W. Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Get Ready
A life misunderestimated.
A life misunderestimated...
A chronicle on the life and presidency of George W. Bush.
| Sayed Badreya | Saddam Hussein |
| David Born | Moderator |
| Dennis Boutsikaris | Paul Wolfowitz |
| Jesse Bradford | Thatcher |
| Jonathan Breck | Corndog |
| Josh Brolin | George W. Bush |
| Dane Brown | Press |
| Bruce Bryant | Odessa Debate Patron |
| Wes Chatham | Jimmy Benedict |
| Rob Corddry | Ari Fleischer |
| James Cromwell | George Herbert Walker Bush |
| Jon Michael Davis | Campaign Aide |
| Richard Dreyfuss | Dick Cheney |
| Charles Fathy | Jacques Chirac |
| Oliver Stone |
6.80 out of 10 (10167 votes)
Visitor Reviews
An Excellent Contemporary History
posted on 31 Aug 2009Director Oliver Stone is a very fine writer, producer and director with a formidable body of work behind him.Like many, I approached this film anticipating a cruel, forensic destruction of the subject, how wrong I was.Instead we get a light, sympathetic and largely objective snapshot of a President more ridiculed than most.Wisely, Stone tells the story by vignette.On release, neither W's Presidency, nor the Iraq war,were over.So we have the contemporary decision to invade Iraq playing against the story of his formative years.Brolin is superb as W, surpassed only by a truly sinister and hawkish Richard Dreyfuss as hawk Dick Cheney.The 126 minute running time both flies by, and scarcely scratches the surface of the full story, but succeeds nonetheless in its episodic form.The sibling rivalry with his brother, and his ongoing efforts both to please his father and sustain the Bush dynasty are fairly represented. To outsiders, how W became President is a bit of a mystery . But here his Everyman qualities shine through in a pretty populist way.The film closes with an abject performance by him at a Press Conference, but do not be fooled.This is not about W the buffoon.It is about the chaos, craziness and tragedy of the Iraq war, achingly counterpointed by his visit to visit injured soldiers.His awkwardness, is our awkwardness.Thandie Newton is a suitably sassy Condoleeza Rice (who will be delighted that she was played by someone 20 years her junior) and a fairly convincing body double.Ignore those dissatisfied by James Cromwells lack of physical similarity to Bush senior, this isn't a fancy dress party. Cromwells reserved, dry, angular portrayal of a man from another era plays well.The oval office cabinet meetings and W's strolls in the outdoors with his team trying to keep up in his wake are the best scenes.The flaws are structural, the film"ends" when the story is incomplete, how W got re elected, or elected is ignored.Critics will say that Stone, as a peer of Bush has "gone native" in this portrayal of the man. I think Stone is saying something more subtle than that - "a country gets the man it deserves". Before you mock the man look at yourselves first. In an era when film makers gorge on popcorn blockbusters and cops and robbers stories, Stone has made a film about "today", and deserves credit for a fine effort.
A portrait of #43...George W. Bush.
posted on 29 Aug 2009Oscar winner Oliver Stone directs an all-star cast in a retrospective of some trials and tribulations in the life and career of George W. Bush. Whether you like Mr. Bush or not this satiric glimpse of a man who became President is fascinating. We see Bush(Josh Brolin), from his troubles in college, Texas oilfields, governorship of Texas all the way to the same Oval Office his father George H.W. Bush(James Cromwell)occupied. There is also his struggles and triumphs in finding wife Laura(Elizabeth Banks), his faith, bouts with the bottle and the critical days as the nation's leader dealing with invading Iraq.Brolin is uncanny picking up Bush's mannerisms, speech and posturing. Richard Dreyfuss is strong as Dick Cheney and Thandie Newton is an apt Condoleezza Rice. Also in the cast: Ellen Burstyn, Scott Glenn, Toby Jones, Jeffrey Wright, Noah Wyle, Colin Hanks and Jason Ritter. I am still wondering why Stone didn't chew Bush up and spit him out. So much for the director's bulldog image. If you're expecting a Bush bash...this really isn't it.
