Dick Cheney, widely regarded as the most powerful vice president in modern U.S. history, died Monday at 84 from complications of pneumonia, along with cardiac and vascular disease, according to his family. A dominant force in American politics during the post-9/11 era, Cheney helped steer two wars, expanded executive power, and left behind a legacy as polarizing as it was influential.
His health battles were nearly as well-known as his political career: five heart attacks, a defibrillator, and a 2012 heart transplant that gave him a second act — one that ended with a dramatic break from the GOP in 2024, when he backed Kamala Harris and called Donald Trump a threat to democracy. With news of his passing, it's the perfect time to revisit the two films, released a decade apart, that offer competing portraits of Cheney’s role in American power: Oliver Stone’s W. (2008) and Adam McKay’s Vice (2018). One’s a measured biopic; the other, a wild-eyed satire. Together, they help explain why so many of us picture Cheney not on C-SPAN but in the movies.
The Media Landscapes: 2008 vs. 2018
- W. (2008) landed just weeks before the election that would bring Obama to power, and in the midst of a financial meltdown. Despite Stone’s reputation for provocation, the film was surprisingly restrained — a relatively straightforward Bush biopic. Josh Brolin drew praise for his layered performance as George W., while Richard Dreyfuss played Cheney like a spectral threat in the background.
- Vice (2018), on the other hand, dropped into a post-2016 world built for hot takes and timeline discourse. McKay’s movie was self-aware, chaotic, and deeply divisive. It snagged eight Oscar nominations, won for Makeup & Hairstyling, and grossed $76 million globally on a $60 million budget.
What The Films Are Really About
- W. is ultimately a character study — a look at how a son of privilege becomes president. It’s personal, grounded, and performance-driven. Cheney’s role? The calculating shadow in the room.
- Vice, meanwhile, isn’t just about Cheney. It’s about power itself — how it's built, disguised, and maintained. The film’s very structure is the point: fake credits, freeze-frames, fourth-wall breaks. It’s less story than thesis — and the thesis is bleak.
Classic Drama vs. Collage Chaos
- W. sticks to a mostly chronological arc: college, faith, politics, presidency. It’s traditionally shot, with flashbacks used to flesh out character motivation—a more old-school approach.
- Vice explodes that format. It’s edited like a YouTube deep dive with Shakespearean monologues, narration by Jesse Plemons, and visual gags like cross-cut surgeries. Nicholas Britell’s ominous score turns even PowerPoint scenes into something cinematic.
Performances: Dreyfuss’s Stillness vs. Bale’s Metamorphosis
- Richard Dreyfuss in W. plays Cheney as granite—controlled breath, narrowed eyes—an advisory presence that chills the frame. (If you remember thinking “Is that him?”—yes, that’s Dreyfuss.)
- Christian Bale in Vice disappears beneath voice, posture, and prosthetics. The transformation isn’t a gimmick; it’s the film’s center of gravity, validated by the Oscar in Makeup & Hairstyling.
Five Scenes That Say Everything
- 1. The VP Ask
- In W., it’s a brief campaign scene — personal, almost casual.
- In Vice, it’s a cold, quiet power negotiation. Cheney doesn’t want the job unless he can reshape it — and that’s the thesis right there.
- 2. Selling the Iraq War
- W. uses traditional cabinet-room drama and focuses on Bush’s internal doubts.
- Vice takes a media blitz approach: legal memos, cable news, and spin show how war gets marketed like a product.
- 3. The Heart Surgery Montage (Vice)
- Literal heart surgery, cross-cut with national policy changes. It’s blunt — but in this movie, that’s the point.
- 4. “Mission Accomplished” vs. Aftermath
- W. goes for tragedy: a public win with a private price.
- Vice curdles the moment with irony. There are no real victories here — only fallout.
- 5. Endings
- W. closes with quiet ambiguity — a man who never quite figured it out.
- Vice blows up the format with fake credits, a Shakespearean speech, and a testy focus group arguing over what just happened.
What Hits Different Now
With Cheney’s obituaries focusing on Iraq, surveillance, and executive overreach, Vice feels eerily prescient. It zooms out, arguing that the real story isn’t personality — it’s policy and process.
W., in contrast, feels almost elegiac in hindsight. Not because it excuses Cheney, but because it reminds us of the human side of power: ambition, insecurity, and legacy.
As people search “who did Dick Cheney shoot,” “Liz Cheney,” and “Cheney heart transplant,” they’re also revisiting these movies. And it’s no surprise — they helped write the cultural memory.
Where To Watch (And What To Look For)
W. (2008)
- Watch for: Brolin’s uncanny Bush; Dreyfuss’s still menace.
- Best scenes: the vice presidency discussion, cabinet infighting.
- Where to stream: You can find the movie streaming with an Apple TV+ subscription.
Vice (2018)
- Watch for: Bale’s transformation; McKay’s editing tricks.
- Best scenes: the VP restaurant pitch, Iraq War montage, and the heart-surgery metaphor.
- Awards: 8 Oscar nominations, one win (Makeup & Hairstyling).
- Where to stream: You can find the movie streaming with an Apple TV+ subscription.
Bottom Line
With the former Vice President’s passing, it’s the perfect time to revisit the two films that shaped his cinematic legacy. W. sees power in people; Vice finds it in systems. Together, these films present different aspects of a polarizing political figure. Dick Cheney meant many things to different people, but one thing is certain: he will be remembered in the history books and in film.
