W. (I) (2008) User Reviews

Watch this after watching VICE.

[ThomDerd · 7/10 · 23 October 2021]

W. Was released in the wrong time. Probably 10 years too soon. If you stumble upon this film now, you will be entertained. Because this story and this character are just absurd. Politics aside, Brolin does a good job portraying W.

I suggest watching VICE first and then back to back this one and you will appreciate it more.

7,1/10.

Great if Taken as Satire

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 25 March 2015]

A chronicle on the life and presidency of George W. Bush (Josh Brolin).

The worst thing about this film is the awful casting, with many people looking nothing like who they should be. Karl Rove looks like a doofus and Condoleeza Rice sounds worse than Fran Drescher. Some are pretty good, and at least you can usually tell who each person is supposed to be. But, my goodness, maybe the casting director needed more time.

The film is fun and enjoyable so long as you understand it is satire. Yes, Oliver Stone is a left-leaning guy, sometimes to an extreme. But this is obviously not meant to be a serious biopic, but more a look at the foibles of George W. Bush. Surprisingly, there are moments that really humanize the guy, and for that Stone deserves credit for pulling punches.

A Fair And Balanced Portrait of a... Fairly Simple Man

[doubleosix · 7/10 · 12 October 2008]

This is a very good movie, but not the classic it wants to be. It's funny and tragic, although not too informative if you've read a newspaper with any regularity over the last eight years. In short, there are no surprises.

Josh Brolin gives an excellent performance as W., and the supporting cast is generally superb, although Jeffrey Wright, Richard Dreyfuss, and James Cromwell particularly stand out. Thandie Newton is hysterically funny as Condie Rice, but it's an SNL-type parody, not an emotionally honest performance.

The film is obviously meticulously researched and carefully considered, which is why the sequences that are clearly either utter conjecture or merely political finger-pointing stand out by a mile.

Bush -- whom I personally despise for his offensive combination of idiocy and self-righteousness -- is treated with fairness and sensitivity. The effort here is obviously to fashion him as a tragic hero; a man who genuinely wants to do good but simply doesn't grasp how hard that is, especially when surrounded by the likes of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney (who is, very specifically, the villain of the piece, as he is in life). And it generally works. I found myself feeling bad for the poor guy.

However, while trying to make W. a sympathetic character, Stone pushes his theme -- "It Was All To Prove Himself To Daddy" way too far. He overplays his hand, including a mood-breaking dream sequence near the end. There simply has to be more to George W. Bush than that..... doesn't there? The film ultimately plays much, much better when Stone relies on actual transcripts and information gathered by experienced reporters, and those sequences, whether they are cabinet meetings, press conferences, or more personal moments, snap and zing.

Entertaining, but no more than that

[bob998 · 7/10 · 28 April 2009]

If you are looking for a probing analysis of the eight years of G. W. Bush's presidency, you would be better off reading the books that have already appeared by Woodward and others. At times, this biopic can't rise above sitcom level: the college hazing that is just dumb, not revelatory of Bush's character; the bickering that goes on around the table as Cheney takes on Powell; Rice and her sycophantic behavior around the President (she can't believe he is so uninformed, yet he is her mealticket). It sounds like an episode of Friends, yet you would have to call it Enemies.

Some commenters have taken Thandie Newton to task for her satirical portrait of Rice, but this is the tradition with Oliver Stone: somebody has to be the comedic relief. It was Joe Pesci and Tommy Lee Jones in JFK, James Woods in Nixon, and here we get Scott Glenn being wacky, Bruce McGill being oily and self-serving, Toby Jones being... what, exactly? I couldn't grasp what his take on Karl Rove was all about. Newton's burlesque is just part of the wallpaper in this film.

Okay, but not great.

[em89072002 · 6/10 · 27 October 2008]

This film bored me. It's a sad story of a pathetic character. Essentially W's life-story is reduced to a two hour melodrama more suited for a 'movie-of-the-week' TV slot than the big screen.

It's understandably difficult to condense anyone's life-story into two hours of film, but a focus on a specific incident or time period in W's life would have allowed for more character development all around. Here, there was just too much of the overall story so as the numerous characters were paraded-out they came across as shallow and two-dimensional.

The episodic flashbacks were over-used and made for a pretty choppy film.

The rocky father-son relationship was hammered home pretty hard; I was almost expecting W to cry out 'rosebud' in the middle of the night.

For what it provides, this film just ran too long; much like the main character's current administration.

A Stone in GWB's eye

[gcarpiceci · 7/10 · 14 June 2021]

W. Seems to have disappointed many of Oliver Stone's fans; actually the movie lacks the vehemence, the all-around attacks, the gloomy conspiratorial narrative of most of his documentary films.

