It’s hard to watch a movie that has no identity. “W.” starring Josh Brolin as the 43rd President of the United States, the always controversial director Oliver Stone wanted the film to be the biggest event of the year. When watching it, Stone doesn’t know whether the film itself should be satirical, tragic or darkly comedic. Instead, a blend of the three hinders the quality of the film.

The film attempts to focus on the rise of young Bush (Brolin) and during the 2002-2004 years when the U.S. decides to invade Iraq. We begin in 2002 where Bush and his advisors Condoleezza Rice (Thandie Newton), Colin Powell (Jeffery Wright), Donald Rumsfeld (Scott Glenn), Karl Rove (Toby Jones) and Vice President Dick Chaney (Richard Dreyfuss) discuss what they should do about Sadaam Hussein and Iraq.

After these discussions, we cut back to 1969 at a fraternity party. Drinking and hazing are abundant but we see Bush basking in this atmosphere. He enjoys booze, girl chasing and driving cars fast into anything that is stationary. He did not (and still does not) look like a man that would be a leader for anything except to start another party run.

Always disappointed at his son, young Bush tries to seek acceptance from elder Bush (James Cromwell) by deciding to run for Congress in Texas. There he meets his soon-to-be wife Laura (Elizabeth Banks). Losing that race crushes his spirits, but he shows his resiliency because we all know where he ends up by the year 2000.

This film is an ideological mess because Stone doesn’t give it any sense of direction. There are scenes when Bush and his advisors are in the War Room discussing their strategies for Iraq. It feels uneasy to watch because one doesn’t know whether to laugh at the mimicking going on or be absorbed in the drama between the back and forth of Powell and Chaney.

Maybe it isn’t Stone’s fault. Maybe it’s screenwriter Stanley Weiser’s fault. This guy isn’t a slouch. He wrote the incredibly deep “Wall Street” for Stone during the 1980s. But it feels like all he did was use well-known historical facts, inserted some dialogue and handed it in to Stone. Other than the Bush Sr. and W., no one else is developed in the film.

With a movie that casts big stars like Dreyfuss, Newton, Cromwell and Wright, we would expect big things from these stars. Instead, it feels like all they were brought in to do impersonations. Dreyfuss, Wright and Jones relished their roles but mimicking can only take a character so far. Newton looked so disinterested (and borderline annoying). Banks’ Laura Bush was engaging when we first met her but disappeared throughout the late part of the film. Only Cromwell brings a sense of humility and humanity as the dad that struggles to find a connection with his son. A cast like this should be able to give more firepower to a film of this magnitude but everyone here is relegated to being a caricature.

It’s not to say that this movie didn’t have some good moments. One would believe that Stone would bash the living daylights out of this buffoon of a President but instead, he manages to create sympathy for Bush. The whole theme of Bush wanting to impress his dad is fleshed out well. Wanting to look for any acknowledgement, it pushed Bush to the brink of wanting the presidency, even though it was supposed to be saved for his brother Jeb.

Brolin saved this movie from being completely disappointing. This is by far the most impressive work he’s done. Working with a paper-thin script, he turns Bush into a tragic hero we can somewhat forgive (in a movie sense, it’s debatable whether or not we can forgive him in the real world). Not only does he get the mannerisms right, he makes us believe in the transformation Bush went through, from being an alcoholic to being the leader of the free world. When Oscar time rolls around, the Academy better have a nomination waiting for this man.

This was supposed to be the biggest event of the year. Stone told Roger Ebert that Bush’s tenure is “the worst eight years of leadership and responsibility that I have seen in my 62 years.” This movie was supposed to show that. But what he gives us is faulty logic and differential tones. Were we supposed to be laughing at Bush’s bullhead logic or feeling sorry for this misunderstood President? Who knows? Thank God for Brolin’s performance.