did.
                   

Savages

Director: Oliver Stone
Starring: Taylor Kitsch, Blake Lively, Aaron Johnson, John Travolta, Benicio del Toro, Salma Hayek, John Travolta, Demian Bichir, Emile Hirsch
Running Time: 131 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Savages just might be the best recent example of how a misguided ending can help unravel a film brimming with greatness. That's not to say its entirely great up to that point, but it definitely has its patches, thanks in no small part to who's behind the camera. That Oliver Stone still manages to save this says a lot. But the best news just might be that the director's back in full U-Turn mode here, meaning that anyone who prefers the filmmaker who pedaled glorious trash like that and Natural Born Killers to the more politically inclined dramatist who gave us JFK, Nixon and Born on the Fourth of July, will find little to dislike. That the same man is responsible for all these is impressive in itself and in many ways makes him the ideal choice to adapt Don Winslow's best selling novel. It just might be the most fitting match of director and material in a long time, containing on paper all the combustible elements that should cement it amongst the year's best. Yet strangely, it isn't. While I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's merely just a well executed crime thriller, there's this inescapable feeling when it ends that I should have left wit more than I got. But it's entertaining as hell, features a few really wild performances, and is easy to imagine re-watching, even while taking little new away from each viewing. The movie is one giant distraction, but that's okay since it's tough to deny we're all in need some of those every once in a while, especially if it's this fun.

When a movie's opening line is, "Just because I'm telling you this story doesn't mean I'm alive at the end," it's a pretty good bet much will go down in the ensuing two hours. And it does. That possible tease is delivered by the film's narrator, a blond, tattooed California hippie named O./A.K.A. Ophelia (Blake Lively), who's living a charmed, laid back Laguna Beach lifestyle with her two successful pot growing boyfriends Chon (Taylor Kitsch) and Ben (Aaron Johnson). Chon, an Iraq War veteran, is the muscles who handles the dirty work while the more peace-loving Ben is the brains, using his brilliance as a botanist to turn their operation into the best in Southern California. It's so great that it's attracted the attention of a dangerous Mexican cartel headed by the cold, ruthless Elena Sanchez (Salma Hayek), whose men demand that they turn over a stake of their business or face serious consequences. Not wanting to make any waves, Ben wants to take the deal while the hot-headed Chon thinks they should take O. and flee to Indonesia as soon as possible. But under orders from Elena, the cartel's maniacal enforcer Lado (Benicio del Toro) kidnaps O. and the guys will have to play by their rules in order to see her returned to them alive. Their only hope might be their crooked DEA agent pal Dennis (John Travolta), who's clearly playing both sides of the fence while always looking out for number one.

The opening scenes do their job in establishing that Chon and Ben could qualify as two of the luckiest movie protagonists we've seen in a while. Just on principle, it's likely every straight male audience member could hate them from the get-go considering their biggest problem in life is deciding who gets to share the bed and bathtub with Blake Lively and on which day. Similarly, O's not making out too bad  herself, so it's an arrangement they're all understandably happy with until the cartel enters the picture, threatening not only their perfect hedonistic lifestyle, but all their lives. Especially O's. After a bit too much over-explanatory voiceovers and flashbacks to start, it turns out to be a credit to co-writer Stone and the actors that once the action gets going and all the narrative and visual flourishes are abandoned, we do develop a certain degree sympathy for characters who aren't exactly the easiest to sympathize with. Young, reckless, entitled and seemingly untouchable, all three are given a rude awakening when they realize they're in over their heads with these monsters.

The most interesting aspect of the film by far is the strange mother-daughter dynamic that develops between Elena and O., which starts bordering on a Stockholm Syndrome. Each seems to fill a void in the other, with captor starting to view her hostage as a surrogate for her estranged daughter and and O. looking to her as the parental figure she never had. All of this is very subtle and well written, mostly contained to a single sensational dining room scene where Elena questions whether O's seemingly perfect relationship with Chon and Ben really is as perfect as she thinks it is and whether their loyalty to each other trumps their feelings for her. Coming off her well-received supporting performance in The Town a couple of years ago, Lively impresses again in a worthy follow-up choice that definitely puts her through the wringer. I can't say another performer couldn't have done it better (maybe, maybe not), but she's completely believable in a performance that doesn't contain much depth, and doesn't need to since O's kind of a shallow of character to begin with.

