Genres

Visitors Review

jkellylincoln 2012-05-26 03:36:21

Brolin is George W. Bush

Oliver Stone has directed many films almost all cause PoliticalControversy. Now I enjoyed Nixon for how it was very fair to Nixon incomplementing his accomplishments and detailing his failure. When Ifirst found out that W. was being made I laughed at the idea. I thoughtthat any filmmaker would create a biased anti-Bush film that would betwo hours of nothing but anti-Iraq propaganda. This suspicion wasincreased when I heard that liberal-Director Oliver Stone was makingthis picture.But having seen this movie I can safely say that it portrays PresidentBush in a fairly even light in that it does take into account that hisCabinet was deceitful, and flooding the President with falseinformation and wicked plans while President Bush wanted peace anddemocracy in Iraq as well as Sadaam Hussein out of power. Now thisportrayal of Bush's decision to go to Iraq is focused on throughoutalmost all of the scenes involving the Bush when he is in Office. Ipersonally found them very well done.The film also greatly focuses on the story of President Bush's lifeprior to being Commander-In-Chief where he is an alcoholic. This act isdone very well showing Bush rely on his father to bail him out of allof his mistakes and mishaps. Eventually George Bush, Jr. is able toshape his life together abandoning alcohol for good and becoming aBorn-Again Christian. The second act has Bush try and endlessly tryagain to get out of his father's shadow during his run for Congress andhis campaigning for his father to win the Presidency. Finally Bushbegins to believe in himself and runs for Governor of Texas outside ofBush Sr. and Barbara Bush's approval. Eventually he runs and becomesPresident of the United States.W. has great strength from it's acting performances and it's constanttheme of George Bush Sr. constantly wanting his son to be more thanwhat he was and favoring his younger son Jeb. Also my praise goes toStone for being able to direct a film so well in it's fairness andconcurrency with it's themes I would have enjoyed this film even moremost likely with the film following the President during his secondterm and his greater criticisms.The film has wonderful performances by James Cromwell as PresidentGeorge Bush Sr. Richard Dreyfus and Toby Jones both play well as VicePresident Dick Cheney and Karl Rove who are both manipulative and havefar more sinister and grander plans then those of the President.Elizabeth Banks plays the First Lady well as she is trying to help theconstantly confused man who would become our nation's leader. I lovedthe way Josh Brolin played George W. Bush he talked, walked and lookedlike Bush and portrayed not an evil man or careless idiot that MADmagazine and Saturday Night Live typically do but this man who wasalways trying to prove himself and also tried to stop a wicked dictatorlike Sadaam Husein.I give the film an A- and think that Brolin could be worthy of anAcademy Award Nomination for the strength and accuracy he put in thischaracter.

upperception 2012-05-25 07:21:30

Rewriting history - making it more boring than it already is...

I saw this movie the other night on TV (it was broadcasted on nationaltelevision because of the end of George W Bush's presidency)Frankly, I have never been a big fan of the person, politics andappearance of George W Bush and I actually didn't quite know what toexpect. News? Validation? Shock? Truth? Well, if at least ONE thing of the points mentioned above would havecome true I would have been happy, unfortunately this movie confessesits hollowness right from the beginning. The biggest problem I had withit was that it never tried to "put the pieces together". Instead youare being left with bits and pieces of truth put together to a movie.If THIS was George W Bush's life, it was amazingly boring. And we knowit wasn't. Oliver Stone should have known that the character W couldonly get as far and endure because of others: His father, Karl Rove,Dick Cheney, the neo-conservatives... They all do appear in the movie(and the cast is truly brilliant, let's be honest) but basically theyare supernumeraries and contribute nothing essential to this story(except for his father) which is simply historically wrong. By tryingto portray a neutral picture Oliver Stone (probably) got lost by theidea NOT to polarize. Unfortunately he chose a VERY fragile topic to doso. Trying to show a not very intelligent pompous dolt-marionette as abig global player just doesn't work, probably not even with asix-year-old kid.Surprisingly after you have seen this movie you will ask: - Now WHO isthis guy? (that I have been watching for over a 100min now) - WHY isthis guy the way he is? - HOW did he get through with most of things hedid?These questions would actually forge the base of a biography but noneof them are answered here. This film expects the viewer to KNOW theperson whose story is being told. So what is this movie? I believe it'sOliver Stone's subtle and careful interpretation of a person that issimply not worth being portrayed. After all you are being left withnothing, so i honestly don't recommend this film at all. For a historylesson i recommend other sources. Watch FOX for the pro bush version,watch the rest of the global media for the other side, I recently saw"Being W" on the French/German channel ARTE and this actuallyentertained as well as it educated me.Oliver Stone, I'm not sure where you want to go with this. But by beingso careful (and non-polarizing) about it you ended up going nowhere.What's left is a hollow frame in which you could portray everybody's(average Joe's) life somehow entertainable. To apply this formula to apresident of the United States of America is not very honorable... Oris exactly THIS your statement regarding the side you stand on?