Lighthearted ...
posted on 27 Aug 2009If you want to get some sort of perspective on the life and character of George W. Bush, for better or worse, this movie can be a starting point. I doubt it will change anyone's political views, but if you've largely ignored Bush - this movie can serve as an interesting starting point.While I personally didn't laugh much, there were laughs coming from the rest of the audience. If you enjoy hearing Bush's verbal goofs, you'll get a good number of them sprinkled throughout the 2nd half.The story jumps around in time - from Bush's biggest dilemma with Iraq to his early college years. Josh Brolin does a great acting job in the sense that he makes Bush fun to watch. He's got the look, the gestures and vocalization down nicely.I think a sign of success for any movie is that after 2+ hours, you want to see a bit more. I would have enjoyed watching more flashbacks and more of his presidential term ... and more of his goofy nature. If you're looking for a hard-core political movie, this is not for you. If you're interested in a light-hearted drama/comedy with some real-life relevance, this is a good one to catch.
Informative, fun and fair flick about W
posted on 27 Aug 2009W is a strong film that manages to avoid most of the usual biopic sinkholes. Although not the ultimate history of the man or his presidency, the film doesn't apologize for missing large sections of Bush's life and career. However, the film isn't trying to be everything - it focuses on one viewpoint and points out character drawbacks and strengths of George W.The film begins with an oval office meeting with the top dogs discussing tactics for starting a war that won't look like a full-out invasion. The film then switches from historical flashbacks when W was better known for boozing and being a great disappointment to his family to various scenes from his presidency in 2003 and 2004. Do not expect to see anything of W's life before he was twenty years old, or from when he decides to campaign for president until 2003.Josh Brolin is excellent as W., as is everybody in the supporting cast although Thandie Newton's portrayal of Condaleeza Rice borders on the satirical ala Saturday Night Live -- it is hysterical though!The film is well-researched, and although the facts are altered for the purpose of the story, the truth remains. Bush is never portrayed as stupid -- even though his gaffs are all documented, his table manners are deplorable, and he is shown being manipulated through flattery, fear, and patriotism. Most damning of all, W's relationship with his emotionally distant father and overbearing mother lead Stone to portray Bush as a tragic hero who constantly tried to make his daddy proud - and started a war that killed over 4,000 Americans in the process.
Near Masterpiece of a Film
posted on 25 Aug 2009I am not surprised that how Bush supporters are bashing this movie and mildly amused at how there are a lot of people who hate Bush who dislike this movie. I see numerous complaints of what was left out, how people in Bushs's cabinet were made into caricatures, that Bush was made undeservedly sympathetic.What I say to all of this is what could had been done better in the constraints of a movie? The contrived high level meetings portrayed the essence of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove and Powell. All of the actors had me believing they were the people they portrayed who were part of the George W Bush Presidency. The movie brilliantly showed Bush's great ability to remember names and ingratiate himself to them. The movie provided a positive portrayal of Christian minister helping George Bush, something you shouldn't expect to see from a "liberal".The choice of James Cromwell as George Bush Sr was genius. Cromwell did not portray Bush as America had seen him, he portrayed a father a son is trying to live up to. Trying to live up to daddy's approval as a driving force is the distinguishing trait of Bush's Presidency and one this movie was did an admirable job of showing and making the main theme, albeit a bit heavy handed in spots.There will be future movies made about Bush which will be far more critical than this movie. But it will be difficult for any to be better.
What Were You Thinking?
