Oliver Stone's buzzworthy biopic W. is one of the most fascinating films of his career.

Nearing the end of George W. Bush's tumultuous eight-year run as president, it was an unusual decision for filmmaker Stone to release a fact-based portrayal of the man's life and times while he is still in office. Although the film is far from a genuine depiction, it isn't quite a head-on satire and thus falls into a wavering middleground.

Josh Brolin, in the title role, does a respectable job of mastering the man's elocution and his gait despite bearing little physical resemblance.

However, W. is so immersed in topicality it damages the strength of its impact. This limits how much light the film can shed on these eight years.

The film, framed in the early days of the war on terrorism, unevenly flashes back to key moments in his life: being hazed in a Yale fraternity house, meeting his wife-to-be Laura at a barbecue and rediscovering himself as a born-again Christian. As the film progresses, George H.W. Bush, bails his son out of jail and gets him into Harvard Business School. Years later, George W. Bush is hired by his father to help run George H.W. Bush's 1988 presidential campaign, inspiring him to climb the political ladder and eventually to run for president himself.

Stone poses the question of how a man -- earliest seen in 1966 driving drunk and getting arrested -- became president when he was potentially more fit to manage a baseball team? The premise off the bat sounds like one of those make-believe A-to-B movie concepts, like a team of blue-collar oil drillers sent into outer space to deflect an asteroid.

An undoubtedly venturesome filmmaker, Stone has a history of bending facts and heightening thematic qualities in his biopics, including The Doors, Alexander and Nixon. Here, he intended not to indulge his biases but to study Bush's psyche and evolution.

It's obvious Stone and his screenwriter Stanley Weiser have a thesis: Bush rode on his father's coattails and struggled to attain his love and respect throughout his life. Stone wants this to be Bush's central internal conflict, and shows us times of adversity to support his argument.

One of the early appeals of the film is the cast of actors impersonating George W. Bush's presidential cabinet. Some of the actors go beyond the one-dimensional caricature, like the creepily dead-on Richard Dreyfuss as Vice President Dick Cheney and Toby Jones as political adviser Karl Rove.

The female supporting players are not given much to do and play up certain nationally recognized mannerisms and quirks. Thandie Newton as Condoleezza Rice has limited dialogue and tightens her face to resemble that of a smiling lizard.

Stone loves adding a surrealistic, allegoric touch and he sprinkles it very lightly by occasionally cutting to George W. Bush alone in the center field of a baseball stadium.

Also, the camera is often jammed in Josh Brolin's face with a mix of externally subjective high-angle and low-angle shots. This is refreshingly achieved in a subtle manner when compared to Stone's typical collage of over-the-top images à la Natural Born Killers.

There are a few sporadic laughs at the expense of the Bush administration, but the film is primarily an even-handed, at times sympathetic, take on the general sequence of events.

We learn how the phrase "axis of evil" was coined in the chambers of the Oval Office and that Cats is George W. Bush's favorite Broadway show.

It is necessary for viewers to have some knowledge of the past decade's news events for total comprehension. In the film, George W. Bush discusses seeking revenge on Saddam Hussein in present day before the flashback cycle broaches the subject of the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

The scattershot structure jumps to many scenes low on substance. It largely glosses over politics, spending little time with George W. Bush's governorship in Texas or George H.W. Bush's presidency.

The father-son subplot brings out elements of well-acted drama, but without a final act wrapping things up, the film is inherently incomplete.

W. ultimately lacks a focused message or satirical bite, and with all its audacity, it comes up a bit short. Since it isn't clear how the George W. Bush administration will be viewed in a grand historical context, it's likely that a film like W. will have a small lasting impact.

Grade: C+