Mr Stone might have thought all his usual arsenal was not needed in the case of George W. Bush Jr; in fact, an almost subdued if not moderate tone voice worked best - in my view - to call out the key traits of our hero: a mediocre man, actually a dumbass, an insecure kid turned into an obsessive man, a puppet manoeuvred by a bunch of dangerous acolytes.

Exposing reality as is was more than enough here, actually an over-dramatisation might have proved counterproductive.

I thought it was interesting to compare and contrast W. With Adam McKay's Vice; the very same facts, told from Cheney's perspective and with a totally different style but very consistent, offer a nice complement to W.

Interesting film- if you don't enjoy politics don't watch

[nick-watson52 · 7/10 · 17 January 2021]

Me and my girlfriend are both staunch democrats and we both thoroughly enjoyed. Love or hate him, the guys lived an interesting life. You see a transformation from a spoiled frat boy begging his dad to buy him a baseball team to a competent public servant who genuinely wants to do right by his country. Definitely watch.

Uncomfortable

[robertgrimm-1 · 8/10 · 27 October 2008]

One word sums up how I felt while watching W: uncomfortable.

I went into this film expecting more of an absurdist comedy than a tragedy. The level of realism was far beyond what I expected. For the most part, the cast, makeup, and casting crew did such a good job with the characters that it was very easy to imagine that these were not actors on the screen but the actual people. Josh Brolin's characterization of W was certainly Oscar-worthy.

Even better than Brolin's part was Phedon Papamichael's photographic direction. The job of the Director of Photography is to bring the story to life through the creation of images to draw the attention of the viewer where the Director wants. Few films are as good of an example of this as W. Papamichael used the camera to force moral and emotional perspective in a way that I have rarely seen outside of the films of Stanley Kubrick. I've only seen the film once, viewing it as a complete work. I intend to watch it again to study the photography.

Overall, I thought the film was fair in its treatment of the actual people involved. The most ardent Bush supporters will not like it, but to still be that supportive of him in the final months of his second term, you either have to not be paying attention or be uncritical in all of your thought. While artistic license was taken throughout the film, the portrayal of all events and people, with the possible exception of Dick Cheney, were far more grounded in reality and recorded history than I expected.

The film made me uncomfortable on multiple levels, which is why it succeeds and deserves such a high rating. The portrayal of Bush's relationship with his parents, especially his father, forces the viewer to feel sorry for him. The overt religiosity that pervades the public service portion of his life must anger anyone who believes strongly in the separation of church and state. There are many moments when, with any other characters, the film should have generated much laughter. Only one moment in the film actually caused more than one person in the theater to laugh. I guess 4000+ dead soldiers drains the humor out of even the most hilarious gaffes.

I would recommend this film to anyone who wants to see a realistic portrayal of historical events. I wish Stone had waited until Bush was out of office to make it, though. While it captures the major events that were involved in building the Bush legacy, it ends far too early.

With Liberty and Justice For All

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 6/10 · 12 November 2008]

Oh, boy, a film about George W. Bush, could be the new "Forrest Gump", lol. My head still hurts, because I was just banging it on the wall after I watched this film, how in the heck did this man run our country for 8 years without burning it down? Now I understand why this film was released right before election time, now I work at a movie theater and everyone who came out of the theater said they felt bad for W. and a couple of my friends who I saw the film said they also felt bad for him... how about us?! OK, before I start banging my head up against the wall again, so Oliver Stone is the critical director who decided to take on this wonderful project. The film is actually well made, Josh Brolin does a decent job of portraying our constant dumbfounded president, the story is pretty sad when you think about all the pressures he must face on a daily basis.

Based on George W. Bush's life, we go from when he was just a crazy party animal in college. Dubbed as the black sheep of the family, that his brother would be more suited as president, facing constant criticism from his father George Bush, Sr. who was also our president for a short time. We explore W.'s life with his family, his presidency, the pressure he faces, and the Iraq war. We also go into his world of having to pull himself out of his rut with his family who constantly puts him down with a country who is not exactly proud of him as well.

W. is a good film, it's well acted and put together, however, my main complaint, but I think there is a reason why, is that Oliver completely skips the election controversy we faced in 2000 as well as 9/11 which I thought was an important subject to touch. But I have a feeling why he didn't bring it up is due to how hard those times were for him and wasn't exactly sure how to go at it. Over all this is a watchable movie, but for me, it is forgettable, I don't know if it will be considered a classic down the line, but I guess we'll find out if our future kids are watching it in their history classes and asking us "what were you on when you voted for this guy?".