2012-05-25 11:38:47

"George, stay out of the barrel. Just trust me."

Oliver Stone's "W" had the most uncomfortable effect upon this viewer of generating actual pity for George Walker Bush, a man who has wreaked more destruction and sorrow on the planet than any President in the history of the United States.My basic attitude toward any Stone film is "big deal" without necessarily seeing the film. I've never understood the OS phenomenon. Particularly with respect to his "political" films, filled with disinformation so far reaching and absurd that one is tempted to call them propaganda. (The film "The Doors" was absolutely awful and a complete waste of a great subject. It's "success" is a consequence of the naivete of the viewers and the "music video" strain in early 90's film.) "JFK" was entertaining in a horror/intrigue sort of way, but at no point was it remotely in contact with reality. "NBK" was just futile depravity shot in really "cool" hues of studio light. This film, though, garners some real respect. There is not one scene in this move that is sensationalistic or cannot be verified factually. All one need do is crack open a respected bio(psy) of George W.'s reign of terror to corroborate information. "State of Denial" by Bob Woodward was obviously a big influence.Ellen Burstyn is an actress who has a talent for playing women in some scary/miserable situations. One recent example is "Requiem For A Dream", playing a drug addled mother imbibing speed constantly to avoid acknowledging her son's rapidly escalating heroin addiction. I maintain that I would rather be the mother of the demon possessed Regan MacNeil in William Friedkin's classic "The Exorcist" than the mother of George W. Bush or Bush Sr's wife. As the woman who once told the press that there was no need for her to waste "as beautiful a mind as her own" on the messy business of body counts launched by her husband's insurrections, Burstyn does a fantastic job. All steel.The madness of the Bush/Cheney administration is given a by turns comical, depressing, and sad treatment. Josh Brolin looks nothing like Bush, but he acts *just* like him: the baseless self confident monkeylike confidence in his every word and physical movement, the innocent Texan swagger which would eventually shoulder it's way through the constitution and economy, and, of course, his complete lack of reading comprehension or intelligible communication skills. Brolin gives a devastating performance as a never truly grown man who makes every wrong decision possible, all in the interest of pleasing "Poppy", Bush Sr. All he wants to do is please his father, also played brilliantly by James Cromwell. Since he has neither the talent, ambition, intelligence or political skills to do so (as his father gently indicates when Bush bullies his brother out of the Florida Governor's election) this becomes his one goal in life. To be what he cannot be.When I'd originally heard that Richard Dreyfuss was playing Dick Cheney I laughed. Real loud. The guy from "Jaws" affecting that chilling growl of a voice and hawklike blade of a gaze seemed absurd. (A little like Tommy Lee Jones wearing a dead racoon on his head as Clay Shaw.) I was wrong. He pulled it off, and then some. Cheney casts a dark shadow over every meeting, using every opportunity to push this confused man child's aggressive impulse to "even score with Saddam" and thus outdo his father. And it works. There's a bit of the "unholy trinity" here: Scott Glenn cuts down Jeffrey Wright's reasonable minded Colin Powell at every opportunity, Toby Jones is fantastic as Rove, the power minded minister of propaganda who teaches Bush the four food groups: and then Cheney, who swoops down every attempt at avoiding war like a starving bird of prey biting into his first newly born worm. This is a chronicle of failure seen through the eyes of the man held responsible for it as unemployment rises and we slide in to a recession unprecedented since the time of Roosevelt. Millions have died in a senseless war. The last shot is of a George W. Bush in a baseball field while it rains. He is holding a a glove open, eager to catch the ball. He doesn't.I felt terrible for Bush by the end of this movie. Do I now, a few days later? No.