Kitsch and Johnson are essentially playing polar opposites and do it well, so it's shame this was unfairly thrown in with John Carter and Battleship as another check in the loss column for Kitsch, since it represents exactly the kind of edgy supporting part he should be taking at this stage. And also probably the closest he's gotten to the brooding, quiet intensity he displayed as Tim Riggins on Friday Night Lights. Johnson is probably the strongest presence of the three but it hardly matters since it's the actual "savages" that  really carry this, with Hayek tearing into her meatiest role in ages as the scary but somewhat sympathetic Elena, and del Toro emotionally unstable and terrifying in just about every minute of screen time he's given. Travolta has fun hamming it up as the crooked DEA agent, providing the movie with most of its comic relief.

Without giving too much away, the film hits a big stumbling block in its final act. It's one of those things that even those who worked on the picture would have a tough time justifying or explaining from a creative standpoint. There's what seems to be a beautiful, poetic ending and then they just pull the rug out to instead give us a far less satisfying conclusion. It's not so much this actual ending that's a problem but more the cheap, manipulative way it's presented and how unfairly it plays. Not knowing how true the screenplay is to Winslow's novel, my guess just watching it would be that the studio forced Stone to make last minute changes in fear of alienating audiences who might want to go home happy and smiling. You know, come skipping out the theater from a movie about drugs, sex, murder, and kidnapping that's titled Savages. As if audiences hadn't a clue what they got into. That it doesn't seem to be about any those things when it very much is, could be the film's greatest strength. And I'm still debating whether a better ending even would have necessarily made a huge difference. This is primarily about visceral thrills and its tough to deny Stone brings those in spades. Savages is junk food for sure, but at least it's quality junk food for an adult audience that's too often criminally underserved during the summer movie season.

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

Director: Oliver Stone
Starring: Michael Douglas, Shia LaBeouf, Josh Brolin, Carey Mulligan, Frank Langella, Susan Sarandon, Eli Wallach
Running Time: 133 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Don't count me among those who thought it was a terrible idea for Oliver Stone to make a sequel to Wall Street over 20 years after its release, but for whatever reason, a lot of people seemed to think it was. In my mind there are few greater thrills than catching up with a memorable movie character decades later and finding out what they're up to. How many times has a film ended and you wonder what happened to the key players after the credits rolled? In many cases it's better to just not know and leave it alone, but sometimes you just can't resist because there's more story there. Gordon Gekko, the role that won Michael Douglas his 1987 Best Actor Oscar, is one of those rare exceptions where we just need to know, even at the risk of shattering our perceptions of a film that was always meant to be trapped in its own time period anyway. No one can convince me that the idea of dropping him in the midst of 2008's economic collapse has no dramatic value and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is a sequel that lives and dies on Douglas' supporting performance. The big draw is finding out what happened to Gekko and how one of our greatest actors will re-interpret his most iconic role. Everything else is just gravy. Featuring a hammy central storyline, the film lacks the bite of the original, but we knew it would. This is more a human, emotional drama very much unlike the corporate thriller its predecessor was. It's slicker and more calculated, but still works in its own way.