6/10

Huge Stone Fan, but this is Stone at his lowest.

[leitner43 · 3/10 · 23 January 2009]

Preface: I'm a huge Oliver Stone fan. HUGE. I even wrote a 20 page paper on the relationship between Platoon and the American psyche regarding the Vietnam War. However, .... In his latest film, Oliver Stone forfeits the insightful, truth-driven film-making that has made him famous for normal, good ol' American profit-driven propaganda (if not tabloid fodder for the masses).

The representation of Bush and his actions border's on the absurd. I am no Bush fan, but this film seems to be nothing more than a means of gratifying all those who yearn for a simple movie that reinforces, rather than questions, all their ignorant beliefs about very complex issues. Example: Bush recklessly invades Iraq without any reservations. None. His rational, according to Stone, has more to do with his ego and his quest to prove himself to his father. Fact: Even Clinton voted for war in Iraq. The majority of leaders in the US thought that Iraq posed a legitimate threat.

The film's motto: "Hate Bush, and America is not to be blamed." That is exactly what the Germans did after WWII. As stated, I'm no Bush fan, but this film equates to political propaganda, and I reject propaganda, whether it is from Bush or from Stone.

Waiting for the final ball to drop...

[WriterDave · 8/10 · 18 October 2008]

With his "in the moment" biopic "W." the normally volatile Oliver Stone wisely saves his judgments for history when hindsight will be 20/20. Achingly subdued and slightly satirical, Stone plays it straight and to the bone. Here he presents us with the early years of our current lame duck president, showing Dubya rushing a frat-house at Yale, meeting Laura at a barbecue, living in the shadow of his father and brother, his troubles holding down a job, his failed bid to become baseball commissioner, and his defining moment when he gives up drinking and becomes born-again. All of which leads us to his first term and the Iraq War quagmire, where Dubya honest-to-goodness truly believes "God" wanted him to become president and that Iraq did have those rascally WMD.

In the lead role, Josh Brolin is an endearingly bumble-headed Dubya, and Stone presents him as a simple-minded man with good intentions who has been crippled by his "daddy issues" and has surrounded himself with the most cynical, self-serving, and corrupt administration in modern American history. The supporting cast is a hoot, with highlights including Thandie Newton eliciting big laughs just with her facial expressions as a wicked and moronically faithful Condi Rice, Elizabeth Banks giving a winning portrayal of Laura Bush, and Richard Dreyfuss playing Cheney as the most insipid megalomaniac American politics has ever seen.

Stone accomplishes three major coups here that should surprise those who expected a one-sided liberal smear job. First, he humanizes George W. Bush. The director does this with savvy editing showing the back-story of why Dubya does the things he does (i.e. why he uses nicknames for everyone or why running three miles every day is so important to him), and then juxtaposing that with the inane decisions he has made as president. By utilizing actual transcripts from press conferences, news coverage, and meetings, Stone and scribe Stanley Weiser allow Bush and his administration to speak for themselves, and it's both comically cathartic and occasionally frightening to see it dramatized so well. Second, he redeems the presidency of George "Poppy" Bush (a somewhat miscast but still effective James Cromwell) by showing what a restrained and thoughtful Commander in Chief he was compared to his naive and too-eager-to-please son. Thirdly, he redeems the legacy of Colin Powell (a surprisingly good Jeffrey Wright), who is shown here as the only person in the administration with any hindsight or foresight, and the only sane voice who questioned the motives for entering Iraq, though he eventually caved in and played along. His "f-you" to Cheney towards the film's final act is priceless.

As the actual presidency still has a few months to go at the time of the film's release, Stone's biopic was never written a true ending, leaving us with a symbolic image of Dubya looking up to the sky in center field waiting to catch a ball that will never drop. It may be another twenty years before we can pass any accurate judgment on Dubya's legacy, and likewise, Stone's film will have to wait. It's going to be a long time before anyone catches all those balls George W. Bush's administration threw up in the air.

Party of One

[tedg · 28 October 2008]

Two of my least favorite people in one project! A president with a blunt intellect, but a remarkable ability to project a simple story. And a filmmaker with the same qualities. Each would be relatively harmless as clerks who amuse at lunch breaks, but these are men whose inadequacies break worlds.

It is no wonder that this portrays Bush respectfully. No wonder that it is all about intent: the man is a good, honest, unselfish man whose only weakness was a vision of an unrealistic utopia and the accident of being surrounded by fools and devils. I believe that all of Stone's projects are autobiographical and he impresses on them his own story. Its Woody Allen, except instead of placing himself in the cosmic forces of personal relationships and self, he wanders among what he sees is a cosmos of global conspiracy. That he is able to make a living in Hollywood is, I think, because our notions of noir are close enough to this so that he (and Spike Lee) can bloviate and make a living.