kaptmorgin 2012-05-24 15:38:55

A movie, not a biography

It is amazing how smart you liberal people think that you are. I foundthis movie entertaining. That is what movies are for, entertainment.People are on this page commenting on this movie, saying things like,"Stone was fair" and "Stone didn't portray Bush as bad as he could of".What world do you people live in? The only portrayals that were fair,were the ones that he got from fact finding. Every scene in this movie,where there were not actual facts, just personal conversations/events(with Laura or his father, or even Cheney), where Stone could notpossibly know the exact conversation, attempted to make W. look like anidiot. That is opinion of a liberal Hollywood director/writer. If youwant to say that the scenes which were fact, were fairly portrayed, Iwill agree. But, unless Dick Cheney, "poppy Bush", Laura, or Barbaragave Olover Stone an interview, don't try to say that Stone fairlyportrayed this man throughout this film. Every chance he got, he took.One more thing. To the commenter who described the Bush admin. as themost corrupt in history, please, I beg you, do some research from thelate 90's early 2000's on Obama, Emanuel, and the rest of Chicago'spoliticians. The people who describe this man as a "Lame Duck"President, need to take a look at the "Lame Duck" Congress for the last8 years. I would love to see a satire on conversations between Pelosi,Frank, Emanuel, Hillary, and some of these other idiots that drove ourhousing market into the ground. Oh yeah, I did like this movie though,as I said, it entertained me. This MOVIE, not biography, kept mewatching, made me laugh, and was interesting. But, it is a movie, not abiography.

2012-05-19 15:07:09

Boring

A let down...pretty boring. I didn't even finish the whole thing. I rented it mainly because of Josh Brolin and his past roles.

leighabc123 2012-05-19 01:55:02

This Movie Was So Awful, That It Was Funny

This movie was supposed to portray the life of our last president,George W. Bush. It also talked about one of our worst presidents of alltimes.....George H.W. Bush. I do not believe for one minute that GeorgeW. Bush's life was that crazy. Where were George W. Bush's twins inthis movie? I nearly fell asleep during this movie. Did George W. Bushreally fight that much in real life? Did George W. Bush really havenightmares about his father? Was that the real way he met Laura Bush?Thandie Newton played a convincing role as our former secretary ofstate, Condoleeza Rice. Was Dick Chaney really that gullible. Did hekiss up to George W. Bush 24/7?

2012-05-16 07:13:36

Not a Bush bashing film

Going into this movie I figured it would be a Bush bashing film. I was wrong. It was actually very balanced and an interesting look into the former president's life. His hard drinking days up until when he quit drinking (age 40), was an eye opener and almost disturbing at times. Another head shaker was his father (George Sr.) bailing "Junior" out of one mess after another and the film depicting George W. as a perpetual party animal, time waster and unable to stay gainfully employed until he stopped his boozing. It is a worthwhile watch. BnB Beatles Depot

2012-05-15 15:39:14

stunningly bad

Oliver Stone has proven once and for all that his agenda has destroyed his artistic insight and objectivity. This movie is dreadful, it is as if Stone was picked on by some bully kid named W. in elementary school and has sworn revenge. He offers "insights' that he could not possibly know and plays the Bush family as a bunch of power mad zealots with George W. as a buffoon and George H.W. as a whiny weak man. Stone clearly has an agenda here, He shows Dick Cheney and Karl Rove as the puppetmasters controlling the BUsh administration and Condeleesa Rice as an Uncle Tom-ish character. This is a hatchet job if ever there was one. W. may not have been the most articulate of statesmen but he was never mean, this depiction is just plain mean spirited and unwarranted, and most importantly it isn't even good film making.

meeza 2012-05-09 18:41:26

This Bush is not too bad!