The film cleverly opens with Gordon Gekko (Douglas) collecting his belongings (which hilariously includes a relic 80's cell phone) before being released from prison in 2001 after serving an eight year sentence for insider trading and securities fraud. No one's waiting for him when he gets out. We flash forward seven years and Gekko's now a best-selling author and lecturer, all over television promoting his new book, "Is Greed Good?" which puts a new spin on his famous catchphrase. His sudden re-emergence grabs the attention of Jake Moore (Shia LaBeouf), a trader at Wall Street investment bank Keller Zabel and boyfriend of Gekko's estranged daughter, Winnie (Carey Mulligan), an idealistic political blogger who's inherited none of her father's ruthlessness and still blames him for her brother's death. But when Jake's boss and longtime mentor Louis Zabel (Frank Langella) finds his company on the brink of collapse due to vicious rumors and takes his own life, Jake knows whose help he needs. He makes a trade, promising Gekko a reconciliation with his daughter if he can help bring down rival CEO Bretton James (Josh Brolin), the man Jake suspects is responsible for it all.

There are two intertwined stories being told here, one a lot more interesting than the other. The Wall Street power struggle is old hat, just an excuse to bring Gekko back into the picture in a meaningful way and act as a backdrop. That plot is needlessly complicated, bogged down by business jargon and a villain is so cartoonishly over-the-top I half expected to him to grow a mustache just so he could twirl it. But for what needs to be accomplished from a goofy entertainment standpoint it works even if I found myself wishing less time were spent on those details and more on the re-entry of a seemingly more humbled Gekko into society after personally and professionally paying the price for his crimes. Jail has mellowed him, changing his outlook on things and the most fascinating aspect of the character is how Douglas puts on all these different masks to reveal varying shades of Gekko's personality when he's around certain people. A mellowed business titan dispensing sage wisdom as a lecturer. A cutthroat schemer advising Jake. and a pathetically inept father still cleaning up his messes in attempting to earn Winnie's trust. He makes it clear why Winnie wouldn't ever be able to trust him and feels betrayed Jake would even attempt to. The more reversals the plot takes the more appreciation you build up scene-by-scene for what Douglas does to adapt and add even more layers to his original creation.

At first glance the casting of LaBeouf as the protagonist would seem to be a miscalculation, but youth and inexperience count in his favor with the character's early success being explained away with him having the right connections. Given Shia's recent Indy 4 track record I was skeptical, but he brings his "A" game as a young broker green enough to be taken advantage of by the heavy hitters but still confident and determined enough to put up a fight to get what he wants. His role is absolutely huge, asked to carry every scene in the picture and he responds better than anyone could have suspected. Whatever issues there are with the film definitely don't fall on him or his chemistry with Douglas or Carey Mulligan. Good luck finding an actress working today who possesses a lovelier, more natural onscreen presence and I can't say it's wasted at all in this emotional role, which wouldn't have amounted to nearly as much had anyone else been given it.

As James, Josh Brolin's stuck as your typical stock villain but since he's Brolin and looks to be having such a blast playing it, we hardly notice or care. Speaking of having a blast, the unfortunate timing of Charlie Sheen's cameo (reprising his role of Bud Fox from the original), whether by design or not, does more to shine the spotlight on Sheen's celebrity reputation than the character and earns unintentional giggles above all else. Maybe a fun moment, but it should have been left on the cutting room floor as it turns his experience with Gekko years ago into a cheap punchline. Sporting a convincing Long Island accent, Susan Sarandon makes a few brief, but meorable appearances as Jake's mother, a real estate agent in over her head financially along with everyone else. The best creative addition Stone makes is musical, recruiting rock legend David Byrne of The Talking Heads' (whose song "This Must Be The Place" was featured in the first film and reappears here) to provide the soundtrack, which strangely fits the tone of this movie like a glove and feels like a major character.

Many will accuse Stone of wimping out with the ending and he does to an extent but you'd have to be pretty glum to wish for the finale we come close to receiving. That said, Stone carries things on a about a scene or two longer than he should when a more ambiguous final act would have served the story better and driven the point home harder, or at least given us more to think about. The wrap-up's a little too tidy for characters complicated enough to deserve better, especially Gekko. Continuing the action past that point and even through the closing credits (in a particularly befuddling sequence) was an ill advised choice, but doesn't really harm the overall integrity of the film. Anyone going into Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps expecting another Wall Street will feel let down. As it should be, this is far different since over two decades have passed and that movie couldn't be made today, nor would we need it to be. As much as the original stands as timepiece for 80's greed and excess this sequel provides a compelling, if Hollywoodized, snapshot of the recent economic collapse, but more interestingly allows us a glimpse into what one of our most memorable movie characters would have to say about it.

