W.

source: W.

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.

Oliver Stone doesn't even bother to make an attempt at creating a realistic portrayal of GWB's life. He simply reviewed a few relevant historical facts and conjures his mental image of how the instances must have unfolded and films it. To be fair Josh Brolin does a better GWB impersonation than Will Ferrell but the script, as farcical as it is, is better suited to Ferrell's talents. The actors deserve credit for doing an admirable job in what can best be described as a Saturday Night Live version of the life of GWB. Entertaining as fiction but don't take it as historical fact. I am no fan of GWB but this film does not even attempt to make a fair portrayal of GWB's life. I would write more but this film doesn't warrant the effort.

I saw this movie at my friend's insistence, and watching it while drinking a beer seemed more fun than sitting at home. In retrospect, only the beer was worth my time. Not that it's an irredeemably bad film... some of the sections depicting George Bush's early life are interesting, and the whole thing is technically well done. But when the film gets into his presidency, we're treated to impersonations rather than performances. W (Josh Brolin) is the prodigal son of the wealthy and influential Bush family, and the film depicts a series of unfocused episodes or vignettes that led up to his assuming the presidency of the United States. Bush is depicted, probably correctly, as a man virtually without intellectual curiosity. His family life is left very much untouched outside of his relationship to wife Laura, perhaps out of respect for the Bush children who after all did not ask for such scrutiny. I did enjoy the aspects of the story that touched on his relationship with his father, President George Bush (James Cromwell). Nothing else in the film had much interest or gave us much information outside of what's readily available. I think it was a mistake for Oliver Stone to make this film during Bush's presidency, when there is no fresh perspective and when audiences are already so used to seeing the man on TV that attending the theater to see him represented seems pointless. And it not only seems pointless, but in Oliver Stone's rambling and unfocused film it actually is pointless in my opinion. What's the idea behind this film anyway? "George W. Bush is a human being." Wow, give the man a cookie. It might be interesting to people decades from now but at this point everything in the film is common knowledge and a lot of the things you see in the film you might as well just watch the original footage on youtube. There are also a lot of jarring performances -- Thandie Newton's take on Condoleeza Rice comes off as cartoonish and silly, and yet Jeffrey Wright's take on Colin Powell seems nothing like the man we've known in public service for decades. It's as if half the performers thought they were doing a re-enactment while the other half were being directed to play it broad from the hip. Oliver Stone deserves the blame for this stinker. I simply cannot fathom why he's considered by so many to be a good director. He had some talent as a screenwriter, but his whole task as director seems to be to produce glossy post-cards of history that probably never happened. He's like a Cecil B DeMille for our times. Not that I doubt the overall points that the film makes about our 43rd president, but more I wonder why anyone feels the need to make them at this point. The film does not address any of the worst aspects of Bush's career in the presidency and lets him off the hook by portraying him as a mere incompetent who was persuaded by Rove and Cheney (Richard Dreyfuss) to be a devil's accomplice. Real history must be more complicated than whatever happens in Oliver Stone's head. This film is afraid to step on anyone's toes so it ends up being dull. It should have gone one way or the other -- courted controversy by depicting Bush as a kind of hero or villain. Instead we get a very tepid representation of him as a well-meaning loser. Whether it's close to reality or not should be for historians and true political observers to say, but I don't see much point in basing a film on such a middle of the road interpretation.

This movie was only able to scratch the surface of the man who will define a decade of disaster. With two hours of film, I was able to deduce little more then I already knew about W. and especially about his presidency. Stone barely mentioned 9/11, he did not get to Rumsfelds or Powells resignation, even though both characters were central features of the movie. Not even one glimpse of the 2004 election and only one sentence about the infamous 2000 elections. Lame. It really should have been a movie from George H.W. view since he was a dominating factor in every scene. His father might have been his biggest influence, it certainly was the biggest influence of this movie, but it didn't go far enough to explain the decisions of W. administration. That is were this filmed failed and why its just plain boring.

Disappointing! While no person is perfect this portrays all in this fill as if they were all the three stooges and a power hungry leader that wanted to make the final decision. I cannot believe this is an accurate portrayal of individuals in privet conversations and in classified meetings. I have seen other Stone movies and enjoyed them and got the point. I think it may be time to retire and accomplish other life goals. To indicate that W. went to Iraq to get even for "poppy" and for oil was unrealistic and shows just how thin this story line really was developed. The acting was well done, with the individual mannerisms but the character of the individuals were corrupted from the people that we know them know them to be. I would have to rate this on as a must miss even on TV.