As time goes on, he worries more and more about himself, so he makes his heroes basically good men, lost.

But this time history bucks him. The culpability of this man cannot be explained away by blaming Rove and Cheney. His qualms about torture are known to not have happened. We know that he pushed for policies that will be evaluated in time as war crimes. Now, he may have done that with noble intent, but more ruthless and scheming than this golden Rube we see here.

This is a disaster for history. Because so few Americans read books, instead getting their history from films and blogmobs.

The cinematic values of Stone's prior work are not even visible. The energy of "Platoon," the craft of "JFK" are gone. We have normal TeeVee movie framing here.

I think we should vote Stone out.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

You might just like W Bush a little more at the end

[chaw-hamad · 7/10 · 14 October 2008]

Before seeing this movie I read a review in USA today stating that viewers felt empathetic for Bush after watching this movie. I Couldn't help but laugh at that review. The sinnical human I am still blames him for all or most of America's problems; but throughout the movie and after I actually felt empathetic for George W. Bush. Words I never though I'd say! This movie was directed perfectly by Oliver Stone the storytelling in this movie was what kept me interested. I wont lie it dragged sometime, especially when the Bush administration as having their secret meeting about Iraq before they invaded. These parts were the reason that this movie got a 9/10 from me.

The acting overall was phenomenal, especially from Jeffery Wright as Colin Powell and Josh Brolin as George W. Bush. These two actors actually seem like they were the characters they were playing in real life. The resemblances were uncanny.

This movie highlight George W. Bush's Life from Yale to his presidency. This is truly Oliver Stones Best work. The movie was filled with humor mostly in part due to Josh Brolins amazing adaptation of George W. Bush. This movie also had its serious moments, and they were what made me see what George W. Bush has had to face and gives you his perspective. After gaining some insight on his life you actually might just like George W. Bush.

W. Movie Review (a review originally written for college)

[seamo42 · 4/10 · 6 January 2009]

'W.', Oliver Stone's latest true story film, is a simple biopic of America's 43rd President George W. Bush, touching on certain aspects of his life, including his college life, his alcoholism and his relationship with his father, the 41st president George Bush, while revolving mainly around his first term in the white house, specifically his controversial 'war on terror' and search for WMDs in Iraq. Like any biopic, there are two ways for it to be viewed. The first is how the feature stands as a film on its own, regardless of its comparison to the source material. Obviously the other way of perceiving it is to compare it to the source material, considering it's about something real and about real people who are alive or have lived. Unfortunately 'W.' is a movie that isn't particularly strong with either of these angles in mind.

The film's light and sweet perspective, which portrays George W. Bush as a smart and well meaning guy, with flaws like the rest of us, doesn't balance with the fact that many of the scenes drone on. This is significant especially for audience members with no particular political expertise, which arguably this film should appeal to. Its father and son story has no real interesting conflict either, except for early on which isn't a good place to have focus, since we're meant to be kept sitting around for the duration of the 2 hours, of which this film runs. The structure of the film is confusing and the ending itself falls flat, leaving a hole that the audience may not be able to fill themselves, seemingly trying to make tough point about whatever issues the film is attempting to cover.

In terms of comparing the film to the real subjects of which it is based on, 'W.' has even less to show for itself as the film focuses on the less interesting, or more widely known, pieces of just Bush's first term, and almost completely avoids the interesting material. Examples of said material would be the controversial speculation around the legitimacy of his position as president, the even more questionable aspects of Bush's behaviour around the time of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the film even makes absolutely no mention of Hurricane Katrina.

The performances in this film are the only real things it has to brag about as Josh Brolin carries the film quite nicely with his charming and quirky take on Bush, along with Richard Dreyfuss' Dick Cheney, Thandie Newton's Condoleezza Rice, and others. However these still feel like impressions, granted they are rather good impressions. Another problem with the film's performances is James Cromwell's portrayal of George Bush Sr., as he is shown as a sweet, hard working old man, with no similarities shown in the real George Bush Sr.'s speech or mannerisms, which, I guess, was necessary to make the character likable.

Overall, 'W.' is reasonably entertaining with its imitations of the American president and the people surrounding him in his career, however the viewers shouldn't delude themselves into thinking it as a reliable source of historical or political information as it covers any subject it has chosen to include, very lightly giving very little for it to say, despite the fact that there would be many things for this film to include, considering its protagonist's history. The only real conceivable, politically taut, reason for why this film was even released before the end of Bush's time as president is that, to avoid anyone else making a biopic of Bush, in case they might have had the kind of daft, one sided sense to portray George W. Bush as a hero, and his enemies as scum, Oliver Stone jumped at making the film in an act that sort of resembles suppressing an explosion.

