Maybe my hopes were a little high, but I wasn't terribly impressed with it. Oliver Stone could've spent a little more time on Bush's earlier life. It felt too much like current events, and probably should've been released 10 or 20 years from now.
- 20.January.2011
- |
- by: Kevin
- Kevin rated this movie
 0/10
Maybe my hopes were a little high, but I wasn't terribly impressed with it. Oliver Stone could've spent a little more time on Bush's earlier life. It felt too much like current events, and probably should've been released 10 or 20 years from now.
- 20.January.2011
- |
- by: Kevin
What did you think about this review?
Thank you for voting.
Abuse report sent
Report abuse
Close
|
Check your party affiliations at the door. If you're looking for a deep probing look into the man and his presidency, this movie isn't for you.
This movie is just a glimpse into the motivations W. had and the reasoning behind his actions, stemming...
- 14.November.2010
- |
- by: MONIROM SOUTHAKAKOUMAR
- MONIROM SOUTHAKAKOUMAR rated this movie0/10
Check your party affiliations at the door. If you're looking for a deep probing look into the man and his presidency, this movie isn't for you.
This movie is just a glimpse into the motivations W. had and the reasoning behind his actions, stemming primarily from his relationship with his father. In this context, many of the decisions of the "decider" make logical (if emotional) sense.
The movie was well acted and most times, Josh Brolin seemed to be channeling W. himself. Thandie Newton and the actor playing Colin Powell were off the mark. Their portrayals were a bit campy with these two portrayals but, if you can look past that it is truly entertaining. Powell has the best comeback one could ever ask for in his argument with Cheney.
BTW: MY INTERPRETATION of the 5 STAR MOVIE RATINGS:
0 STARS: Horrible. A waste of your time.
1 STARS: Below Average. Borderline Dud.
2 STARS: Average. Niche Audience Appeal.
3 STARS: Satisfying. An Enjoyable Movie.
4 STARS: Well Done. Theater-worthy.
5 STARS: Outstanding. Worth Owning.
- 14.November.2010
- |
- by: MONIROM SOUTHAKAKOUMAR
What did you think about this review?
Thank you for voting.
Abuse report sent
Report abuse
Close
|
If this film was a book, it would be in the creative non-fiction section. Remember that if you watch it.
W. tells the story of how George W. Bush (Josh Brolin) came into the presidency and the decisions and discussions leading up to the war in...
- 04.August.2010
- |
- by: Dan Cassavaugh
- Dan Cassavaugh rated this movie0/10
If this film was a book, it would be in the creative non-fiction section. Remember that if you watch it.
W. tells the story of how George W. Bush (Josh Brolin) came into the presidency and the decisions and discussions leading up to the war in Iraq.
Everything in W. comes down to young Bush impressing his father. He constantly tries to live up to H. W.'s expectations without ever fully meeting them. According to the film, that's the reason he ran for the presidency. He wanted to finish what his father started....... Expectedly, W. isn't a positive look at Bush, but it isn't so negative that we disregard it. It tries to find the reasons for Bush's decisions, instead of just exploiting his foibles. We see the behind-the-scenes moments and inner struggles of the president. All those emotions we see in Bush are just speculations, which is why W. is a drama based around actual events and decisions. Three stars
- 04.August.2010
- |
- by: Dan Cassavaugh
What did you think about this review?
Thank you for voting.
Abuse report sent
Report abuse
Close
|
I am intrigued by the fact that our Netfli:x host calls this a "satirical" look at the recent President George Bush. In fact, I think it is a careful, non-exaggerated presentation of the man, often quite sympathetic to him in some...
- 29.March.2010
- |
- by: Democritus
- Democritus rated this movie0/10
I am intrigued by the fact that our Netfli:x host calls this a "satirical" look at the recent President George Bush. In fact, I think it is a careful, non-exaggerated presentation of the man, often quite sympathetic to him in some personal respects. (Director Oliver Stone is an Ivy-league guy himself, only he did go to Viet Nam. Even if he also speaks French.) Question: If it is a true portrait and someone thinks it is funny, is that what makes it satire? In fact, I don't think it is simply heavy-handed mockery at all. Stone is much too subtle for that. I am not even sure that Stone disparages Bush's alcoholic conversion to religion---UNTIL he thinks the voice of God wants him to run for President, and leads him into war later once in office. Stone clearly thinks that perhaps something is seriously askew in those latter aspects, and he may be right. In fact, "W." is much more clever than it seems, even if I am not sure if Stone served himself well in finally delving into a surreal mode in the last ten or so minutes when he does get a lot sharper. But some of that is cultural criticism above and beyond Bush himself, such as the absurd Fox News-style commentators who burble foolishly about his manhood, women's love of his new strut, and America's regained glory shortly after the head-turning fall of Saddam. Josh Brolin and Richard Dreyfus, among others, give really remarkable performances. All in all, an unusual social document that may lose some viewers---who think it is too dry and documentary-like---before they get to the controversial stuff at the end which suggests that in fact Stone was aiming at something a bit more subversive all along. 3.09
- 29.March.2010
- |
- by: Democritus
What did you think about this review?
Thank you for voting.
Abuse report sent
Report abuse
Close
|
The movie suffers from a lack of homework. As a result, the characters come off rather flat, and the movie as a whole feels inauthentic. The complexities of a cadre of highly intelligent people who made it to power is completely lost. With the...