So you wanted some Bush in cinema! You got it! And I am not referringto the ones in the "X." category; in those you will find many weaponsof ass destruction. The Bush I am being vocal about is the oval one whois currently completing his tenure as the 43rd President of the UnitedStates; upon the jovial delight of most Americans. Director OliverStone's "W." depicts various aspects of George W. Bush's life from hishard-drinking college days to his Presidency. Some of the Busherianevents that Stone engraves in "W." include: his courtship with LauraBush, his obsessive pursuit to please daddy George H.W., his born-againChristianity, and his decision to go to war with Iraq in justificationto find weapons of mass destruction. Josh Brolin as W. should benominated to be a worthy candidate to this year's Best Actor Oscarrace. I did not think I would ever say this but "I vouch for that Bush"as a winner! Brolin has been broiling it up lately in the acting field!The rest of Director Stone's acting cabinet also had a few morepotential acting award nominees which are commendable enough to beappointed in the Oscar race; Veteran actor Richard Dreyfuss gunned itdown and did not miss the mark as Vice President Dick Cheney;Underrated actor Jeffrey Wright was powerful as General Colin Powell;Thandie Newton filled in the female dental, I mean, acting gap of "W."quite admirably as Condoleeza Rice; I am one on the defense of anycritic which ridicules Scott Glenn's authentic performance as Secretaryof Defense Donald Rumsfield; And read my writing lips when I state thatJames Cromwell's work as poppy George H.W. Bush was presidential.Elizabeth Banks as Laura Bush and Ellen Burstyn as Barbara Bush wereadequate but we just wanted more female "Bush" from them; or at leastLaura for that matter. What I really mean is that these Bush ladies'portrayals were too preoccupied with their husbands' legacy than withtheir marital relationships. Director Oliver Stone and ScreenwriterStanley Weiser do not glamorize nor empathize the W.; but they do notdepict him as a second coming to Tricky Dick. Even though periodicallyhe could be a Tricky Bush. The film "W." simply just reveals themotivated humanity and the incoherent inhumanity of a man who by somedivine recount intervention would become the 43rd President of theUnited States. Nevertheless, the commander-in-chief of "W." is JoshBrolin for his astounding performance and I state that with no politicsinvolved. For no better reason than that, do not veto the "W." thistime! ****Good

2012-05-09 01:25:55

About as subtle a movie one could ever make about The Decider.

By the way, wasn't The Decider the nickname of one of those NASA-CAR fellas? Hehe.Ok that's my Bush impression. It's nowhere near a good as Josh Brolin's. Brolin nails the Prez. with nuance, both young Bush and old. He doesn't really shade Bush's character, he just seems to be trying for accuracy in portraying the Prez.And that's kind of how Oliver Stone approaches this movie. He just lets things happen and lets you decide the importnace and meaning of it all. Some people say he's too easy on Bush, some say he's too hard. This movie's like a mirror, it will refelct your own opinions of the man. Maybe that's it's purpose. Maybe it was meant not to give us the scandalous low-down but to get us to refelct on why we helped elect a man who was really not suited for the job at all. I think the big question of the movie is "How did THIS GUY get to be the most powerful man in the Free World." And Stone only hints at the answers. As a mater of fact, he barely hints at the questions. That's the viewer's job.Maybe it's not a tell-all, maybe it's Stone being all Socratic-like. And the ending is pretty stark and frightening considering the fact that W still has a few months in office, during one of the most trying times in our country's history.

jaredmobarak 2012-05-08 14:57:06

Bushington…W.