Verdict: Stone's telling of George W. Bush's life is long but thin, however it doesn't have any huge bias leaving it as an empty and boring chronicle with little harm.

Bush's "Greatest Hits"

[Quinoa1984 · 7/10 · 17 October 2008]

Some will say- actually a lot have said- that Oliver Stone's new film on the public history of George W. Bush, the man and the 43rd President, will be slanted or with scenes that show the clear bias of the filmmaker. What happens in W. is that it is and it isn't a sign of bias. Unlike with Nixon, who was a complex man and could be treated in a different way, Bush is actually fairly straightforward as a person, as a leader, as a son, as a 'rehabilitated' servant of the Lord.

The portrayal of Bush is, actually, is not unfair, but in the process it shows the George W. Bush to be exactly what he is to any and all audiences, and this makes it more interesting and (somewhat more) challenging. If you feel like Bush should be impeached and/or 'taken out' for all of the atrocities upon atrocities he with his administration has committed in the past eight years, you'll think it's not enough shown in the film. If you're on the other side of the coin, whoever you might be, it's kind of cruel and lampoon-like. To me, it's a finely stated psychological horror story with gallows-humor.

Does this mean that W. is a great film? No, it's not. Stone indulges from time to time in the kind of stylistic choices that veer close to being a TV movie- nowhere near as much or as sappy as the Hallmark-channel spread World Trade Center, but with a couple of obvious music choices- and the criticism put on the movie that there's nothing really new that those reasonably informed about Bush's past and his first term is not completely unwarranted.

But, again, there is the expectation going in that this will be the be-all-end-all of lambasting, or on the flip-side that it's too soon an analysis of a man still (not too arguably) crippling the country away in his last months in office. What Stone has done, occasionally brilliantly, is compile a Greatest-Hits of Bush trivia and scenes that are either spot-on to how they likely played out or are based very accurately on what is at the date known about what happened behind closed doors with Bush and Cheney and Rove and company.

On top of this is a story of, in a famous-movie comparison, what would happen if Fredo Corleone got the chance to be a mob boss while his disapproving father was still alive and smarter brother got more respect (it's not beyond comprehension to hear the echo of "I can run things, I'm smart!" from Godfather 2 in certain scenes with George and his father). While this could possibly fall into, as just a movie, into cliché, Stone and his casting director have, not entirely without coincidence, compiled the best casted Stone picture since 1995's Nixon. Josh Brolin is clearly now on the A-list following last year's mix and match of thrillers (Grindhouse, American Gangster, No Country), and his performance solidifies his reputation as an actor so convincing and in touch with the not-quite transformation of George W. Bush that he makes him, if not entirely sympathetic, understandable and human and not some complete villain.

There's also a gallery of who's-who in the acting pool: James Cromwell, Richard Dreyfuss (exceptional), Jeffrey Wright, Ellen Burstyn, Thandie Newton, Toby Young, even Rob Corddry from the Daily Show, all of them are spectacular in their parts, adding interest to scenes that require presence, strength, and from time to time nuance and care in finding that line between playing a character and parody (which, actually, Newton verges into a few times).

It's also been said that W. is actually a funny movie, maybe one of Stone's few outright comedies. The trailer and the TV commercials have made this to look so, and I laughed a bunch of times at them in that context since they were in skit-format. In the context of the film, where the weight of very current history and wars still being waged and blunder and horror accumulating, a lot of the humor is either by a quick goof or what comes off like, as said, gallows humor. This could in fact be a crazy American Bunuel picture if it weren't true; it's the kind of dark bourgeois horror-comedy in a sense that you laugh almost out of exasperation, but at the same time stuff one might find funny out of context (i.e. choking on a pretzel) is treated with an amount of actual gravitas.

It's not that I couldn't see how it's maybe too simple a task to show a lot of what we already know- the power-hungry conflict in the administration, the Bush/Bush Jr conflict, the dangerous change-up from all alcohol to all Jesus- but at the same time it's revealed in the best kind of pop-melodrama, as a serious story of a man who is, in all actually, not at all complicated. It won't be a popular movie by any stretch, but it took some guts to present it as such. 7.5/10

more positive than it should be

[EchoMaRinE · 7/10 · 15 August 2009]

This is a difficult to comment movie indeed. Story telling, acting and directing is very good. You see a decent biography, well organized and told quite professionally. On the other hand, I am not sure whether the point is very clear. The movie is not done to criticize Bush, not at all. There is some notion of criticism to Iraq war but Bush is shown to be tricked and misinformed in this particular incidence. So if you want to see a movie that is making fun of Bush and his period of presidency, this is certainly not the movie you are looking for. But don't even think that the movie is praising him, since it is not. So, it seems they tried to make an objective biography but it is more positive about Bush than it should be.