- 05.February.2010
- |
- by: Ian Mankowski
- Ian Mankowski rated this movie0/10
The movie suffers from a lack of homework. As a result, the characters come off rather flat, and the movie as a whole feels inauthentic. The complexities of a cadre of highly intelligent people who made it to power is completely lost. With the exception of Karl Rove, everyone in this movie could have been played by a cardboard cutout of themselves. The behind the scenes discussions are crude, the arguments banal, the rationalizations a series of poorly reasoned liberal ideas. At no point are you convinced that the people in power have convinced you, their colleagues, or even themselves in their arguments. The movie really tries to instill two major concepts in you, George W Bush was a failure his entire life who was desperately seeking the approval of his father, and religion deeply inspired his later life. Neither of these issues is tackled with any sort of nuance or insight. Instead we are bludgeoned with crude dialogue, and over the top symbolic imagery that speaks to an audience of no better intelligence then the George W Bush portrayed in this film. The historical characters all feel like miller lite caricatures of themselves, without the depth of expression and insight that would have made this an enjoyable (or insightful) movie to watch.
- 05.February.2010
- |
- by: Ian Mankowski
What did you think about this review?
Thank you for voting.
Abuse report sent
Report abuse
Close
|
When it was over, I felt as if I had just watched a bizarre cartoon with a serious dramatic performance smack dab in the middle. Credit first and foremost to Josh Brolin. His W is well played and at times is the only character that seems to exist in...
- 26.November.2009
- |
- by: rogertick
- rogertick rated this movie6/10Okay
When it was over, I felt as if I had just watched a bizarre cartoon with a serious dramatic performance smack dab in the middle. Credit first and foremost to Josh Brolin. His W is well played and at times is the only character that seems to exist in the real world.
The film itself is merely curiously interesting. It plays like GWB's greatest hits, meaning all the famous quotes and more colorful episodes in his life are at least touched on, but not in any substantive way.
The casting of the film is well done, all of the supporting players look the part but the dialog they are given is pretty darn bad.
Only Dreyfuss as Cheney and Jeffrey Wright as Colin Powell and James Cromwell as Daddy come off with more than a single dimension.
Poor Thandie Newton, either Condaleesa Rice was a total moron or they didn't bother to write anything even remotely smart for her character. Another super annoying touch is that everyone refers to each other with pet names or some overly familiar term of endearment.
Nothing of value is gained by viewing this film but on some very shallow level it is entertaining despite itself.
- 26.November.2009
- |
- by: rogertick
What did you think about this review?
Thank you for voting.
Abuse report sent
Report abuse
Close
|
I enjoyed this film much more than I expected. I'm not really a fan of the subject or the majority of Oliver Stone's work, but while clearly not endorsing his terms in office they didn't go over the top Michael Moore style and demonize Bush. By the...
- 17.October.2009
- |
- by: Brad
- Brad rated this movie0/10
I enjoyed this film much more than I expected. I'm not really a fan of the subject or the majority of Oliver Stone's work, but while clearly not endorsing his terms in office they didn't go over the top Michael Moore style and demonize Bush. By the end of the movie you see him as just a man, a man suited for the job or not is still up for debate, but not a knowingly malevolent a** or half retarded as he is often portrayed. Borlin is fantastic as are most of the key players,but the portrayal of Condoleeza Rice is a little cartoon like, luckily there wasn't much of her. Overall the movie is funny and feels like it's probably as close to a Bush biopic as we'll see without it feeling like a "movie of the week".
- 17.October.2009
- |
- by: Brad
What did you think about this review?
Thank you for voting.
Abuse report sent
Report abuse
Close
|
A crafty modern mythology. Though the temptation to attack the President and his policies is there, Stone has a knack for tragedy. Another reviewer said that Stone had been kind to Bush. I think that's right, as is the mythology angle. Aside from...
- 18.March.2009
- |
- by: Estlin Jack
- Estlin Jack rated this movie
 8/10Great
A crafty modern mythology. Though the temptation to attack the President and his policies is there, Stone has a knack for tragedy. Another reviewer said that Stone had been kind to Bush. I think that's right, as is the mythology angle. Aside from the understated digs at the President, this movie stays out of the controversial. Stone does believe, as I believe we all should, that the President was fleeced into starting this war for oil: a conspiracy to keep what's left at high prices and supplied. Of course not everyone's on the same page over there; some of them just want to take over OPEC. With that caveat, Stone takes great effort at molding Bush as an earnest, unloved, do-gooder who just never reaches the bar. I would even go so far as to say that Stone fell in love a little bit with the character of George Bush in the making of this film. It isn't humorous as I suspected, but really a critical and deserving biography of the Bushie that was somehow meant to be. Not for policy wonks but certainly for people who like their Greeks and their Shakes. Oh, and Brolin nailed it. But perhaps the best compliment goes to character actoer Jeffrey Wright. He was not impersonating like the usually atrocious if appealing to the eye Thandie Newton. But Stone is known for drawing characters' lines in bold. She still didn't do a good job acting and in a cast of mostly finely performed roles, I can't help but think that Stone really got a laugh out of Thandie's distaste. Awesome cameras throughout. I liked the floods of light. As to the timing of the film, I wold venture to guess that Stone is underscoring the point that this President didn't even really count. If you're looking for the evil that men do in George W. Bush, you're looking in the wrong place. Also, if you're looking to exorcise your personal shame, defeats or demons by attacking Oliver Stone, you're going to need to find another strategy. Put it in the category with Wall Street rather than Nixon and JFK.
- 18.March.2009
- |
- by: Estlin Jack
What did you think about this review?
Thank you for voting.
Abuse report sent
Report abuse
Close
|
Mood:
Plot:
Genres:
Time/Period:
Place:
Based on:
Attitudes:
Flag:
Does this gene fit W.?