I'm going to start this review by saying I have no idea why OliverStone thought his new film W. would have any effect on the upcomingelections. The guy gave himself almost no time to edit his footage sothat it could be released two weeks before Election Day. Don't get mewrong, the film is constructed very nicely, he did a great job in thatshort time, all I'm saying is that he didn't need to rush. I mean if hewas trying to show the world why not to vote Republican, he should havedone a film about Bush's second term and the blunders he made inconcern with Iraq. Instead, though, this bio-pic actually glorifies theman, telling how a screw-up punk could turn his life around, findreligion, quit drinking, and become the leader of the free world. Thestory is inspiring, showing how his no-lose attitude made him into themost powerful man in the country, sticking to his guns and doingeverything necessary to keep America safe. Sure his cabinet, (exceptfor Powell), is shown in a horrible light, basically being blamed forany mistakes made in the first term, but that doesn't speak to theparty exactly. I'm not really sure what Stone wanted to achieve here,but besides an entertaining look behind closed doors with somefantastic imitations that rival Tiny Fey's Palin, there isn't reallythat much else.The construction bounces around from Dubya's first term Presidency, hispast growing up under the strict rules and family legacy of George Sr.,and a dream-like Texas Rangers centerfield sequence that crops up acouple times. We are given time stamps to help orient us, (a good moveconsidering Josh Brolin plays Bush at every age, a bit strange whenwith college kids at a frat hazing), and the hair color change helps aswell. In my opinion the most entertaining moments are in the OvalOffice, listening to the cabinet interact with the President and theback and forth between them all—especially the rapport between Cheneyand Powell.As for the early days, it would get a little redundant watching thewild child drink his way into trouble and Poppy doing what he can toerase the record. The two of them butting heads got a little old too,but when they almost squared off to fight at the Bush house, that wasfun, especially with Ellen Burstyn's Barbara. I always remember herbeing the old grandma in the background, never remembering the emotionand stubbornness they speak of throughout. Dubya is like his mother,shooting from the hip, while Jeb is his father, thinking things throughand only moving when absolutely necessary. This comparison crops upoften, I'm sure very purposely on Stone's part, because it holds truein regards to Iraq, that hot-button topic most people are going to seethis film to find out about. George Sr. did only what was needed, hewon Desert Storm quick, showing Saddam his place, but he realized thatoccupation in the Middle East would leave them alone and be a horriblething for his nation. This decision, to me, is the most important partof the story, but possibly because it sheds light on the disposition ofthe American public and their fickle attitudes in regard to vilifyingpeople and placing blame.Geroge H.W. Bush decided to take his victory and leave Eurasia alone.He proved his point and showed America's strength. However, whenre-election came up shortly after, Bill Clinton takes over. Dubya tellshis father it's because the public wanted blood, they wanted Saddam'shead, and that show of weakness cost him the vote. I believe this isbrilliant foreshadowing for the future. Think about it. Dubya had thehighest approval rating of any President ever. He got his revenge byinvading Afghanistan, and he answered the call for blood by going intoIraq. He knew the voters wanted action, they wanted redemption forthose killed on 9/11 and he gave them just that. In return, Bushreceived the most votes ever in a huge victory over John Kerry. Andhere is where I might be able to see Stone's intentions, because byshowing these events, he is telling the public that they asked for itand they got it. You can't blame anyone but yourself because yourbloodlust was answered. Sure, maybe the decisions second term weren'tthe best, but the majority of the US wanted this war.To get back to the film, though, it is a fascinating story of theAmerican dream. Yes Dubya grew up with a silver spoon, but his trialsand tribulations showed him a path to greatness and he not only tookit, but succeeded with it. Brolin knocks the role out of the park,never becoming a caricature or only there for laughs, he is Bush. Themost memorable and I think well-constructed member has to be JeffreyWright's rendition of Powell. Here is a conflicted man, against the newroad being paved and specking his mind. However, when the time comes tooppose the plan, he relents and becomes complicit. The inner struggleis always on his face, coming up with memories of how the Gulf War washandled, yet he never stood firm or against the Commander-in-Chief. Hebecame just another lemming allowing everything it seems the nationhates about Bush's terms. If you take anything from this film,hopefully it will be that you can help make the decision for whathappens in this country starting next year. All you have to do is vote,but don't let emotions run your hand again, don't vote Democrat becauseyou were against Bush. Vote for the candidate you think can help,whether that means voting another Republican in or not.

