Home page

Text size

E-mail this page

It seems only a month or two ago I was sitting in the movie theatre watching Casino Royale and comparing it with the previous Bond flick.

Daniel Craig returns as Agent 007 in Quantum of Solace. - photo courtesy of Columbia Pictures

I am now doing the same again.

Daniel Craig is back for his second appearance as James Bond in as many years, and it is starting to become an effort keeping up with it all.

Two Bond films in two years is quick by normal standards but maybe that's just what the fans want. Either way, I wasn't alone this past weekend in a very full movie theatre.

There have been mixed reviews for Craig, and it must be hard fulfilling a role where you are always compared with your predecessors with questions such as who was better, who is the best Bond and so on.

However Craig, for me, hasn't done a bad job in this latest offering. Casino Royale was his first appearance as the now world-famous James Bond, and in Quantum of Solace he seems to have matured more. He is trying to be Bond rather allowing the character to play off his acting. You forget to compare him with how 'Bondish' he is and more get into his acting in a worthwhile film.

I have heard mixed reviews from friends but I would say Quantum of Solace is definitely worth watching. Personally I enjoyed it more than the previous Bond film. While watching it, you spend most of the time thinking about what it's about and what's the driving force behind Bond. It's not until later on that you start to get a better understanding.

The film is deeper than usual Bond titles, and with less shooting and catastrophes, there is more suspense and thinking about what will happen next. I liked it for this – it seems to differ to the stereotyped Bond plots.

With more productions planned for the future, it must be getting harder to come up with original ideas, steering away from terrorism and taking over the world.

There is an element of this in the film, but it's applied in a kind of original way. That for me is one of the reasons I like this film. If you have predisposed ideas of what it may or may not be, I would recommend watching it. You may come out thinking of it as less of a Bond flick and more of a good, entertaining movie.

From a beer guzzling ivy-league head cheerleader at Yale in the 1960's to the most powerful man in the world after the attacks on 9/11 and the rush to war in Iraq, George W. Bush is often “mis-underestimated” in the movie W.

Josh Brolin as George W. Bush and Toby Jones as Karl Rove in Oliver Stone's biopic, W.- photo courtesy of Lions Gate Entertainment

In Oliver Stone's biopic of the 43rd President of the United States, Mr. Bush comes off as a sympathetic, likable, and even innocent character, determined to crawl out from under the shadow of his much more ambitious and successful father.

Josh Brolin, fresh off his fantastic performance in No Country for Old Men, plays the role of 'Dubya' -- perfectly portraying the swagger, lingo and mannerisms of one of the most controversial leaders in American history. He gives a great and memorable performance in the title role.

Brolin is joined by some big Hollywood talent for a glimpse inside the White House. Richard Dreyfuss (Mr. Holland's Opus) is Dick Cheney, Scott Glenn (Backdraft) is Donald Rumsfeld, James Cromwell (L.A. Confidential) is George H.W. Bush and a cast of familiar and talented actors provide an entertaining insight into the inner workings of the Bush administration, dealing with the challenges of running the most powerful country on Earth. The movie is a ride through the life of George W. Bush, his failures and successes, his struggles and his controversies. The story mostly deals with his first term in office, from just after 9/11 until around 2004 when he secured re-election, revisiting his past and his rise to power in American politics.

Stone touches upon some of the most controversial moments during the Bush administration with a delicate touch, highlighting serious issues like detainee interrogation techniques at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay prison camps, the missing Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and the domestic

wire tapping surveillance program authorized in the Patriot Act.

Jeffrey Wright (Syriana) plays Gen. Colin Powell as a conflicting voice against the rush to war in Iraq, often at odds over policy matters and philosophy with Rumsfeld and Cheney. Brolin's GWB, meanwhile, is portrayed as a confused and ill-informed observer with Cheney and Rumsfeld navigating serious obstacles and convincing Bush to follow their lead.

The look and feel of W. is surreal and one of the most enjoyable parts of the movie is the dialog. Stone reclaims many of the slogans and euphemisms so celebrated on comedy shows over the past eight years.

The film is not always historically accurate but it never takes itself seriously enough to claim to document real-world events, it just provides an enjoyable opportunity to revisit the Bush years with a humorous approach that borders as much on satire as it does on history. Whether you love George W. Bush or hate him, W. is worth a look.

Director Oliver Stone’s portrayal of President George W. Bush in W. marks a rare first in cinema – nothing less than non-adulatory, frank illustration of the commander-in-chief of the world’s only superpower – while he and his co-cast of characters (several of them, at least) are still in power.

It’s a safe bet nothing of this kind has ever been done before. Anything of the sort would have been unthinkable prior to the office of the 43rd president of the U.S. No other government in the world – and it's a safe bet to include our own government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper – would have allowed such a portrayal of themselves in their own country.

That Stone was able to pull it off is a testament to the liberties the U.S. emulates, which, for all its failings magnified under the eight years of George W.’s presidency, have actually allowed such a production to pass.

Is this to be taken as an ultimate victory for freedom of speech? I would say so. How Stone pulled it off must be a story in itself. Dare the rest of the world take on the example? It’s hard to see filmmakers in the U.K. or France (let alone Russia or China) following such a precedent on their own leaders. Yet filmmakers abroad would not hesitate to follow any other sure-fire Hollywood formula, particularly if it is a work of Sci-fi, fantasy or possible source for video games.

Few would take the example of Bush’s government as one to be followed either, in view of its bankrupt results, and Stone’s film takes us a bit closer to some unvarnished understanding of it. Stone is well-qualified to do so, being as he is a product of another time of upheaval in his country’s history. He is a baby boomer, a member of a generation of people who tout themselves as having changed, or tried but failed to change the world for the better. We still live in a world where senseless wars and destruction occur, as his film reminds us.

W. helps illuminate the forces that produced George W., the government he led and the most recent course of world history. Central to Stone’s story is the father-son relationship between Bush senior and Bush junior, president numbers 41 and 43, giving viewers a familiar tale to relate to. Following close behind are his relations to other still-living characters who contributed to his rise to power.

For all these reasons, W. -- a deft, relatively low-budget film describing a key chapter in the story of the world’s lone superpower -- is well worth seeing.