Actually not surprising at all for me; Liberals have usually taken pains to be "objective", and pushed themselves to the point of intellectual vanity to provide a "well-rounded narrative" in an "open and meaningful discourse". However, such lofty intent doesn't always translate into fair results or effective message, and wishy-washy "empathy" is not to be confused for any sort of insight.
In "W.", this didactic and forced empathy keeps the film from digging deeper. Instead of any psychological depth that ventures beyond what we have speculated, sometimes with gleeful malice, on our own, or gathered from investigative journalism over the last eight years , "W." simply gave a soft-focus portrayal of a lengendarily soft mind, taking no responsibility apart from allowing himself to be a victim of manipulative old professionals and devious sycophants. One continues to be baffled how exactly was a feeble intellect exploited to such consistent extremism over such a long period of time: it must be more than weakness; for so much damage to be so resolutely done,there must be some pretty amazing force of character at work in the main culprit that magnified whatever corruption and political calculation others around him managed to pull off for their own benefits. This was what I came to Oliver Stone to find, and this is where my takeaway is Zero.
View more about W. reviews