posted on 25 Aug 2009W captures the "disastrous" second stint of George W Bush and the decisions, especially Iraq, that near term history finds difficult to understand. With the highest office in the world, statements of being misled or gullible or plain misinformed are a sorry excuse for taking a country into an utterly pointless war and ignoring a worsening domestic reality. Bush Jr comes across as the quintessential regular guy - authoritarian father who held him in little esteem, a regular youth of dates and alcohol, the natural abilities shining through through a Harvard MBA, the seemingly effortless journey to the highest office in the land and then all the flaws of character leading to the inevitable. This movie is Oliver Stone's search for why a President was the way he was. Engaging but narrow in its scope
Wonderfully acted but unsatisfying
posted on 25 Aug 2009Oliver Stone's views on President Bush are unsurprising. He's not a fan. This is a position held by most people at the moment, and nothing much is going to change people's perceptions of the man, unless something quite extraordinary happens over the next few months. Nevertheless, Stone has forged ahead with a movie about "W." and has suppressed 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 shy about lecturing audiences about them for many, many hours, this is a surprisingly restrained piece, where Stone devotes all of his time to character and never provides any kind of opinion on the decisions which have been taken by the Bush administration.This means that his actors (and he has assembled a staggering cast) are really allowed to get their teeth into the material. At the head of this is Josh Brolin who is magnificent as W. His progression from drunken student to bewildered and troubled head of state is entirely convincing and wonderful to watch. He is ably supported by the entire cast. Richard Dreyfuss makes a good Cheney and James Cromwell is decent as Bush Snr. (though his failure to do the 41st President's voice is to the film's detriment, as it doesn't quite convey H.W. Bush's character as the public knows it to be). It is however in the smaller roles where there are some truly fine performances. Jeffrey Wright is excellent as Colin 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 never boring. So, how can it be that it is so unsatisfying? The answer is simply that the film has been made far too soon. Stone rushed the production of this film so that it would come out just before the US elections a few weeks ago. I can't think what possible effect the film would have, but he has put himself at a disadvantage.We simply don't know enough about what happened behind closed doors during the Bush presidency to make a truly interesting and insightful film. One can hardly re-evaluate the administration whilst it's still in office and the majority of people who are dissatisfied with his Presidency aren't ready for such a film. Besides, we definitely don't know enough to have a Strangelove-esquire Dick Cheney standing in front of a big board saying "We need to build an empire". This may well have happened, but if we are to really consider these events fairly we need to 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, because there is great potential here. As it is, it is merely an entertaining if unsatisfying time at the cinema. It is, at times, quite interesting, especially when it explores Bush's past, and it is worth going to see for Brolin's performance alone.3 Stars out of 5
Must see movie for understanding the lead up to the Iraq War
posted on 25 Aug 2009There are some excellent reviews among the over 200. I have just viewed this film on video two months into the Obama Presidency with Dick Cheney still out there warning of another terror attack if his fascist measures are undone.Josh Brolin does an excellent job as W who is a person way over his capacity, sometimes unable to answer questions by reporters, gut feeling decider, and someone who is easily manipulated by Dick Cheney.The mystery of what Laura ever saw in George is somewhat answered. Although why she is not repulsed by his impetuousness is not explained.Dr. Condoleeza Rice is portrayed as a parrot who really offered little to the discussions, yet Bush and Rice went everywhere and even worked out together.Richard Dreyfus practically channels the malevolent Cheney. W becomes a must see movie for understanding the lead up to the Iraq War.Stone presents Bush as a confused, tormented, overwhelmed, superstitious, competitive, seeking paternal approval, and a sad historical figure.But George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tennet, and Dr. Rice are responsible for the deaths of 5,000 American troops, plus the maiming and psychological damage to hundreds of thousands more. In addition, the Bush legacy is one of over 1 million dead Iraqis & Afghanis, millions maimed or traumatized, millions orphaned, homeless, and a destroyed infrastructure of a once prosperous country.The Bush policies have strengthened Russia by driving up oil prices, caused a new alliance between Shi'ah dominated Iran and Iraq, thereby offsetting the balance of power in the Middle East.The killing of civilians, the policies of torture, and the 7 year long occupation of Muslim countries has been a tremendous recruiting point for Al Qaeda. At this writing Israel is considering a strike against Iran.In addition, Osama Bin Laden, a member of the Royal Saudi Family, continues to be at large. Al Qaeda is operating now in Pakistan causing trouble in that nuclear nation. The world is much less safe today than is was in 2000.
Cast was Crap
posted on 23 Aug 2009Oliver Stone should fire his Casting Agent, because the only actor that was cast correctly was "Josh Brolin" - everyone else was not even close in appearance or behavior. Dana Carvey would have been a better choice for George Bush Senior, Barbara Bush was too young, Condoleeza Rice was way too pretty, Laura Bush was not pretty enough, Carl Rove was way too short, Colin Powell was playing the Godfather with the cotton balls in the cheeks, Donald Rumsfield didn't look anything like him, unless you consider the glasses only, and Dick Cheney, well, he was OK. The most disappointing was Bush Senior, because there are possibly a hundred or more actors out there that could have done a better job than James Cromwell (probably in their sleep). Cromwell played Bush like he never saw or heard the real Bush before in his life, which is impossible, in todays media filled world. If it wasn't for Josh Brolin, this movie would be like a joke, because it is so poorly cast for a professionally made movie.