Jack Blackburn 2012-05-08 04:58:26

Wonderfully acted but unsatisfying

Oliver Stone's views on President Bush are unsurprising. He's not afan. This is a position held by most people at the moment, and nothingmuch is going to change people's perceptions of the man, unlesssomething quite extraordinary happens over the next few months.Nevertheless, Stone has forged ahead with a movie about "W." and hassuppressed his own political views in order to make a study of the man.For a director who is usually outspoken about his views, and isn't shyabout lecturing audiences about them for many, many hours, this is asurprisingly restrained piece, where Stone devotes all of his time tocharacter and never provides any kind of opinion on the decisions whichhave been taken by the Bush administration.This means that his actors (and he has assembled a staggering cast) arereally allowed to get their teeth into the material. At the head ofthis is Josh Brolin who is magnificent as W. His progression fromdrunken student to bewildered and troubled head of state is entirelyconvincing and wonderful to watch. He is ably supported by the entirecast. Richard Dreyfuss makes a good Cheney and James Cromwell is decentas Bush Snr. (though his failure to do the 41st President's voice is tothe film's detriment, as it doesn't quite convey H.W. Bush's characteras the public knows it to be). It is however in the smaller roles wherethere are some truly fine performances. Jeffrey Wright is excellent asColin Powell, Elizabeth Banks' Laura Bush is very good and Toby Jones'Karl Rove is masterful.Added to this, the film is well made, pretty entertaining and neverboring. So, how can it be that it is so unsatisfying? The answer issimply that the film has been made far too soon. Stone rushed theproduction of this film so that it would come out just before the USelections a few weeks ago. I can't think what possible effect the filmwould have, but he has put himself at a disadvantage.We simply don't know enough about what happened behind closed doorsduring the Bush presidency to make a truly interesting and insightfulfilm. One can hardly re-evaluate the administration whilst it's stillin office and the majority of people who are dissatisfied with hisPresidency aren't ready for such a film. Besides, we definitely don'tknow enough to have a Strangelove-esquire Dick Cheney standing in frontof a big board saying "We need to build an empire". This may well havehappened, but if we are to really consider these events fairly we needto stick to the facts we have, and we simply don't have enough.Had Stone waited a bit, this could have been a great film, becausethere is great potential here. As it is, it is merely an entertainingif unsatisfying time at the cinema. It is, at times, quite interesting,especially when it explores Bush's past, and it is worth going to seefor Brolin's performance alone.3 Stars out of 5

sparkle_fade95 2012-05-06 03:03:49

A Snapshot View with Little Point

This movie was only able to scratch the surface of the man who willdefine a decade of disaster. With two hours of film, I was able todeduce little more then I already knew about W. and especially abouthis presidency. Stone barely mentioned 9/11, he did not get toRumsfelds or Powells resignation, even though both characters werecentral features of the movie. Not even one glimpse of the 2004election 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 adominating factor in every scene. His father might have been hisbiggest influence, it certainly was the biggest influence of thismovie, but it didn't go far enough to explain the decisions of W.administration. That is were this filmed failed and why its just plainboring.

Yike Yikes 2012-05-05 13:43:00

Human Portrayal

Having just watched this film, I can honestly say that I was moved bythe sincere and human portrayal of this otherwise caricatured figure.It is difficult for some people to grasp that those people who weelevate to positions of power (contested elections aside) are driven bythe same visceral and vulnerable desires and fears that all humansexperience. This is in no way a justification for the actual anguishand destruction perpetrated by the this 'person' - the president GeorgeW. Bush. Quite the contrary, it seems that through the specificity ofhis humanity and vulnerability as skillfully depicted by Josh Brolinand Oliver Stone that this films calls for self-reflection on the partof George W. - something lacking in this powerful figure who has neverseemed to fully confront the demons and fears that animate hisdecisions and actions. Regardless of whether you like this man or not,"W" is a powerful depiction that deconstructs the dual movements ofintentionality and actuality while the preserving the dignity of aflawed person who to some extent has been unwittingly thrust into aposition of power through the very nature of his birth into a dynasty.Rather than painting a scathing caricature that compels the audience toremove responsibility from the hands of a demonized or reified figure,this film makes the assertion that it is in the actuality of George W'shumanity that we can also find his culpability.As Joe Biden recently stated (paraphased) in the V.P. debates:motivations or intentions aside it is the actualized effects of aperson actions that matter.While I can feel for George W. as a person (a position I've held priorto this film), the tangible and resonating effects of his policies areanother story.The power of this film is to tie these two arenas together in a waythat preserves both the complexity and human-ness of thoseintrinsically involved in shaping the contexts in which we all live.

