Time's Corliss: 'W.' Missing a 'Point of View'

Photo of Ken Shepherd.

Oliver Stone's "W." is "boring" cinema, not much more than "illustrated journalism," lamented Time's Richard Corliss in an October 13 review.:

Like its central character, it seems never to have questioned itself about its mission or even asked if it had one. For this normally crazy-brilliant auteur, the last and lasting W. has to be Why?

But perhaps Corliss's real beef is that President Bush and his administration were not melodramatically portrayed as Republic-destroying megalomaniacal despots (emphasis mine):

Approaching George W. Bush, a Chief Executive with a shattered record and abysmal approval ratings who's now ignored or avoided by even his fellow Republicans, might seem way too easy a task for Stone. Historians have for years placed Bush at the bottom of presidential rankings, and The Daily Show, considering his legacy, chillingly guessed that Dubya is aiming to be not only our worst President but also our last.

For a related blog entry, see my October 13 post on Newsweek's more positive review by Alan Brinkley, who also insisted that "W." was "surprisingly, more or less fair," nay, downright "sunny and sympathetic."


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I feels the hate.

   Didn't I see that guy at a McCain rally? 

Sincerely,

a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.

" But perhaps Corliss's

" But perhaps Corliss's real beef is that President Bush and his administration were not melodramatically portrayed as Republic-destroying megalomaniacal despots"

Could it be the media has passed Oliver Stone in their race towards the radical left?  That takes some doing... 

McNotObama '08

WOW!

     It takes a true talent to disgust conservatives and liberals with one movie.  Looks like Mr. Stone has succeded in doing just that. 

“Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?  I mean, they’re charging a lot of money for this stuff.”

B.H. Obama

Didn't you see Alexander?

Nuff said

Stone tried to keep things somewhat in the middle left area (how sad is that?) but yeah Republicans don't want to see anything "Bush" for a while and Stone's main insane liberal base want to see him as Satan. Ergo, no success either side.

I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it - Voltaire

Alexander the Gayte

A very good friend of mine thought Alexander was laughably bad. Not even good bad like Showgirls.

And he's gay!

Vote 4 change. Vote 4 anything. See Jack & Mr Shy's first campaign ad for the ONLY viable 3rd party candidate.

So Stone is auteurstic? I

So Stone is auteurstic?

I always thought so. 

"Historians have for years

"Historians have for years placed Bush at the bottom of presidential rankings..."

Huh?  Most historians wait until after some time has passed to rank a president.

Perhaps this twit meant "Liberals" - who placed Bush at the bottom of presidential rankings since January 20, 2001.

History Judged Truman not the press.

History will judge G.W.Bush, not the press or the pundits. The press and political pundits have been consistent in only one thing, they have been universally wrong about how history will judge the effectiveness of any President. The press and the pundits all thought Truman was a lightweight and from a questionable background. He has now risen in our eyes as an effective and brutally honest President.