It Came Much Too Fast

[MVictorPjinsiste · 7/10 · 24 July 2023]

The last of Stone's "Presidential" trilogy after JFK (which was better) and Nixon (which wasn't), "W" relates the days of the USA's 43th President, George W Bush.

It came up as the heat about the subject's presidency was still felt, while opinions were still hot, and yet the movie is surprisingly subtle and empathic, walking a fine line between biopic and comedy. Also, it is neither an attack on the Bushes, or on the Republican party - what would have been expected from rather liberal Stone. In fact, Bush the father's sole term is even referenced as a time of sober wisdom and sound management. Despite Stone's haste, the film stands the test of time admirably.

Actors are absolutely remarkable and well-directed, everyone of them. Photography is expertly executed. Music is, however, of some curiosity, and its circus-like presence does a big part in lightening the tone. That odd tonal dysphoria makes the film quite hard to classify, and even for the interested, a second viewing might be necessary once the expectations are out of the way.

All in all, what we have here is a fine movie. If you are an American conservatives, or even someone who voted Bush in, I really don't think you'll be outraged by anything here, to the contrary, maybe, as Bush is made human beyond the drama/comedy of his administration. I heard Clinton personally gave Bush a copy of the movie, saying he'd like it.

Not as good as "The Bush Years" CBC documentary

[knymark · 7/10 · 26 October 2008]

Oliver Stone missed the boat by not doing the research needed to use facts in his movie. I watched "W" then went home and watched Terence McKenna's CBC documentary called "The Bush Years". McKenna's documentary left Stone's "W" looking like the research hadn't been done. "W" appeared light and disappointing. I'm not sure where one can view "The Bush Years" but if you are a political junkie or just interested in learning about how an administration can impact negatively or positively (depending on your leanings) on a country check this one out. There is little doubt that America stands pretty much on it's own without a lot of support from other countries because of this administrations decisions. McKenna's documentary is a much fuller look at George W Bush and what he has done for the USA.

A Few Pieces Of An Historical Puzzle

[fanaticusanonymous · 8/10 · 21 October 2008]

Oliver Stone and Josh Brolin manage the impossible by giving a present reality a sort of farcical look. Frightening to see how easily the farce and the reality merge and marry in the most natural way. George W, eats his way into history. The most mediocre of men drowning in a pool of his own making and in a way, drowning all of us with him. But, somehow, neither Stone nor Brolin describe a monster. On the contrary, here the monstrosity is in our hands. The man was voted (sort of) twice. Richard Dreyfuss IS Dick Cheney. A terrifying truthful performance. Thandie Newton is the one really out there. She plays her "yes woman" like Talia Shire in the Godfather III. Very bizarre, but fun. So, the biggest surprise is that Stone didn't come with a hatchet but with a magnifying glass. Seeing what we already knew but a bit larger made for a riveting evening at the movies.

Sometimes entertaining, but ultimately unfulfilling

[keiichi73 · 6/10 · 17 October 2008]

Make no mistake, W. is an often entertaining and surprisingly even-handed look at our current President. Given the fact that this film was rushed into production to be released just in time for the elections, I was expecting much worse. However, this film also gives strength to another argument - Oliver Stone, once one of the most controversial and outspoken filmmakers, is losing his edge. The movie never quite delves deep enough into the man or into his political legacy, and pretty much tries to sum up everything in one simple phrase - George W. Bush has daddy issues.

This is not the hard-hitting or critical look at Bush that many expected. The movie completely glosses over or skips entirely certain important events, like the 2000 election fiasco. It is a Cliffs' Notes version, only hitting some major notes, and jumping through them without any in-between or lead in. The movie skims over his notorious hard drinking early years, equally skims over his years trying to find a place in the world, and then pretty much jumps into his decision to run for political office. Faces fade in and out of the narrative, and we never once feel like we're getting the whole story. Maybe Stone and screenwriter Stanley Weiser (who previously collaborated with the director on 1987's Wall Street) became intimidated about going into too much detail.