MJWhitehead 2012-04-30 14:35:48

A little disappointed

I love nothing more than a good Bush Bashing... this is not it! I wasvery looking forward to seeing this movie, but it was a bit of a letdown. It is interesting to see the history between Jr. and Sr., thecabinet meetings and W.'s insecurities, it makes him look human.Josh Brolin is GREAT!! It seems as if the real W. is right there on thescreen. As for the rest of the characters, Condi and Tommy Franks arelike cartoon characters. Not including Laura Bush and Dick Cheney, therest were very poor casting.Overall It is an OK movie. I, personally would have preferred to see W.portrayed more as the moron that he is, but ultimately you end up kindof feeling sorry for him on one hand and happy for him on the other. Ifyou really want to see this movie now, go to a matinée. Other wise Iwould wait for it to come out on DVD.

kiwiqueen 2012-04-30 00:04:40

If only the movie was good as the performances...

Oliver Stone is good at making political movies, yes? With JFK to hisname, W. should have been a hit. Look at the cast, they're alldistinguished actors in one movie. And George W. Bush should have aninteresting life. On paper it sounds like a great movie. The problem isit never fires. It's flat as the sea on a windless day. Scenes dwell onone thing too much, and this makes the film a long and drearyexperience for the viewer. While the performances are good, especiallyfrom Brolin, Banks and Newton, they are left acting in a film with noexciting story. It may be that I'm young, but the films main story, theIraq war, failed to get any interest from me. I found George W. Bush'searlier life far more interesting. Josh Brolin definitely should bepraised for his performance, but praised for this film? No. It couldhave been an inkling better if the made his eyebrows bushier.Flat movie, but good performances get the rating up.

grahamz1 2012-04-29 10:53:54

Not what I expected

I just saw "W." this afternoon, and have to say that, although I'm gladI saw it, it wasn't what I expected. I expected to see a parody, or abiting political satire, or a critique of him, and W. is anything butthat. Instead, the movie tries to paint a portrait of a sittingpresident and the people around him, and speculates about what made himwho he is, and what might have set him on the path to war. It is notexactly (as some people have called it) a biopic, as there is a lot inthe movie which is just speculation. Somehow the movie left me feelinga bit cold and empty at the end. I laughed about 3 or 4 times duringthe movie, and that was a whole lot more than anyone else in theaudience did. I was entertained, but still a bit underwhelmed. Maybeit's just too soon for a movie like this.

em89072002 2012-04-29 01:59:53

Okay, but not great.

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 moresuited for a 'movie-of-the-week' TV slot than the big screen.It's understandably difficult to condense anyone's life-story into twohours of film, but a focus on a specific incident or time period in W'slife would have allowed for more character development all around.Here, there was just too much of the overall story so as the numerouscharacters were paraded-out they came across as shallow andtwo-dimensional.The episodic flashbacks were over-used and made for a pretty choppyfilm.The rocky father-son relationship was hammered home pretty hard; I wasalmost 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 maincharacter's current administration.

