★ 7 / 10
W." is a film that delves into the
tmdb51616167
"W." is a film that delves into the presidency of George W. Bush, showcasing the historical significance of every individual who holds the highest office in…
"W." is a film that delves into the presidency of George W. Bush, showcasing the historical significance of every individual who holds the highest office in the United States. The movie suggests that every president deserves a biography that captures their time in office, regardless of their successes or failures.
Josh Brolin delivers a standout performance as George W. Bush, despite initial skepticism about his casting in the role. He effectively embodies the essence of Bush, portraying him as a somewhat goofy and party-loving figure who may not have taken his political responsibilities seriously at first.
The film sheds light on Bush's journey to the presidency, depicting his struggles and personal growth leading up to the events before 9/11. It offers a captivating insight into Bush's term in office, particularly his decisions regarding going to war during his first term. Overall, "W." is a film that exceeds expectations and is worth watching for its portrayal of a complex political figure.
Read full review
★ 10 / 10
Eeeehhhhh! I still don't know how to feel
GenerationofSwine
Eeeehhhhh! I still don't know how to feel about this, and it's been a decade since I first watched it. And then there is the bias that will certainly seep…
Eeeehhhhh! I still don't know how to feel about this, and it's been a decade since I first watched it.
And then there is the bias that will certainly seep through. I really hate the DNC in 2018...but in the '00's and still today, well, W. was to me what Nixon was to Hunter S. Thompson. There is literally no president I like less than W. So excuse the bias that may pop up here, I try to keep politics out of these in this insanely political age.
So, on one hand (and I have been ripping into Stone lately) this is a SOLID Oliver Stone film. Unlike Snowden and World Trade Center, it actually has what you expect from an Oliver Stone film. And I can't not like that.
Agree with Stone's politics or not...you go to see an Oliver Stone film because he can leave his mark on it...and this has that mark.
So you can sit down and watch it and have that clear "I'm watching an Oliver Stone movie" feeling, and that is always enjoyable when you can do that.
But then, it's been a decade since its release and that kind of mutes it. When it came out in 2008, W was still in office and just going to see it made you proud to be an American. Hardly any other country would allow someone to release a film critical of the CURRENT leader while he was still in office. It gave you a great "this is what makes America great" feeling, "this is what puts us above the rest of the world. Thank you Oliver Stone."
But, it's been a decade, so you don't get that feeling from watching it now. You don't feel compelled to buy your ticket, and then go back and see it again to celebrate the 1st Amendment.
And because of that, a decade later, it kind of makes you feel that it should have been released now instead of then.
A decade later you remember the people that were celebrating in the streets when he was finally out. You remember that sense of relief that NOT Bush was in office. You remember the Obama victory...you remember the St. Paul horror, and the sense that the DNC could have run a rotting corpse and won.
And then, after you remember all of that, you get the feeling that it would have made a better ending if Stone just waited a year to make the film.
But despite all of that, it was a fair film. It was balanced (unlike this review) and that's probably because of what my late father used to say, he hated W. as a president, but felt he'd like him as a person. Which, unfortunately, is an attitude you're regrettably not allowed to have today.
But that doesn't change the fact that you still feel like you are watching an Oliver Stone movie. It doesn't change the feeling of pride you got by going to see W. in the theaters when it was released. It doesn't change the fact that it is still a good movie...even if it's a better movie for the people that are old enough to remember it.
Read full review
★ 7 / 10
A Stone in GWB's eye
gcarpiceci
W. Seems to have disappointed many of Oliver Stone's fans; actually the movie lacks the vehemence, the all-around attacks, the gloomy conspiratorial narrative…
W. Seems to have disappointed many of Oliver Stone's fans; actually the movie lacks the vehemence, the all-around attacks, the gloomy conspiratorial narrative of most of his documentary films.Mr Stone might have thought all his usual arsenal was not needed in the case of George W. Bush Jr; in fact, an almost subdued if not moderate tone voice worked best - in my view - to call out the key traits of our hero: a mediocre man, actually a dumbass, an insecure kid turned into an obsessive man, a puppet manoeuvred by a bunch of dangerous acolytes.Exposing reality as is was more than enough here, actually an over-dramatisation might have proved counterproductive.I thought it was interesting to compare and contrast W. With Adam McKay's Vice; the very same facts, told from Cheney's perspective and with a totally different style but very consistent, offer a nice complement to W.
Read full review
58%
TOMATOMETER
· 219 reviews
42%
AUDIENCE
· 100K ratings
6.3/10
51.8K
•••
W stands for War criminal