Oliver Stone’s W. is an oddity. There’s no other word for it. In attempting to provide psychological commentary on the presidency of George W. Bush, it forgets the simple cinematic basics of story, structure and character. The tone of the film is nearly non existent, leaving its admirable cast of actors on shaky ground without a leg to stand on.

Stone juxtaposes the rise of “Dubya” (played by Josh Brolin) with his decision to begin the current Iraq War. In displaying Bush’s journey from frat boy to drunk to born again AA member to leader of the free world, Stone has enough material to create a wicked absurdist satire, or compelling political theater. However, Stone seems hell-bent on making a film that remains neutral toward the forty- third President, giving him the ability to say things like, “It will contain surprises for Bush supporters and his detractors.”# Well, yes, I was surprised indeed. Surprised that the man who’s made films as vibrant and lively as JFK and Natural Born Killers, as somber and emotional as Platoon or Born on the Fourth of July has rendered this film completely dull and lifeless.

Perhaps Stone isn’t completely to blame. Stanley Weiser’s script, bland and talky in the worst possible way, contains figures instead of characters, and when put into scenes these figure say exactly what should be shown in outlets other than dialog removing any hope for subtlety.

I do know this, the film’s failure is certainly not the fault of the cast which includes actors as esteemed as Richard Dreyfuss and Ellen Burstyn. By and large (with the exception of Thandie Newton’s dreadful aping of Condoleezza Rice) the cast excels at inhabiting the situation. This is especially true for Brolin who’s performance is so complete and convincing that it overshadows the entire film and underlines the numerous flaws. Beyond physical inhabitation and imitation, Brolin’s performance shows a deep understanding of Dubya as a man, I wish I could say the same about the film.