W.

A chronicle on the life and presidency of George W. Bush (Josh Brolin).

The worst thing about this film is the awful casting, with many people looking nothing like who they should be. Karl Rove looks like a doofus and Condoleeza Rice sounds worse than Fran Drescher. Some are pretty good, and at least you can usually tell who each person is supposed to be. But, my goodness, maybe the casting director needed more time.

The film is fun and enjoyable so long as you understand it is satire. Yes, Oliver Stone is a left-leaning guy, sometimes to an extreme. But this is obviously not meant to be a serious biopic, but more a look at the foibles of George W. Bush. Surprisingly, there are moments that really humanize the guy, and for that Stone deserves credit for pulling punches.

If you are looking for a probing analysis of the eight years of G. W. Bush's presidency, you would be better off reading the books that have already appeared by Woodward and others. At times, this biopic can't rise above sitcom level: the college hazing that is just dumb, not revelatory of Bush's character; the bickering that goes on around the table as Cheney takes on Powell; Rice and her sycophantic behavior around the President (she can't believe he is so uninformed, yet he is her mealticket). It sounds like an episode of Friends, yet you would have to call it Enemies.

Some commenters have taken Thandie Newton to task for her satirical portrait of Rice, but this is the tradition with Oliver Stone: somebody has to be the comedic relief. It was Joe Pesci and Tommy Lee Jones in JFK, James Woods in Nixon, and here we get Scott Glenn being wacky, Bruce McGill being oily and self-serving, Toby Jones being... what, exactly? I couldn't grasp what his take on Karl Rove was all about. Newton's burlesque is just part of the wallpaper in this film.

The last of Stone's "Presidential" trilogy after JFK (which was better) and Nixon (which wasn't), "W" relates the days of the USA's 43th President, George W Bush.

It came up as the heat about the subject's presidency was still felt, while opinions were still hot, and yet the movie is surprisingly subtle and empathic, walking a fine line between biopic and comedy. Also, it is neither an attack on the Bushes, or on the Republican party - what would have been expected from rather liberal Stone. In fact, Bush the father's sole term is even referenced as a time of sober wisdom and sound management. Despite Stone's haste, the film stands the test of time admirably.

Actors are absolutely remarkable and well-directed, everyone of them. Photography is expertly executed. Music is, however, of some curiosity, and its circus-like presence does a big part in lightening the tone. That odd tonal dysphoria makes the film quite hard to classify, and even for the interested, a second viewing might be necessary once the expectations are out of the way.

All in all, what we have here is a fine movie. If you are an American conservatives, or even someone who voted Bush in, I really don't think you'll be outraged by anything here, to the contrary, maybe, as Bush is made human beyond the drama/comedy of his administration. I heard Clinton personally gave Bush a copy of the movie, saying he'd like it.

W. Was released in the wrong time. Probably 10 years too soon. If you stumble upon this film now, you will be entertained. Because this story and this character are just absurd. Politics aside, Brolin does a good job portraying W.

I suggest watching VICE first and then back to back this one and you will appreciate it more.

7,1/10.

One word sums up how I felt while watching W: uncomfortable.

I went into this film expecting more of an absurdist comedy than a tragedy. The level of realism was far beyond what I expected. For the most part, the cast, makeup, and casting crew did such a good job with the characters that it was very easy to imagine that these were not actors on the screen but the actual people. Josh Brolin's characterization of W was certainly Oscar-worthy.

Even better than Brolin's part was Phedon Papamichael's photographic direction. The job of the Director of Photography is to bring the story to life through the creation of images to draw the attention of the viewer where the Director wants. Few films are as good of an example of this as W. Papamichael used the camera to force moral and emotional perspective in a way that I have rarely seen outside of the films of Stanley Kubrick. I've only seen the film once, viewing it as a complete work. I intend to watch it again to study the photography.

Overall, I thought the film was fair in its treatment of the actual people involved. The most ardent Bush supporters will not like it, but to still be that supportive of him in the final months of his second term, you either have to not be paying attention or be uncritical in all of your thought. While artistic license was taken throughout the film, the portrayal of all events and people, with the possible exception of Dick Cheney, were far more grounded in reality and recorded history than I expected.

The film made me uncomfortable on multiple levels, which is why it succeeds and deserves such a high rating. The portrayal of Bush's relationship with his parents, especially his father, forces the viewer to feel sorry for him. The overt religiosity that pervades the public service portion of his life must anger anyone who believes strongly in the separation of church and state. There are many moments when, with any other characters, the film should have generated much laughter. Only one moment in the film actually caused more than one person in the theater to laugh. I guess 4000+ dead soldiers drains the humor out of even the most hilarious gaffes.

I would recommend this film to anyone who wants to see a realistic portrayal of historical events. I wish Stone had waited until Bush was out of office to make it, though. While it captures the major events that were involved in building the Bush legacy, it ends far too early.