Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

Ketrivie It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

gbkmmaurstad A look at President George W. Bush's path into politics from his college days. "W" in his younger years is shown as a drinking, brawling, college student whose rich Daddy, Bush Sr. bails him out out of trouble more than once in addition to obtaining favors to get him into Harvard Business School.Wanting to have a baseball career more than be in politics, "W" does takes a position with the Texas Rangers as an office executive, but not before trying out the oil fields among other things. He eventually joins his family in politics, running for senator, governor, of Texas and then President of the United States in 2000.This is a mini biography which barely skims "W's" life, but elects to focus on the Iraq war and "weapons of mass destruction," that were never found. It leads the viewer to believe that he was not a leader, but a follower, a follower of his family's legacy and was either not capable or unwilling to create his own.

ten-often I put off seeing this until 2012 because of the reviews here. When I finally watched it I was irritated that I allowed short-sighted reviews to ruin my chance to see it in a fun group setting. I have since learned to read between the reviews.This was a fantastic performance by Josh Brolin, who nailed the publicly perceived persona of Dubya so well! The movie was a brilliant satirical depiction of the caricature the mass public created of Dubya. It was also a great impersonation of the public opinions of Cheney and other characters from this infamous administration.This, while depicting true events and basic facts of the life and presidency of this man, what a balance to maintain! While portraying the caricature, it still gave a sympathetic portrayal of his childhood, family relations and life events which actually had me wishing I could help the adolescent and young man rise above the emotional turmoil which created the grown man he became. It was done well.

CalvinValjean My personal favorite Oliver Stone film is NIXON (1995), a really in-depth and well-rounded look at a controversial and polarizing figure. Despite Stone being politically the opposite of Nixon, he delivered a surprisingly strong portrait, which managed to be sympathetic, critical and tragic. In early 2008, I first heard about plans for a similar film about George W. Bush and grew excited. Sadly, Stone would not be able to pull NIXON off again.I remember seeing the first teaser trailer for W. It showed Josh Brolin in character, being told "You're a Bush! Act like it!" by his father, followed by a montage of all the key players set to "What a Wonderful World." I sent this teaser to my father, who had had no idea that this film was being made. He responded "Is this a trailer for a real movie, or is it an Internet skit?" He wasn't joking; he genuinely didn't know. And that right there sums up the whole problem that the finished film would have; it's VERY confused about it's identity and tone. My father managed to articulate it all perfectly.W. never quite gets off the ground as a film. It seems to want to be a serious biopic in the tradition of NIXON and your typical Oscar-bait bio, but it constantly veers into caricature and outright parody. In fact most of the marketing made the movie look like a comedy, with Bush Jr's malapropisms appearing on the posters. Part of this is due to the decision to rush the film into production while Bush Jr was still in office, making the events seem too recent and not really reflected on. By 2008, we had seen so many caricatures and spoofs of the Bush administration and this film didn't seem to be doing much of a new spin on the material.But anyway, onto the film itself (I'm not discussing politics in this review. Either you love or hate the Bush family and administration. I'm discussing the film's version of events and how they play as a film). The main narrative arc of the movie is that Bush Jr is forever living in the shadow of his family legacy, in particular clashing with his stern father and his brother Jeb being the preferred son. As such, Bush Jr, initially written off by his parents as a drunken failure, eventually enters politics and becomes president to prove himself. His entire reason for invading Iraq is to show his father "I did what you couldn't do." Yet his presidency is ultimately viewed as a failure for the country, and he has tragically only damaged the family legacy he so wanted to measure up to.This angle is an interesting one, and the scenes involving Bush Jr's youth and entry into politics play well. However, the whole storyline is just too thin, and all the scenes depicting the actual presidency and Iraq invasion lack any real weight. The film offers no real political commentary; just a dramatization of the life of a man who isn't all that interesting. Unlike Richard Nixon, Bush Jr isn't a very interesting or engaging protagonist, and he never seems to be directly responsible for what happens to him, and thus is neither heroic nor tragic. When the film ends at a brisk two hours, you are left with a very superficial portrait that seemed to barely skim the surface.One final point to bring up involves Richard Dreyfuss, known for being very politically active, and who plays Vice President Dick Cheney. I remember hearing at the time that Dreyfuss was considering retiring from acting, but came back to take on this role specifically out of desire to criticize the Bush administration (although Dreyfuss ended up appearing in further films afterward, so maybe it was just a story). Dreyfuss ended up being disappointed with the finished film and called Stone a fascist. Perhaps a bit extreme, but Dreyfuss made two very good points about the film that summed up its problems: 1) It never reaches any real conclusion about its subject matter, and 2) It's missing a very important character: the American people. As such, we're shown the highs and lows of Bush Jr's presidency, but not the impact it had or consequences for the average citizen, and the films ends up lacking real historical context.In the end, W. is a film more interesting in its concept than its execution. Supposedly it was rushed out in an attempt to influence the 2008 election, but in the end, the film had some hype at the time, only to be generally forgotten after the election. Had Stone waited twenty years, he could have made a more nuanced biopic from the perspective of later history, as he did marvelously in NIXON. Instead he gave us a tiny film with nothing to say.

Dpm12 Oliver Stone's W. is an incredible viewing experience, and one of the greatest biographical dramas ever made. Josh Brolin is absolutely amazing in the title role (he should have been nominated for an Oscar). James Cromwell, Elizabeth Banks, Jeffrey Wright, and especially Toby Jones, also give great performances.The film follows Bush throughout his life-troublemaker young adult and alcoholic, his decision to give up alcohol, his wanting to move out of his father's shadow, his decision to run for governor of Texas, and finally, his run for the presidency and decision to invade Iraq.The acting is good (even Thandie Newton, granted she overdoes it but her acting is still good), the script is incredible, and the film itself is a masterpiece. Watch this film! You will NOT be disappointed.4 out of 4