And yet, for all its obvious flaws, I cannot deny that W. intrigued me in a lot of ways. I may have been left wanting more, but at least I was liking what I was seeing enough to want more in the first place. Although I do think the movie puts too much weight into it, and pretty much uses it as its single answer to almost every question it presents, I did enjoy the relationship between Bush and his father. In the film, George W. Bush (Josh Brolin) is presented as a man forever in the shadow of his dad (James Cromwell). It's something that is stressed from the beginning, such as the scene when Bush is called into his father's office, pretty much only so that his dad can say he's a real disappointment to him, since he can't seem to hold down a job. When his father runs for President in the 88 election and asks for his son's support, George is hurt by the fact that his dad turned to him only after his brother, Jeb Bush (Jason Ritter), turned him down to concentrate on his own work. And when George starts to make strides toward his own political career, his father cannot say he is proud of his son, and simply hands him a note saying he's proud.

This antagonistic father-son relationship is pretty much what drives the entirety of the film. Brolin portrays our President as a man constantly trying to please everyone around him, though he never seems quite to know how. He's faced with the legacy of his father, his brother, and those he respects. All he seems to really want is recognition, and maybe some appreciation, but that becomes continuously out of grasp as the situation in Iraq spirals out of his control. Josh Brolin certainly does a great job at capturing Bush's mannerisms and speech, without turning it into a Saturday Night Live-style parody. It's a performance that takes a little while to get used to (seeing him try to pass himself off as a 19-year-old fraternity pledge is a bit of a stretch), but he grows into the role quite quickly, and before long we forget we're watching an impersonation. As the elder Bush, Cromwell does not even try to mimic the appearance or talk of him, which is most likely for the best, as it probably would have ended up going into Dana Carvey territory. He simply gives a strong performance as an emotionally closed-off father who doesn't know how to react when his son succeeds or fails.

Stone has cast the movie with a sharp eye, and it's amazing how many of the actors resemble their real life counterparts. Of special note are Richard Dreyfus as Vice President Dick Cheney, and Thandie Newton as Condoleezza Rice. Like Brolin, they have the speech, the mannerisms and definitely the look down. What bothered me is that's about all they do have. The movie doesn't give a lot of the supporting cast a chance to stand out, aside from a few meeting scenes as they discuss the war situation. Unlike Brolin's Bush, they come across as imitations rather than genuine characters. In a way, it's understandable. There are so many people who played a part in the story that Stone tries to tell that it's impossible to fit them all and give them due credit in a movie that runs just a little over two hours. But at the same time, I felt like I was watching a bunch of talented actors dressed up as recent political figures, and not much else beyond that.

I think in the end, the main problem with W. is that it's not time to tell the story. We need more distance, more reflection before we can start to truly understand him, or his Presidency. It's interesting that one of the final scenes of the film is Bush being asked by a reporter how he thinks history will remember him, and he becomes tongue-tied right there in front of the cameras. Oliver Stone often seems equally confused with this film. This is a well made movie that contains some good performances and a number of very good stand-alone scenes. Those scenes just never come together to form a completely satisfying film.

A biased interpretation of hearsay to mock a president

[junkymail50 · 1/10 · 15 August 2009]

I'm not a Bush fan, but was disappointed to see this movie be such an obvious one-sided interpretation of hearsay and questionable statements that are used to mock a president. This makes it pretty pointless unless you really just hate the Bush administration and want to see a dramatized version of all the hate made into a mocking movie. Perhaps that is the intended purpose of the film, but it's not marketed in that way, it's marketed as a synopsis of Bush's life which is what makes it a failure. For this kind of mocking film (like Condoleeza Rice's character), it would've been funnier to make it more obviously funny (like a straight-out comedy) instead of trying to make it seem like a normal movie.

Enjoyable, Provocative - Like Him or Not, W. is Us

[beckwith10 · 8/10 · 15 October 2008]

Saw W in a preview last night and overall found it engaging, provocative and, frankly, a bit eerie. Of course, because Mr. Bush is still in office, watching re-enactments of critical moments in his administration, still fresh in our memory, has a quality of watching an SNL spoof; one is always aware one is watching actors, and very good ones at that, play the parts of principal figures on the Bush team, leaving a viewer continually comparing the actors' portrayals, make-up, etc, with the real life figures we know from the news. In other words, the film never completely transcends the spectacle of its simulation to feel seamlessly naturalistic. This is hardly a fault of the film necessarily, only the curious timing of its making and release here in the waning months of the Bush administration. (Had the film been made several years from now, no doubt audiences would bring a different. more relaxed, attentiveness to it.) I won't spell out my conclusions on Stone's version of Bush - that for you to discover - however, I will say it is fully appropriate we allow our private and public preconceptions of Bush the man to be challenged and examined. There is more to be said about the man than merely we like or dislike him. After all, we put him in office for eight years, and that says a great deal about us as a nation.

good movie, too bad Brolin wasn't president instead

[meria-1 · 7/10 · 3 November 2008]

No expectations seeing the film, but it turned out to be very well done. The actress that portrayed Condi Rice was an embarrassment, making a well learned (I'm no fan of hers) Rice looks like a bumbling idiot. Brolin did a terrific job portraying a man who has ruined America in 8 short years. Dreyfuss was great as Cheney, although not as repulsive as the real Cheney. Blaming W's idiocy on his father isn't fair. His father knew the folly of invading Iraq, but W choose to listen to his "other" father. W has missed the "ball" his whole life, and I would love to see a movie about him a few years from now when all the damage he has done has been properly accessed.