W.

Director: Oliver Stone
Starring: Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks, Jams Cromwell, Ellen Burstyn, Richard Dreyfuss, Toby Jones, Jeffrey Wright, Thandie Newton, Scott Glenn
Running Time: 129 min.
Rating: PG-13

***1/2 (out of ****)

In a lot of ways I fit the profile of the type of moviegoer Oliver Stone is reaching out to with W. Someone who definitely agrees George W. Bush didn’t do a good job as President yet doesn't necessarily have a burning desire to see him dragged through the mud. He was bad at his job and that’s it. A lot of people are bad at their jobs, but unfortunately it just so happens his job description reads: “Leader of the Free World.”

It’s possible for someone to enter a situation with the best possible intentions, only to find themselves in way over their head. Recently, I was talking to someone about the upcoming election and mentioned that Bush must be counting down the days until he’s a free man so he can go home to Texas to get some rest. That didn’t go over so well. Just that I even implied Bush was trying to do his job to the best of his abilities was blasphemous. As if he’s been sitting in the Oval Office for 8 years thinking of ways to wreck our country.

People can say what they want about Bush (and likely have) but I never thought there was a phony bone in his body. This isn’t Nixon. He’s not a crook or a liar. Instead, this is someone who shoots straight and will go to whatever lengths necessary to carry out what he believes in, even if it’s wrong. But in his mind he’s never wrong, especially when surrounded by people whose primary job it is to agree with everything he says. W. may be a fair portrayal of the man but despite what you’ve heard it isn’t necessarily a sympathetic one. That it’s actually been considered such should tell you all you need to know about how poorly the public perceives him. But it is just about as flattering a portrait as he could have possibly received and you could argue he’s just lucky to have a film based on his life with this much depth at all.
Stone paints him as an underachiever, full of self-doubt and burdened by expectations. In doing that he sets the stage for the film’s most frightening realization: He’s just like us. And whether we want to admit it or not, there’s no guarantee we could have done a better job in the White House under the circumstances. But more importantly, in being the first biopic centered around a current sitting President’s legacy, we’re robbed of time, distance and historical context in examining the film, making for some fascinating results. Not having that context may affect how we view the film right now, but strangely it doesn’t seem to have any impact on how Stone made it. Is it too soon? Probably, but that doesn’t make it any less memorable.

Stone presents Bush (Josh Brolin) as living a life defined by a failure to earn his father George Senior’s (James Cromwell’s) love and respect, something that was always exclusively reserved for his younger brother Jeb. The film follows a non-linear structure, flashing back to Bush’s younger days at Yale as a drunk womanizer who couldn’t hold a job and occasionally had to be bailed out of jail. He meets his future wife Laura (Elizabeth Banks), runs for Governor of Texas and helps dad with his 1988 Presidential campaign. There’s little shown of Bush’s days as owner of the Texas Rangers baseball franchise, though that’s more than made up for with a very inventive framing device. He never really got his act together until the age of 40 when he quit drinking and found God. That faith would beckon him to seek the country’s highest office and guide much of his future decision-making. The flashbacks are interspersed with scenes of the Bush Presidency post-9/11. This is the portion that will have everyone talking.

Of course the real thrill here is seeing a diverse and talented group of actors flesh out current political figures whose personalities have just only been touched upon in the media. Each of them plays a pivotal role in Bush’s life and career and, as expected, some performances work better than others. Toby Jones’ Karl Rove is a coach to Bush with Stone insinuating that as clueless as Bush is with Rove's guidance he’d be even more clueless without it. Jones’ take on the character is interesting as he plays him as a know-it-all creepily lurking in the shadows waiting to impress everyone with his answers.

