W. (2008)

Instant Favorite.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

I'm not American, not well-versed in American politics and not a big fan of either political party, but I still feel that this movie grossly misrepresented George W. Bush both as a man and as a president. His presidency was riddled with controversies and difficulties, and I hoped to get an insightful explanation of his ups and downs. This movie did not deliver. It simplifies, caricatures and mocks President Bush.Josh Brolin's performance has been lauded as excellent. I thought he was okay but lacked the bravado and confidence of the real George W. Bush. James Cromwell as his father, President Bush, was much better.I understand that the point of the movie was to humanize political figures and make their motivations and flaws relatable and understandable to the general audience, but the difficulty of their decisions and the sheer amount of work and responsibility that comes with political power was overlooked.For a political drama/comedy that actually works, check out the French comic book 'Weapons of Mass Diplomacy'.

After directing presidential films like 1991's 'JFK' & 1995's 'Nixon', Oliver Stone now has his eyes on George W. Bush. However, instead, of directing a realistic mostly accuracy movie of the president, Stone choose to directed yet another fictionalized dream-like portrait. While, it's a largely sympathetic portrayal of the man. It does somewhat make Bush look like a cartoon than a real person. I don't agree with some of the critics that says, this was a down-to-earth portrayal. Don't get me wrong, George W. Bush is indeed goofy, however, while he did make some stupid mistakes, he's also shown to be savvy and reflective about some things, from time to time, and generally means very well. While, I'm not a big fan of the guy at all, never did voted for him, I do have to say, that he wasn't the worst president ever. However, I can't agree with this film, in the way, he is presented as a Man Child with daddy issues who is over his head. He's more complex than that. This biopic movie is almost directionless. It doesn't know, what part of George W. Bush's life, it wants to talk about. So, it pick all, the gimmicky outrageous parts. Despite that, I didn't mind, too much of Oliver Stone, taking artistic license on the history, too much. The real-life quotes from George W. Bush being used in very different contexts is fine with me. I just wish, the movie feels more like a realistic tone film than a series of over-the-top dream theatrics, news clipping and political caricatures. It was a bit jarring. During the editing process, there was said to be up to five different cuts of the film, each with a different tone, with some being more satiric, others darker, etc. While, the movie makes a great satirical comedy, it doesn't really give us, the viewers; a true understanding of the man named Bush, besides that he love baseball, supposedly. It doesn't really shown, any of his hard work to reach the presidential, nor does it explore, any of the key controversial issues that George W. Bush had, during his administration, besides his push for the war with Iraq. It's kinda a letdown, because I really wanted to know, what he was going through, during the controversial 2000 election. I kinda wanted to see, if he thought that Al Gore really win, over him. I also really wanted to see, how he dealt with the events of 9/11 event, and Hurricane Katrina. Most of all, I wanted see, some fore-shadowing to the financial crisis of 2007–08. After all, the banking collapse of 2008 could still be added on, during filming in mid-08. Just think, how much more popular, this film would had been, if they did that. Anyways, the version that Stone pick is the story of Bush's life, mostly away from the Presidency. Only a short half is honestly, about him, being president. I guess, this turn from the main focus, is a way to combat the controversy of releasing, a biopic of president, while that said, command and chief is still in office. Understandably, but why even make it, if you're not going to cover all of the keys events of his presidential? It felt like a waste of time. Anyways, conservatives on the right, accused it of being liberal propaganda, and many liberals of the left accused Stone of being too soft on Bush; which is basically, the same criticisms Stone received for Nixon. Despite, the unrealistic Daddy issues, Bush has, in his film, I thought, the rest of how Bush was portray, was alright for the most part. I kinda like Josh Brolin as George W. Bush. He really does seem to inhabit Bush's skin, through his facial expressions, and voice, despite, not really looking like him at all. Still, Josh Brolin lost about 20 pounds in order to better play Bush as a college student, and then had to gain it all back in order to play him in senior age. So, he try to look the part, even if he kinda fails at that. Even the supporting actors were alright in their performance as these real-life characters. I kinda like the soulless version that Richard Dreyfus was giving us, as Vice President Dick Cheney. Yes, Cheney in the film was so Machiavelli, but it's really hard to dispute that, when actual accounts, says he was. It's suck that Dreyfuss and Stone did not get along well during filming. I was really hoping for more of them, teaming. Anyways, mad props to Richard Dreyfus, he really brought it to this role. The same, can be said with James Cromwell as President, George H. W. Bush, Jeffrey Wright as Secretary of State, Colin Powell, Toby Jones as Policy Adviser, Karl Rove, and Scott Glenn as Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. They really made this movie, so much more mature than juvenile. The only supporting actor that didn't really bring it, is Thandie Newton as National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice. I found her character, so useless. Anyways, the movie is well-shot. The soundtrack was good enough to listen to, and the film pace was standard. Overall: 'W' was somewhat enjoyable and provocative. I wouldn't call it, the best presidential biopic, but it's no way, near the worst. It was average at best.

Of all political biopics out there, this remains to be the strangest. It plays out like a dark comedy from the Coen brothers. But Oliver Stone wanted to provide some truth, as well as humanizing a detested U.S. president. He really, kind of fails.. and he really, just makes Bush look even dumber than people thought he was. This film is also, historically, WAY TOO early to have been made. Bush wasn't even out of the Oval Office. I'd say the American public would've been ready for this half-way through Obama's 8-year term. This film would've been more effective, poignant and fascinating as a look back from today's political landscape. But, W. ends up being a knee- jerk reactionary film, hoping to sway an entire election in 2008. What's so pathetic about that, is that America was looking for a change, regardless if Oliver Stone threw his two-cents in or not. W. truly displays the arrogance of Oliver Stone as a director.

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.