Expectations not quite met but still an interesting character study with an award worthy lead
posted on 23 Aug 2009I admit I had high expectations for this film. I love Oliver Stone although I feel like political correctness has stifled his true nature. Despite numerous critiques of World Trade Center, I thought it was brilliant. So I knew when Stone said that people would find his film W. to be compassionate and empathetic that it would tip toe around the true issues. That being said the film took a few things head on but I found it to jump around a lot and really not follow a proper chronological order and also didn't really stay on any one topic long enough to be effective. I had hoped to see President Bush's response to 9/11 and it wasn't even touched on. I had hoped they would spend more time on Bush's background and his habits and growing up but they just kind of skirted through it and tried to jam as much as they possibly could into the film which meant the true effect of the film took a back seat. Stone's trade mark wit and bite definitely was toned down to barely a bark. Still he knew how to pick a cast because the performances were powerful some more than others and I think with more in depth opportunities some of the supporting characters could have done something incredible.But lets talk about Josh Brolin. Brolin gives an awe inspiring drop dead incredible portrayal of George W. Bush from his early years in College to his Presidential days. Brolin deserves an Oscar nod hands down. He obviously took the time to study every detail of Bush and his mannerisms, his voice and everything about him. His portrayal is not mocking whatsoever and in fact gives a very true and empathetic look at the man. Elizabeth Banks does a good job as Laura Bush but is only one of the characters that doesn't get her just rewards when it comes to character. She does a great job but could have done a lot more given more to work with. Ellen Burstyn is outstanding in a sadly small role as Barbara Bush. Amazing character actor James Cromwell is terrific as George Bush Sr. and probably deserves a supporting actor nod. Even with the small screen time he's given he electrifies it. Richard Dreyfuss is outstanding as Vice President Dick Cheney but gets the shortest end of the stick as he is given very little to work with and I would have loved to have seen more interaction between him and Brolin as Bush. He also deserves a supporting actor nod. Thandie Newton and Jeffrey Wright play Condoleezza Rice and Gen. Colin Powell although I felt like their performance was forced and only made to try and look and sound like their characters rather than be real to the story.The cast is terrific and the film most definitely leaves you feeling a little shocked and awed that this man served eight years as the leader of the free world but at the same time you can't help but feel completely sorry for him. It feels like he is controlled his entire life and that his Presidency was overshadowed by his team forcing his hand into certain decisions. The back story of Bush's youth doesn't really fill in any spaces or give you any real history other than his relationship with his Dad but the story flies through his addiction and alcohol abuse and really fires through his entire story and even then only touches on the aspects of his Presidency that they wanted to show. Overall an interesting watch and the entire thing is made completely worthwhile by the brilliant performance by Brolin but the film definitely misses the mark I think Oliver Stone could have hit 10 or 20 years ago. He's lost his ability to be sharp. 7/10
Brolin's W. is a Clear Winner, no Dangling Chads
posted on 19 Aug 2009Despite an incendiary director and a controversial title character, Oliver Stone's depiction of George W. Bush, "W.," is unlikely to please either critics or supporters of the incumbent U.S. president. However, the film will be remembered for the breakout performance of Josh Brolin as W., which delves deeper than the "Saturday Night Live" caricature that it could have been. In Stone's portrait of the president, sibling rivalry and father-son issues bring a Freudian undertone to W.'s struggle to find his niche. From fraternity hazing to a series of short-term jobs to baseball team owner to governor of Texas, Bush seems to have lurched forward, always under the disapproving eye of his disappointed father, who compares him unfavorably to brother Jeb. Brolin's appealing performance as the wayward son will charm and evince sympathy from even the most hardened Bush-basher.After Bush's election as president, the film turns to the run-up to war in Iraq. In these scenes, Bush seems to personify the Peter Principle and has risen to his level of incompetence. However, a cabinet of competent advisors would have compensated for the president's deficiencies. Unfortunately, in Stone's depiction of the Bush White House, Condoleezza Rice comes off as a brainless yes-woman, and Colin Powell appears weak and bows to pressure from Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld, the Machiavellian trio. Besides Brolin's star-making performance, "W." is a trove of fine acting. Richard Dreyfuss is outstanding and dead-on as Cheney. James Cromwell and Ellen Burstyn are memorable as George H. W. and Barbara Bush; their scene watching the election returns of 1992, when they were turned out of the White House, is touching. Elizabeth Banks as Laura, Toby Jones as Karl Rove, and Scott Glenn as Rumsfeld also turn in fine work.Although "W." is entertaining, the film seems a little shaggy around the edges, and, like all Oliver Stone films, just where historical accuracy ends and speculation begins is cloudy. The ending is enigmatic, which is appropriate for a president whose place in history is yet to be determined. However, Stone could have stretched the film to include Bush's high points, which were reached just after 9/11, and perhaps a few more of his legendary Bushisms. The fabled press conference where Bush cannot answer a question about his mistakes is included, and, once again, even those who cannot stand the president will feel his embarrassment at fumbling in a public arena. All of which throws Stone's point of view and intentions into doubt. Stone does not do a "Michael Moore" to Bush. If this film was meant to be an expose of the Bush era, there are no surprises. If the film was supposed to skewer the president, Brolin's sympathetic portrayal softens the arrows. Perhaps producing a film about a sitting president is too risky an endeavor to succeed, because history has yet to weigh in. However, as a star-making vehicle to launch the career of Josh Brolin, "W." succeeds in a landslide.
Very funny movie
posted on 17 Aug 2009I watched this movie expecting very little connection with the reality of the past 8 years and was not disappointed. Apparently Oliver Stoned, was when he came up with this piece of feces. It is a good example of how all the sorry liberals in this country supported President Bush when they felt their pathetic lives were in danger but quickly turned on him once they realized his keeping them safe was not the best thing for their communist political agenda. This is what we can expect from all the America haters on the left until the next attack on our nation. This movie was an insult to all the fine people who served in the administration that gave freedom and hope to over 50 million people. Every person involved in any way with this of trash should be ashamed to show their face in public. The morons who played Secretary of State Rice, Karl Rove and Colin Powell were particularly disgusting.
Don't Misunderestimate this Film
posted on 17 Aug 2009Lefties expecting a hatchet-job will be as disappointed as Righties expecting a hatchet-job. Demonstrating decency and restraint far beyond what his subject is deserving of, Oliver Stone demonstrates rare wisdom and the hindsight of someone trying to understand this period of history from a standpoint of decades in the future. He creates a film that swings wildly between comedy and tragedy, tragi-comedy and comic tragedy in his portrait of a man who though born to privilege, needs to have greatness thrust upon him-and is not up to the task he seeks. It is , and I do not use this term lightly: Shakespearean.Josh Brolin's Oscar-worthy performance manages two amazing feats: 1) He makes you forgot you are watching Josh Brolin as he portrays W. over a 40-year period and 2) He makes even a left-leaner like myself forget how much one may hate George W. Bush. I just wanted to yell at the screen ala Rocky Horror, "You seem to be a nice guy who enjoys people...stay with baseball!!!" All of the supporting cast of characters in the Bush Dynasty are handled with dignity and respect (particularly James Cromwell as Bush the First), and Stone is decent enough to leave the Bush Twins out of it. Jeffrey Wright might be up for a Best Supporting Actor nod for his thoughtful and restrained portrayal of Colin Powell.I am racking my brain trying to remember when recent history was made into such a vital film; this is the antithesis to a quickie made-for-TV movie about Amy Fischer and the like.
Mediocre
posted on 13 Aug 2009Not being a US citizen might, you would think, hamper one's ability to comment on this biopic. Not so. The Presidency of the US is so wide ranging it might more reasonably be described as having world wide importance. The world's a stage, after all. This presentation of the life of George W Bush is just not meaty enough. It is trite and facile with too easily drawn correlations being used to 'explain' events that are easily found in news-reel archives. The portrayal of other characters at the White House is also faulty. I don't believe for one moment that Condolina Rice is just a smiling nodding doll in meetings. Admittedly, the awkward compliance of Colin Powell over Iraq is hinted at but, even this 'character' is not as rounded as even I could describe. A poor representation of Bush's presidency. It should be buried quickly.