Richard Dreyfuss wisely doesn’t go for a full-on impersonation of Dick Cheney and instead inhabits him. But if we were giving points for how well he gets the mannerisms down he’d score high marks there also. It’s scary, but not as scary as Thandie Newton’s transformation into Condoleezza Rice, which is either brilliant or terrible depending on your perspective.You could argue all day and night whether Newton’s dead-on mimicry is even appropriate for this kind of film but there’s no denying she nailed it to the point where the real Condi wouldn't be able to tell the difference. She’s basically portrayed as a suck-up to the President.

Jeffrey Wright’s Colin Powell is the sole “the voice of reason” clashing often and memorably with Dreyfuss’ Cheney, particularly in one electrifying “War Room” scene. Bruce McGill, Rob Corrdry, and Noah Wyle have much smaller roles as George Tenet, Ari Fleischer and Don Evans respectively, popping in and out when the picture requires. What’s interesting is that the film presents those working for Bush as being just as underwhelming as he is, if not moreso (that’s particularly true of Scott Glenn’s Donald Rumsfeld). With all the clashing personalities, egos and agendas, Bush never really stood a chance.

The worst thing that could have happened to the younger Bush was his father being elected President because that set the bar even higher for him. He carried that resentment all the way to The White House and Stone surmises that he went into Iraq at least partially to prove that he could finish the job his father couldn’t. Cromwell’s performance is miraculous in that he never attempts to capture George Senior’s mannerisms or any of his physical characteristics, but instead focuses his efforts on conveying the elder President’s deep disappointment as honest and reasonably as possible.

We see how the elder Bush would feel let down by his screw-up son, but at the same time we see that he unintentionally helped cause the whole mess. His inability to communicate with him on the most basic level plagued them both, right up to and throughout his term in office. When the going got too tough in his son’s administration he couldn’t even bring himself to offer any advice, much to his wife Barbara’s (Ellen Burstyn) dismay. Ironically, W. always had something his dad lacked. Not ambition, but a fire in his belly and an obsessive desire to prove everyone wrong. It ended up taking him further than anyone expected, but also helped destroy him.

What shocked me most and I didn’t expect going in was how in control of the material Stone was. I expected the tone to be all over the map and if you’ve seen any of the trailers and commercials you wouldn’t be wrong to expect the film to be a political satire. While it definitely has its subtle moments of humor, Stone plays it remarkably straight. That these were the people making decisions of that magnitude and that’s what they said while making them is scary not funny. Cheney embodies it as Dreyfuss is given the best line of the film, laying out the timetable for when U.S. troops should get out of Iraq. What he says will send chills down your spine. There’s a scene of Bush choking on a pretzel at Camp David that on paper should be hilarious, but Stone makes terrifying. No giggles. You could hear a pin drop. It’ll be a while before you can eat pretzels again.

Last year I may have had some issues with the overpraised No Country For Old Men, but Josh Brolin definitely wasn't one of them. Here he delivers a career high performance that starts as great imitation but evolves into much more as the film slowly evolves with it. The more notes he’s asked to hit the more he starts to resemble Bush in both appearance and in spirit, to the point where midway through you realize it’s a full immersion. His work never comes off as parody, a huge feat considering the subject he was asked to portray.

I didn’t think the present-day scenes worked as well as the flashbacks to his early life mainly because they’re almost too uncomfortably “of the moment,” but I could be bias since I enjoyed watching the dynamics of Bush’s younger days so much. The last hour drags its feet a little bit and spins its wheels in hammering home the message that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. Dumb mistakes were made. That goes without saying. Like most of Stone’s film’s, its also messy but not to the point where I feel we were seriously shortchanged on anything so he could rush it into release before the election.

