What is Oliver Stone's W.? The previews made it seem like it would be a satirical slice of presidential life. How else to explain the use of "What a Wonderful World" over footage of the nightmare of the last eight years? But the final product itself is more (and kind of less) than a comedy. In fact, and maybe this is a personal thing, there's not a lot to laugh about when it comes to President George W. Bush. Yes, I gleefully smiled at the fact that Stone chose to recreate the infamous pretzel-choking incident, but I find nothing humorous about the man who plunged the world into anarchy or, on a simpler level, watching him moronically asking an injured, badly burned soldier how he's doing. At the same time, there's not a lot of dramatic weight to W. At the core of Stanley Weiser's script is the story of a boy always trying to impress his father and failing. On that level and in that dynamic, W. completely works. The fact that the material around it doesn't have the impact that I hoped it would only keeps W. from being the great movie that it could have been instead of the good movie that it ended up.

One of the problems with W. is deciding where to start and what story to focus on. A filmmaker with as much passion as the man who made JFK and Natural Born Killers could do a mini-series on the last eight years. Stone and Weiser focus mostly on the days leading up to the war - the famous "Axis of Evil" speech and the search for WMDs - intercut with flashbacks to how Bush (Josh Brolin) got to that turning point in our nation's history. Bush's early years are portrayed as those of a spoiled, little-boy-lost, a man who went from job to job and felt like his family name was as much of a burden as a gift. He always had something to live up to and even his brother seemed to be on a more successful track than he did. And George Sr. (James Cromwell) made his disdain for Jr. pretty clear. One of the best scenes in the movie features W. telling his parents (Ellen Burstyn plays Barbara) that he's running for Governor and they try and talk him out of it. The moments between demanding father and underachieving son are easily the strongest in the film.

But that's only half the movie. The modern era material feels underdeveloped and shallow, like a press secretary hitting the key talking points but not going deep enough to really resonate. The war room scenes, in particular, have an eerie feeling of inauthenticity. I never felt like I was watching Cheney, Powell, and Rice, as much as I was watching Richard Dreyfuss, Jeffrey Wright, and Thandie Newton. They're missing the dramatic heft that Stone and Geiser find in the family scenes. Cheney giving Bush the "1% speech" (the rational being that even if there's only a 1% chance of something horrible happening, any action to stop it is warranted) is a great scene, but to what end? We know it happened. How does it fit into the tapestry of the film? It doesn’t. The scenes set in the '00s don't have the energy or weight that they need to have to be truly memorable. We've seen this material before. Watching Bush declare “Mission Accomplished” doesn't have the power that Stone thinks it does. The image is too fresh, too familiar, and doesn’t really add up to anything.

What is memorable about W. are two of the best performances of the year, stunningly precise cinematography, and excellent direction. First and foremost, the main reason to see W. is the man himself, Josh Brolin. This is easily one of the best performances of the year. Many, many actors would have gone the impression route for two hours, which would have been unbearably cheesy and hard to watch. Brolin gets underneath Bush's skin, portraying him as a whiny child, the kind who complains after being given a gift by his father, the kind of father who can only write kind words instead of saying them. His relationship with his dad completely fueled Dubya's life, and Josh Brolin nails it. Every decision he made as an actor was the right one. And the same thing goes for Cromwell who finds a quiet dignity in Bush Sr. that should actually enhance the real man's historical reputation. Brolin is almost a lock for a lead actor nod. Cromwell should be considered for supporting. Dreyfus and Banks are good, but the actors who go for straight-up impersonation - Newton, in particular - rubbed me the wrong way. Even Wright, one of my favorite actors alive, is missing something in his Powell performance, and there’s something missing in what are basically cameos from Scott Glenn, Toby Jones, and Ioan Gruffudd. None of them worked for me. On one more positive note, master cinematographer Phedon Papamichael (Walk the Line, Sideways) shoots the film brilliantly.

So, what is Oliver Stone's W.? Not a comedy. Not a drama. Not a satire. Not a recreation. It's a film with great performances and some annoying ones. It's a story with interesting depth in one half and shallow familiarity in the other. Perhaps it's appropriate that a movie about a man who saw the world in black and white - the world was with him or against him - ended up with so many good and bad qualities itself.

Rating: THREE BONES

Reviewed by Brian Tallerico (MovieRetriever.com Film Critic)

Release Date: October 17th, 2008

Rating: PG-13

Starring: Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks, Dennis Boutsikaris, Ellen Burstyn, James Cromwell, Richard Dreyfuss, Michael Gaston, Scott Glenn, Ioan Gruffudd, Toby Jones, Stacy Keach, Bruce McGill, Thandie Newton, and Jeffrey Wright

Director: Oliver Stone

Writer: Stanley Weiser

Check out the MovieRetriever.com

W. Page!