Reduntant and therefore disappointing

[supah79 · 5/10 · 3 February 2009]

I used to be an Oliver Stone fan. But after Natural Born Killers I read in an interview that he had doubts about continuing his directing career. "I don't think I have another good movie in me".

Well, I still think that he does, but W. isn't it. The reason I like and watch Oliver Stone films is that he has a strong opinion about a subject. One that isn't mainstream, but expresses it in such a way, that he wins his audience and therefore can change popular opinion. The best examples for this are Platoon and JFK.

Oliver Stone makes a decision with this film which I do not like. The life and times of George W. Bush offer enough subject matter to make a powerful, semi-documentary film with hard hitting political and religious views that would sturr up popular belief. But instead of going for the jugular, Stone takes W. on his knee, pats him gently on the head and says: "I know, son. I get it." The film has all the elements that make W. the infamous guy that he is: the invention of axes-of-evil, God is on the side of good (The US of A), W.'s history of failed business, tale-chasing and alcohol abuse. Add the wheeling and dealing by the Bush-dynasty and you would think it's dynamite stuff.

But it's not. The script is superficial. Tame at best. Stone is not good at satire and this film shows us why. Anyone who reads the Sundaypaper and watches the nine-o-clock news could have written this movie. It has the character motivation of a soap-opera. The father-son relationship for me was totally unbelievable. I expected a true depiction, with close source material. But it has become an imagined portrait by the screenwriter. Another thing that disappointed me was the lack of insight into the kitchen of the (right-wing) Bush-Administration, more over: the infiltration of the Hawks in the White House.

This film doesn't add anything new or reveal any new insights. The movie is based on research done by outsiders. I knew every detail of this movie because I am up to current events. I don't want a summation and lovable depiction of a man who is responsible for eight very defining years of US foreign policy. I wanted new insights, make me doubt my own beliefs and discuss this with friends and on message boards. The end result has me shrugging my shoulders and saying: Eehh..., so what?

I Never Thought the Day Would Come....

[isabelle1955 · 3 January 2009]

.....When I would feel sorry for George W. Bush! But this movie managed to achieve that all but impossible task. Oliver Stone is surprisingly gentle on the Great Decider, letting him off the hook for almost everything, presumably on the grounds that being one can short of a six pack, it was unfair to expect more of him.

Bush is presented as a man propelled by those around him to a level well beyond his ability, like a 6th grader sent directly to high school on the basis of one good test score. Once there he struggles to keep up with kids smarter and more experienced than him, who apparently adopt him as a mascot. Stone's Bush is a disingenuous man of middling ability who overcomes his Frat Boy past and alcohol addiction to find God instead, and who then aims squarely at the White House with the belief that he has God on his side. God Bless America - and God help the rest of us.

Josh Brolin gives a terrific performance, where did this guy from from? Two years ago I'd barely heard of him, and now he has turned in a series of stunning performances; No Country for Old Men, W and now Milk. He's an actor who has come into his best as he approaches middle age, and I will now make a point of going to see whatever he does next, because I can't imagine him signing up for a bad movie. Thandie Newton is interesting as Rice, the token woman in W's inner circle, who looks great but says little and does even less, Richard Dreyfuss as Cheney, Scott Glenn as Rumsfeld (apparently away with the fairies much of the time...), Toby Jones as Rove - they are all terrific. But Brolin steals the show.

Of course, we really have no way of knowing how accurate this portrayal of the lead up to the Iraq war is. Did Powell (Jeffrey Wright) really capitulate so easily? Was W's mother really such a piece of work? His father (another great performance from James Cromwell who seems to have cornered the market in patriarchs) comes out of it pretty badly too, while Laura seems to be the only ray of light in W's rather sad life (Elizabeth Banks in one of her best performances yet.) But if it's even half true, it's very, very depressing viewing, that a man of such obvious intellectual limitations can get to lead the world's biggest military machine into a war based on scandalously bad intelligence manipulation. And, in a secular democracy, do it all in the name of God.

I'd like to see it remade in the new light of the financial meltdown. Now that would be interesting.