We get it, Oliver Stone. You went to college.
posted on 13 Aug 2009In my opinion, if you're going to review a film, you have to understand what message the director is trying to convey. In Oliver Stone's biopic, W., Stone could be suggesting a number of things. What I gleaned from watching this movie was that apparently we should all feel sorry for Dubya. He's just a simple man who was manipulated by one too many bad guys (I'm looking at you, Cheney) into turning a bad situation worse.It's difficult to take an objective standpoint when watching a political film, especially one that's bold enough to take a controversial stab at a sitting president. Everyone has a political bias, whether they like it or not, including filmmakers. There's a clear, untapped bias in the making of this movie, which is a left-wing slant on what really transpires behind the scenes of right-wing politics. I expected a portrayal of a childlike man-boy who stumbled into the most powerful position in the free world and that's exactly what I got.For some reason, I think that Stone thinks he can get away with throwing together sloppily a bunch of flashbacks amidst war-room scenes and call it a movie. Obviously the subject is controversial, the man is controversial, and the liberalism that goes into making a movie about a Republican is controversial. Controversy, however, is the only thing W. seems to have going in its favor. The pacing is too slow, the acting is too theatrical, and the script is full of clichés and clunky, awkward dialogue.Josh Brolin who plays "W" himself makes a valiant effort to carry the movie but alas, the character is just too tough to portray convincingly. Like it or not, George W. Bush is more of a caricature than a human being in the media. By no means am I attacking the man himself, I'm just saying that it's tough to give life to a man that the world already knows so well for having certain superficial qualities. Getting the accent and the squinting to look realistic isn't enough to make me want to sit through two hours of political jargon and family squabbles. Thandie Newton's Condoleeza Rice is unintentionally funny—it's more of an SNL parody than anything else. The only person who seems interested in being taken seriously in this movie is Elizabeth Banks who gives the already very classy Laura Bush genuine warmth and authenticity. Richard Dreyfuss frankly seemed to be having a blast playing Dick Cheney (a man who apparently does nothing but lurk in the shadows) but, once again, his performance lacks a certain depth. For such great actors like Brolin and Dreyfuss, I'm saddened to see a performance reduced to simply mannerisms and qualities we've seen a hundred times before.All in all, people will be interested in seeing this movie because of the controversial subject matter, but most will be left disappointed. The movie never quite hits a middle ground between satire and seriousness, which leaves the viewer left confused and empty-handed.My grade: D
Human Portrayal
posted on 07 Aug 2009Having just watched this film, I can honestly say that I was moved by the sincere and human portrayal of this otherwise caricatured figure. It is difficult for some people to grasp that those people who we elevate to positions of power (contested elections aside) are driven by the same visceral and vulnerable desires and fears that all humans experience. This is in no way a justification for the actual anguish and destruction perpetrated by the this 'person' - the president George W. Bush. Quite the contrary, it seems that through the specificity of his humanity and vulnerability as skillfully depicted by Josh Brolin and Oliver Stone that this films calls for self-reflection on the part of George W. - something lacking in this powerful figure who has never seemed to fully confront the demons and fears that animate his decisions and actions. Regardless of whether you like this man or not, "W" is a powerful depiction that deconstructs the dual movements of intentionality and actuality while the preserving the dignity of a flawed person who to some extent has been unwittingly thrust into a position of power through the very nature of his birth into a dynasty.Rather than painting a scathing caricature that compels the audience to remove responsibility from the hands of a demonized or reified figure, this film makes the assertion that it is in the actuality of George W's humanity 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 a person actions that matter.While I can feel for George W. as a person (a position I've held prior to this film), the tangible and resonating effects of his policies are another story.The power of this film is to tie these two arenas together in a way that preserves both the complexity and human-ness of those intrinsically involved in shaping the contexts in which we all live.