With all the jumping back and forth we're missing a full-fledged emotional connection with the man, although that’s almost fitting. Nor do we really form a full one with Laura, just about the only aspect to Bush everyone agrees they like. In just a few early scenes Banks shows us why, encapsulating everything we suspected she was. What she saw in him we'll never know. The term “Better Half” couldn't be more applicable. It’s a bit of a let down she doesn’t play a bigger role, but inevitable she’d have to take a backseat given the direction of the story. This isn’t Walk The Line.
W. is a return to form of sorts for Oliver Stone who took the easy way out with 2006’s World Trade Center. It wasn’t a bad film, but played with the resonance of a Hallmark greeting card next to something as powerful as Paul Greengrass' United 93, which was released the same year. There are elements in this that characterize Stone's best work like JFK and Nixon where he’s focusing on doing what he does best: pushing our buttons. This film isn’t going to change anyone’s mind about George W. Bush and I don’t think Stone intended it to. Whether you like the man or not you can't deny it's far better to attempt to understand him than angrily make ridiculous films like Rendition, Redacted, Lions For Lambs, In The Valley of Ellah, Stop-Loss or whatever other political garbage Hollywood feels like feeding us this week. That doesn’t accomplish anything. This does.

In the long run I don’t think it matters whether this was released now or 10 years from now because this almost feels like it was made in the future and time will likely treat it well. Those who went in expecting a train wreck won’t exactly be disappointed and neither will those who expected a serious examination of Bush’s psyche. On one level it’s a standard biopic, yet on another it isn’t at all. Everyone wins. But more importantly it gets us to feel something for him. I’m not sure if it can be categorized as pity, sympathy, understanding or even any of those but it at least it’s something other than hatred.

History will judge the 43rd President, not Stone. It would be nice to think that Bush now has time to contemplate the mistakes he’s made but if there’s only one thing to take out of this film it’s that he doesn’t think he made any. In his mind he did what he felt was right for the country, acting with unwavering, stubborn consistency the entire time. Whether we needed W. to be released right now is debatable but what isn’t is that you’ll have plenty to think about when it’s over.

World Trade Center

Director: Oliver Stone
Starring: Nicolas Cage, Michael Pena, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Maria Bello, Jay Hernandez, Michael Shannon
Running Time: 129 min.
Rating: PG-13

*** (out of ****)

Oliver Stone's World Trade Center is a well made disaster movie. And I'm not saying that to in any way trivialize the events of September 11th, but rather give you a good idea what to expect from the film. When I reviewed United 93 a few months ago I awarded it four stars, praising it for it's realism and emotional power. It didn't pull any punches as the horror of the high jacked flight that crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11 unfolded in real time, documentary style. There were no "performances" or unearned dramatics and by the end your heart was in your throat. You can see more strings being pulled by the writers of World Trade Center and thus it ends up being just a movie about September 11th, which is both good and bad. It's emotional, but it's not emotionally powerful. It doesn't disrespect the memory of those who gave their lives on that day and delivers a message of hope and courage that makes it an interesting companion piece to United 93, which is the far superior film.

Ironically, Stone has taken a lot of heat for making the picture when it's actually the tamest and least controversial of his career. The only thing controversial about this is that he made a movie focusing on the events of 9/11, but even that's a moot point since someone already beat him to it. Still, this it's an involving effort that proves Oliver Stone can show restraint and that Nicolas Cage is capable of giving a controlled performance when he needs to.

The first thing that struck me about this film is how well it captures the look and the feel of September 11th. It was a beautiful fall day and everyone was just going about their business as they would on any morning without a clue of what was about to happen between 10 and 10:30 a.m. In a frightening, yet strangely uplifting shot Stone shows us the New York City skyline in all it's glory with The Twin Towers standing triumphantly over Manhattan. Even though you're prepared for the shot and it's absolutely necessary to tell the story, I'd be lying if I told you it still wasn't very uncomfortable and creepy, especially in the context of a major Hollywood motion picture.