Instead of tearing W a new one, this film applied some Desitin, patted him on the back and said "there, there." I can't help but think that this, along with World Trade Center, represents a kinder, gentler, and newly boring Oliver Stone, focusing on inoffensive dramaturgy and lookalike casting (except Cromwell as Poppy Bush). It seems he now wants to be a Serious Prestige Director Who Gets An Oscar, rather than the passionate, irreverent wiseguy he was when he made his great films. So now Stone turns out a movie that will encourage any remorseful Bush voter to think, "Well, of course I was right to have supported him...he meant well." Give me a break. With the most stupidly corrupt leader in American history as his subject, a rage-filled, sadistic yet passive-aggressive antihero worthy of a blistering satire...Stone instead delivers a wet little Hallmark drama about how a cold daddy produced an unloved, frustrated child. Who just happened to kill a hundred thousand people (left almost entirely off screen, of course.) There are plenty of ironic laugh-lines for smug liberals, but they'll fly right over the heads of Republicans who can enjoy this shameless apologia free of irony. Where were the remarkable highlights (that is to say, low points) of Bush's public career? "She said, 'please don't kill me' ", "All right, you've covered your ass?" "F--k Saddam, he's going down,"...and ten minutes of lobotomized staring at a children's book...while America was under attack? Well, never mind history...you can't have your main character too unlikable, can you? For all the mentions of "yellow cake", you'd never know that phrase did not just refer to an unsupported claim, but to an obvious lie, a childish forgery that the CIA's own experts disclaimed...nor would you guess that Bush and Cheney stood accused of betraying the identity of the CIA agent whose husband pointed out this inconvenient fact (nor that Bush commuted the sentence of a convicted felon who might otherwise have testified to their treason.) To portray Bush and Cheney's worst crime as being just too darned vigilant is an outrageous libel upon history. (Just a reminder: "you've covered your ass" was W's reply to the CIA handler who tried to show him the Aug 6th memo, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside U.S.") The leads are sledgehammered into a mold designed to produce relatable movie characters, instead of highlighting their most interesting facets. From watching the dewy-eyed, sensible, liberal, good-hearted gal called Laura Bush here, you'd never dream the genuine article actually told survivors of dead soldiers that "no one suffers more than the president and I" or that she once killed a boyfriend by running a stop sign. Oliver Stone - who once made a mainstream movie that accused the CIA of murdering JFK - wants us to believe Bush (who's been repeatedly photographed with wine-colored fluid in his glasses at state dinners and has fallen off bikes, Segways and his own two feet too often to count) passed out on a pretzel...with nothing but O'Doul's at hand? Really? Really?? Whatever happened to Oliver Stone?

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 had a chance to see this film on Wednesday and I loved it !!! I'm not a Bush fan or supporter, however what I loved most about it is that it isn't a Bush-hate fest. Rather, it was a successful attempt to show Bush as simply a man with several human foibles, many of which just happen to be hilarious. What makes the movie so amusing is that Stone miraculously finds a way for you to not laugh at Bush the man. Rather, one laughs at the improbability of the entire Bush saga. Against that backdrop is the importance of the fine performances given by the actors. Some actors, like Banks as Laura Bush, give performances that are good but that are altogether too predictable and uninspired. On the other hand, Brolin nails his performance as he turns Bush from a doofus to a poor schmuck that finds out too late that he's in over his head. Newton is the OTHER BRIALLIANT performance in the film. Although, some critics apparently wanted the average TV-Movie-muck type of performance where the actress finds the "lighter side" of the real life person, Newton and Stone smartly resist that trite nonsense. Newton transcends her own glamorous persona and gives a hard-as-nails imitation of Rice as a person that is smart enough to understand and follow those that actually have the power in the Bush White House as she helps them manipulate Bush to acquiesce to their desires. Newton's performance successfully evokes images of the Rice that recently went to Russia and had the nerve to coolly and robotically lecture Putin on why it's OK for the U.S. to travel half the globe to punish those who kill Americans, but it's not OK for Russia to go over its border to punish those that kill Russian citizens. It's one of the gutsier performances all year by anyone, male or female, and it really helps make the movie great. As I stated at the beginning W. is great, and we finally get a movie that appeals to those of us that don't want to waste $10 bucks on a film about a Hollywood Chihuahua.

I hesitated to leave a review at first, because it might make certain people curious to watch that show, which is not what I would like you to do. Oliver Stone doesn't deserve making any more money by you renting his movie. I am not an American and I also never was a fan of Bush, jr. or senior. But I rented that movie because of some of the misleading comments on IMDb, which shows how gullible I can be, I know. I lived for 30 years in Europe and now reside in Canada, and you can take my word for it when I state the fact that most people outside of the U.S. think the Americans as an arrogant and ignorant bunch of bible wielding Joe six-packs. And many of the comments on this forum only prove it. George W. is not a moron, that's just how he came across. He graduated from Yale and passed the exam to get into Harvard Business, so how stupid can he possibly be. But Mr. Stone portrays him as such, because he is riding the anti-Bush wave. He is cashing in on the fact, that many people have a low opinion about their former president and he is using Michael- Moore- tactics by aiming low. And be it as it may, my main criticism with this movie is: would Oliver also make a movie about Mr. Clinton and portray him as a lying, cheating, warmongering, cunning, unethical and greedy non-individual? Of course not, so where is the artistic integrity? Because Clinton belongs to a group of politicians Oliver Stone obviously relates to. And if this political colouring leaks through a movie, the director is bad. I don't care what Stone votes when the elections come, so why does he need to tell me. Mr. Stone should concentrate on making documentaries, but he is not of the caliber of a Werner Herzog; Hell, they are not even in the same league. Stone is like Moore, with maybe a tad more talent. But the talent is waning. And I follow up with an apology to anybody who feels offended by certain comments I made, I am not anti-American. To conclude my opinion about Oliver Stone: he is a very biased film maker that lacks the skill of a Tom Tykwer, Martin Scorcese, Coppola or even Sam Peckingpah. And when it comes to bias, I have similar issues with Lars von Trier, who started out as a promising talent and now only demonstrates what a racist he really is. And "emotions" like that are better kept in and not transmitted onto the screen. Whatever happened with the director that made a movie like U-Turn?