A movie the way Michael Moore would have made it. What an incredible coincidence the timing of "W" is...
posted on 07 Aug 2009Let's not kid each other here. The politically disinterested flightless birds of Timbuktu know what purpose this movie serves. Set to be released only days before the Presidential elections, the movie is just one more in a long line of Hollywood's blatant propaganda films ("American President", "Fahrenheit 451", and about a thousand others), financed by their powerful and rich, though infinitely clueless Left. Naturally, Stone only stopped an inch short of making a movie about John McCain himself; that would have been too obvious even for the unsubtle Stone and his liberal cronies. The title "W" ends up being nothing more than an abbreviation for "Wote Obama". (No-one said Stone can spell!). Unlike Spielberg or Soderbergh, Stone isn't a closet Marxist: he has always been pretty much out of the closet, barely hiding his passion and limitless adoration for dictator Fidel Castro and other criminal sociopaths on the international political scene. (When you support a blood-thirsty despot you basically lose all moral rights to criticize any democratically-elected public official.) Hence even to refer to him as a "liberal" is quite misleading. He has more in common with Lenin than Joseph Biden (not intellectually, though: IQ-wise we're talking Donald Duck here). Besides, how very BRAVE of Oliver Stone to single out the very unpopular Bush for big-screen ridicule... Why didn't he make this movie in, let's say, 2003? Once again Oliver Stone proves that he's lost his mind utterly and irrevocably not only by making this kind of inevitable, cheesy drivel, but by proving that he can't cast a $50 school play, let alone a major big-budget movie. Bush may not be the greatest intellectual around, but to pick Josh Brolin to play him would be the ultimate insult - to anyone. Brolin exudes ZERO intelligence; besides, he does not look the part, he can't act at all (unless Travolta-like overacting is what you seek), he is too young, and his face resembles that of a stereotypical American college jock i.e. not even remotely that of a politician: liberal, conservative or Martian. For the life of me I can't picture this nepotistic offspring playing anyone but American football heroes, serial-killing truck-drivers or wife-beating alcoholics.No-one should be surprised that ultra-liberal Dreyfuss should be in this movie, but that someone would cast this hyper, fast-talking thespian as the calm, mild-mannered Cheney is a funny, noteworthy screw-up in itself. Cromwell, another liberal fruitcake, plays Bush Senior; it's a silly performance to be sure, but next to Brolin and Dreyfuss, this was almost twin-brother-identical-matching casting. Cromwell looks goofy enough to pull off Bush Senior at least to a small extent.Already in "Alexander" Stone had made catastrophic decisions, both regarding casting (Jolie and Farrell looked RIDICULOUS) and the laughable, historically INaccurate script. While he had made liberal propaganda movies from the very beginning of his hugely overrated career ("Wall Street", "Born On The 4th of July", "JFK"), they weren't quite as rancid as this, and the casting was somewhat better. Stone seems to take ever more liberties with historical facts as his career regresses, something we were all able to see in the huge bomb that he called "Nixon". The downward spiral of his work is shown in its full inglory in "W". The movie fails as an intentional comedy, but is unintentionally bad/funny in so many places that I haven't got the space to describe them all in this 1000-word text. Due to the inane casting alone, "W" has great chances of becoming a camp classic in several years, to be enjoyed both by intellectuals and history students.This pathetic, hallucinatory, fantasy-land Stoneian concoction is yet another tiresome exercise in left-wing self-righteousness, childishly mocking an incumbent President while pretending to be a serious biopic. Oliver Stoned has even stated that he tried to present a fair depiction of GWB - but coming from Oliver that's about as believable as Sharon Stone's PR people claiming her IQ is 154. It's always extremely risky and difficult to pull of a movie about a person who is still alive, but never more so when that person is still in power - hence seen almost daily in the media. Only someone as deranged and naive as Stone would even consider such a project."W" is like a series of unfunny Saturday Night Live skits, in which the life of Bush and his family members get torn apart with the subtlety of a sickle and hammer cutting up a Soviet gulag prisoner. It follows Bush's life from his college days all the way to his Presidency, complete with rather predictable "gags" such as Bush choking on a pretzel. Even Saddam Hussein makes a (totally unnecessary) appearance, played by some lousy, little-known, Stone-picked actor.When a director, the writers, and his entire cast already have a huge left-leaning bias, then how much credibility and realism can one honestly expect? I thought political/historical films were supposed to be made WITHOUT (or with a minimum of) bias for one side or the other. Hence all "W" ultimately achieves is preach