2012-04-27 02:57:00

E for Effort

I made it a point to shield my eyes and ears from promos and previews for this film, prior to viewing it. Not that I was expecting to be surprised or enlightened by any new revelation uncovered about Gee-Dub, the man. I did this because I knew that a film about the 43rd President of The United States could take on one of two approaches. It would either be a Hollywood sanctioned, two-hour Bush-bashing festival, or it would be an attempt by Oliver Stone and crew to give us a behind-the-scenes look at the forces that shaped the man. I didn't want to be mentally prepared for either. That being said, it also served me some good to temporarily disarm myself of any political bias before sitting down to watch this movie. I would advise you do the same. I'll begin my review by saying I was relieved to see that this was NOT just two hours of pot shots. I've enjoyed eight years of poking fun at Mr. Bush for his obvious lack of wit, but that's not what I sat down to see this time around. Instead, the makers of "W" attempted to provide us with a look inside the life of G.W. Bush. One of the ways this was done was through the clever use of a few flash-backs (which is to be expected). Nothing about what we don't already know was revealed in these flash-backs, and that doesn't disappoint me. I wasn't expecting to learn anything new about Bush from this film. That's not Oliver Stones' job, and "W" is not a documentary. It's a dramatization based on things most of us already know about Bush. The film serves up a wealth of scenes laden with speculative dialogue that hint at a few things such as Junior's struggle to please his "Poppy", Bush Sr., who wasn't afraid to vocalize his disgust with his son. There are even a couple of scenes depicting what one could only imagine went on during the "Skull & Bones" years at Yale, mixed in with perceived inside looks at W's tried and failed attempts to discover his "calling" in life. Now, for the diehard Bush-mockers; myself included, this movie doesn't at all disappoint. Despite its lack of overt jabs, this movie isn't without a justifiable amount of covert comedy added at the expense of our illustrious ex-leader and his cronies. My favorite happens to be Thandie Newton's portrayal of Condi Rice as a subservient, wrist-wringing, Eegore-esque minion that offered up affirmation to her master's ideas by repeating only the last word of his sentences. This was topped off with a hunch-backed, 45-degree head nod, while she stared at some spot on the ground. I loved it! The writers even found a clever way to include a few of Bush's best-known botched attempts at speech into the script. But, that's not all that makes the movie watchable. Hmmm..., what about the acting? Aside from Newton's quasi-comedic portrayal as the president's compliant "mini-me", I think the acting wasn't all that bad and all major roles were suitably casted. As with many others, I was surprised to see Brolin playing our leading man, but as the story progressed, his performance grew ever convincing. I think he pulled it off beautifully. To cap it, not everyone will enjoy this movie. That goes without saying. What should be said, however, is if you start into this movie armed with a defensive posture, wearing your political beliefs on your shoulder, you won't make it through the first half-hour. I've been called everything from a bleeding heart liberal to a tree-hugging hippie. I've sustained my share of verbal chest pokes, while being drenched in regurgitated Rush Limbaugh talking points projectile vomited from the drippy-fanged mouths of Sean Hannity clones, but I was able to put all of that aside and I enjoyed "W". Hell, if I could give O. Stone an "E" for effort, I would. But, for now 3 stars is gonna hafta doo.

jeremy3 2012-04-26 14:42:44

Not as good as previous bios, but still interesting

Once again, Stone captures a lot of the spirit and characteristics of aPresident. George W. Bush is seen as a young, spirited, reckless manwho can't live up to his father's ideals. Jeb Bush is seen as the morepreferred son. A lot of controversy is avoided in this version. Nothingabout his alleged "soft service" in the military. Instead, the moviefocuses on his life as a fraternity going partier. You can't helpliking the guy, but at the same time seeing him as destructive.Once Bush becomes President, the portrayals of the other characters hasmixed results. I don't think the actor who portrayed Colin Powelllooked like Powell, nor did he capture the essence of his personality.He was seen as the voice of reason, but the real Powell was ambivalent.Dreyfus as Cheney is good, but eventually starts sounding and lookinglike Dreyfus. The best portrayals were the portrayal of Rice. She isseen as a positivist, who goes along completely with almost everything.The Karl Rove is a rather good caricature. Cromwell as George Bush, Sr.is quite believable.All in all, it isn't as good as Nixon nor JFK. However, you are leftwith the distinct impression that something was very amuck in thecombination of political opportunism and idealistic morality. Stonedoes a good job of showing the complexities in the events and decisionsBush made while in office.