Port Authority policemen John McLoughlin (Nicolas Cage) and Will Jimeno (Michael Pena) are just starting their day when Tower 1 is hit and they attempt to go in and retrieve survivors. They don't make it in. Tower 2 is hit and collapses with them stuck in between and without a clue of what's happening around them. Stone really does a good job of taking us in there with them and letting us feel their fear, confusion and dislocation. The rest of the movie alternates between the officers struggling to stay wake long enough under the rubble for anyone to find them and their wives (played very well by Maria Bello and Maggie Gyllenhaal) collapsing emotionally under a weight of uncertainty that hangs over them for nearly 24 hours. Of the 20 survivors pulled from the wreckage, McLoughlin and Jimeno would be numbers 18 and 19.

Stone has picked their story to tell despite being confronted with a number of different story options and people he could of focused on. It's not hard to see why he picked this as it's definitely the one that most represents the courage demonstrated that day, even if does seem kind of narrow in scope. I felt the beginning and end of the film fared much better than the middle portion which at times felt like a Lifetime movie of the week. It's here where the real problem of making a movie about September 11 comes to the forefront, a problem United 93 was clever enough to avoid. The events of that day are inherently emotional and uncomfortable for everyone, so when you depict that emotion onscreen beyond the actual events with big name actors giving nuanced performances you run the risk of exploiting it.

In a way, I kind of felt like I did watching Bobby last month when they interspersed real footage of Robert Kennedy within soap opera-like storylines featuring big name actors. In all fairness though, the casting here isn't nearly as atrocious and the actors all do fine, restrained work appropriate for the material. I am in no way implying Oliver Stone is trying to exploit this tragedy and I can see from the film his heart was in the right place, but I question if he chose the right means of presentation. He's as careful as possible to show everyone he's taking the high road (which he is) but I couldn't help thinking he was sugar coating the story a little bit and we know if there's one story that shouldn't be sugar coated it's this.

The middle section of the film, with the officers fighting for their survival and their wives at the verge of an emotional breakdown could really be out of any disaster movie. Therein lies the catch-22 where Stone must show the enormity of the situation, but anything he shows will pale in comparison to reality and minimize the event. That's why the real time documentary approach worked so well in United 93. It's just more tasteful and lets us draw our own conclusions instead of the filmmaker doing it for us. On the other hand, we already had that movie so Stone really had no choice but to do something different.

Even if it does feel like a disaster movie at least it's a good one that features excellent performances, especially from Cage. For the longest time Cage has been an actor who specializes in giving us wild performances in huge movies that we forget how well he can tone it down when necessary. While I question the decision to cast a major star in the role, if any American actor has to be leading us into the World Trade Center I really can't think of a better choice than Cage (although Tom Hanks would probably be able to pull it off too). The way he plays McLoughlin, as a good man and a strong leader, you get the impression had his mission not been cut short he would have saved many lives in there.

You may be able to question some of Stone's decisions (why is this PG-13? I think he has responsibility to show it as it happened), but you can't accuse him of not having respect for the families in making the picture. It helps that John McLoughlin and Michael Jimeno co-wrote it. There's none of Stone's trademark crazy editing style (employed in films like Natural Born Killers, JFK and Any Given Sunday) here and the only time he veers into classic Stone territory is a dream sequence involving Jesus and a somewhat controversial scene of officer Dominick Pezzulo (Jay Hernandez) taking his own life after being mortally wounded in the wreckage. They did not get the family's cooperation for this, so whether this happened or not is going to be up for speculation. Stone's inclusion of a stoic ex-marine who rescues the men (played exceptionally well by Michael Shannon) really hits the mark. I like how his sense of duty and determination was implied by his demeanor but never outright said.

World Trade Center isn't an unforgettable film like United 93, but a competent Hollywood version of what happened that day. After this, there's nowhere else to go with September 11th films. All the bases have been covered. You have to wonder though, what kind of a movie would we have had if the real Oliver Stone had shown up? By playing it safe, he may have unintentionally done that day and it's victims a greater disservice than if he had tried to exploit it.