Ah, the movie event of the year! Well, sort of…Oliver Stone was originally going to do a film about the My Lai massacre, and it got scrapped. So, what is a 60+ year old conspiracy theorist director to do?

Why, make a movie about the current president of the United States, of course! And when you see Oliver Stone attached to something about a Republican president, all the right can do is roll their eyes, and the left licks their chops.

But, hold on a moment. Before jumping to a conclusion, let’s give Stone a chance. I mean, he had said before the movie was released that this was going to be more like “The Queen”; in that, Bush would be looked at from a personal standpoint, and not just the character assassination that Nixon got. Did he pull it off?

First, he can’t get over how much success his dad has had, and how much his dad admires his brother, Jeb. Second, he’s a booze hound who is more interested in partying and getting drunk than doing anything with his life. He is the essence of a spoiled brat. And his father resents that because he believes that the Bush name is about working hard for everything, and not being entitled to everything. “What do you think you are, a Kennedy?” he asks junior.

But, George has a change of lifestyle when he meets Laura Welch, played wonderfully by Elizabeth Banks, and eventually gives up drinking and takes up politics. Laura is great. She, too, was a drinker and a smoker–and a Democrat! Very open minded, she becomes a great supporter of her man, and is represented as a loving, fair minded individual, and very strong willed.

As George gets deeper into politics, he helps his father’s campaigns in ’88 and ’92, and decides to run for Governor of Texas in ’93. To everyone’s surprise, he wins, and becomes Governor in ’94. From then on, Bush enjoys some successes, and eventually of course wins (steals?) the 2000 Presidential election.

What’s interesting is that the movie does jump around a little in Bush’s life. We do see him in office in the early part of the film, and we get to see him with his conniving advisers, including Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. The performances of all three of these guys are very good–with Dreyfuss being absolutely dead on as Cheney. He’s got the smug little smirk down perfect.

In fact, most everyone’s performances were very believable–the only one I disliked was Condy Rice. I don’t know if they were going for comic effect or just trying to make her as annoying as possible, but I’ve heard her speak…she’s not THIS bad. Distracted from the movie, and is the one pock mark on an otherwise pretty strong effort. Brolin shines as W., and deserves Oscar recognition.

The story itself revolves around Bush’s inability to really analyze anything and that does come back to haunt him in the Iraq invasion, and the film ends on the note that the Iraq war starts going downhill, and his popularity starts to dwindle. There’s an interesting running theme of Bush’s love of baseball being manifested in a recurring daydream he professes to his father in which he’s in center field, catching a fly ball. It’s his “happy place”, and he can always go there when things aren’t going well. For Bush, this happens often.

Stone’s take on Bush is a success, and deserves to be looked at fairly since his take on Bush is presented justly. You actually do kinda like W. by the end, and feel a bit sorry for him because he just can’t seem to get things right. In so many things in his life, he never tries to really do the right thing. In the case of Iraq, he really believed he was doing the right thing, and believed the wrong people. He’ll most likely go down in history as the worst president in our history.

But at least we’ll have this film to look at and say: but he wasn’t THAT bad of a guy…

My rating:

Family value: It depends on how much your kids are into politics, obviously. Not a lot of bad language (2 f-bombs), no nudity or anything. But there are some boozin’ scenes and whatnot. But overall, this is a movie that you don’t necessarily have to send the kids off to bed for. But they may send themselves off, if they hate politics as much as I did when I was that age.

I had mentioned in my review of “Burn After Reading” that the opening and closing shots are amusing and poignant to what the film is about; in that, here’s a picture of the globe, here we focus on a random area, and see random events that prove to be much more hectic and dramatic than they should. In “Body of Lies”, it’s pretty much the complete opposite effect.

The film revolves around two characters throughout, played by Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe. Now, I’m going to go ahead and let you know that the trailers for this film have been their own “body of lies” by somehow trying to portray Crowe as the villain in the film. He’s not. I’m not ruining anything by telling you that, either. In fact, knowing that should aid you through this movie, so that you’re not thinking there will be some big twist at the end or some kind of revelation that turns Crowe into a bad guy. He is a bit of a window character for DiCaprio’s character, named Roger Ferris, who is an undercover agent for the CIA investigating a series of terrorist bombings that have led him to Jordan.

Ridley Scott directed this picture, and he shows time and time again that, even in his advanced age, he can still shoot a picture. The script, by William Monahan, has a great first act. It sets things up very well. You are intrigued by the layers of plot thickening. But, the film goes to such an extent to set things up that really, it can only be justified by having an even bigger ending. I think the film’s eyes were bigger than its stomach.

This film is based on a novel, and I believe the script wanted to treat this as much as a character movie as it was a plot-driven thriller. But because it tries to go into two different directions at once, the it goes nowhere instead. There is a brief love interest that Roger becomes involved with–but he goes to an extreme (and unbelievable) length to protect her, and winds up getting right into Ground Zero, and throws himself into the proverbial Lion’s Den.

This is a film of great set up and poor pay off. The “body of lies” that Roger entangles himself into are very natural, it’s not that contrived. But how he gets out of them are exactly that. And it leaves something to be desired by the ending. It’s a film that is also ensconced in themes about deceit and truth and honor. Crowe’s character, as I mentioned before, is used well in this metaphor.

Overall, the movie is well acted, and well paced. I never felt bored, even if I was confused on exactly where it was going–the villains were a bit simple and predictable. But the biggest thing lacking in the film was the third act and the ending. It just didn’t have the punch that it should have, and it was a great let down after a wonderful set up. It’s a shame that so many great names are attached to this inferior effort. But, it is worth a viewing if you’re a big fan of Scott, Crowe or DiCaprio. All gave A efforts, but the film winds up with a C result.

My rating:

Family value: Bad language and some intense killing scenes will have to drive away anyone under the age of 16, but it’s no worse than your average R rated suspense thriller. Proceed with caution!