to the converted: it will hardly make a dent in the way people will vote...Someone here actually called "W" a "historical satire", a movie which shows what can be achieved in America "through connections and privileges". Yeah, how about applying that to Josh Brolin himself? The son of a well-known actor who is married to Barbra Streisand - the most liberal and most powerful Hollywood woman of them all. We come full circle... Supremely decadent, cocaine-sniffing Tinseltown pointing fingers at nepotism and hypocrisy is anyway the ultimate joke. Aren't you people tired of it by now as I am?First "Nixon" and now "W". When's Oliver Stoned going to immortalize Reagan in an outlandishly silly fantasy biopic? What awful writers will he hire to invent things about him? Eisenhower? Two Republican presidents down, several dozen more to go...http://rateyourmusic.com/~Fedor8
A Bit Too Pandering
posted on 05 Aug 2009This was a good "movie" in the sense that the script, acting, direction, etc., were all top-notch. There's nothing wrong with doing a film on the old Shakespearean themes; e.g., think Hal, Hamlet, etc. The tale of the Prodigal Son, Oedipal complex is never off limits and here it is done in a very entertaining manner and in excellent style.The problem is that since the setting is contemporary the political implications interfere. I like commenter st-shot's hyperbole comparing W. to a liberal's wet-dream. I don't want to see confirmation of my base suspicions about backroom politics. Tell me something I don't know! Then W. might have functioned as something of historical worth. Otherwise, this film was simply made forty years too early to have any real value.
Very disappointing
posted on 05 Aug 2009Plenty of theatrics and fluff and flashbacks galore but very little in the way of facts. It might satisfy those looking for just another work of fiction spun around a well-known personality but the serious viewer interested in a biography, documentary or satire will be disappointed. As for me, it was a total wastage of time and money and I had a feeling of reprieve when it thankfully came to an almost abrupt end.Although the movie attempts to create the impression that Bush was merely a simpleton who was misled into the Iraq war after 9/11 by the evil Cheney-Rumsfeld-Tenet gang, it is in stark contradiction to the real events as evidenced from the following quote from someone in the know:Those present who had attended the NSC meetings of the previous administration - and there were several - noticed a material shift. "In the Clinton administration, there was an enormous reluctance to use American forces on the ground; it was almost a prohibition," one of them recalled. "That prohibition was clearly gone, and that opened options, options that hadn't been opened before."The hour almost up, Bush had assignments for everyone. Powell and his team would look to draw up a new sanctions regime. Rumsfeld and Shelton, he said, "should examine our military options." That included rebuilding the military coalition from the 1991 Gulf War, examining "how it might look" to use U.S. ground forces in the north and the south of Iraq and how the armed forces could support groups inside the country who could help challenge Saddam Hussein. Tenet would report on improving our current intelligence. O'Neill would investigate how to financially squeeze the regime.Meeting adjourned. Ten days in, and it was about Iraq.- "The Price of Loyalty" (p.75) - Paul O'Neill, Bush's first Treasury Secretary and Chairman of Alcoa. Since this meeting took place just ten days into the Presidency and way before 9/11, it clearly shows that Bush was determined to attack Iraq from day one and was calling all the shots and 9/11 was only a convenient excuse for public consumption unlike what this movie seemingly wants its viewers to believe.
Could have been more pointed
posted on 31 Aug 2009I've just seen this movie on DVD two days ago. I can't say it is a bad film. I suffered through Stone's "Alexander" and I knew what to expect in the worst case. But it wasn't a brilliant film either.Because the film was made long before George W. Bush's end of tenure, Stone gave away many opportunities like the upcoming financial crisis, the historical election of Barack Obama and the very symbolic shoe-ing of Bush in Baghdad. All this could have been cornerstones of an epic movie. In all fairness, Oliver Stone did not have the benefit of hindsight.But what Stone produced was a fair and balanced, but also a white-washed portrait. I did not learn many new things about the President in movie because of my keen interest into U.S. politics; but it was almost comical to watch the actors being convinced in WMDs which actually did not exist. Stone's "W." shows Bush and his entourage as the actors on their own stage, acting in a play they, so they hope, was determined by themselves until the end.And then, metaphorically spoken the "play" breaks down: The bringing of democracy to Middle East that was begun with the innocent hope of playful children failed. Citizens protest their once well-liked President. Stone could have polished that notion of grown adults "playing" around and failing ultimately. Bush was a child that wanted to play big...