W.

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.

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.

Two of my least favorite people in one project! A president with a blunt intellect, but a remarkable ability to project a simple story. And a filmmaker with the same qualities. Each would be relatively harmless as clerks who amuse at lunch breaks, but these are men whose inadequacies break worlds.

It is no wonder that this portrays Bush respectfully. No wonder that it is all about intent: the man is a good, honest, unselfish man whose only weakness was a vision of an unrealistic utopia and the accident of being surrounded by fools and devils. I believe that all of Stone's projects are autobiographical and he impresses on them his own story. Its Woody Allen, except instead of placing himself in the cosmic forces of personal relationships and self, he wanders among what he sees is a cosmos of global conspiracy. That he is able to make a living in Hollywood is, I think, because our notions of noir are close enough to this so that he (and Spike Lee) can bloviate and make a living.

As time goes on, he worries more and more about himself, so he makes his heroes basically good men, lost.

But this time history bucks him. The culpability of this man cannot be explained away by blaming Rove and Cheney. His qualms about torture are known to not have happened. We know that he pushed for policies that will be evaluated in time as war crimes. Now, he may have done that with noble intent, but more ruthless and scheming than this golden Rube we see here.

This is a disaster for history. Because so few Americans read books, instead getting their history from films and blogmobs.

The cinematic values of Stone's prior work are not even visible. The energy of "Platoon," the craft of "JFK" are gone. We have normal TeeVee movie framing here.

I think we should vote Stone out.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

Oh, boy, a film about George W. Bush, could be the new "Forrest Gump", lol. My head still hurts, because I was just banging it on the wall after I watched this film, how in the heck did this man run our country for 8 years without burning it down? Now I understand why this film was released right before election time, now I work at a movie theater and everyone who came out of the theater said they felt bad for W. and a couple of my friends who I saw the film said they also felt bad for him... how about us?! OK, before I start banging my head up against the wall again, so Oliver Stone is the critical director who decided to take on this wonderful project. The film is actually well made, Josh Brolin does a decent job of portraying our constant dumbfounded president, the story is pretty sad when you think about all the pressures he must face on a daily basis.

Based on George W. Bush's life, we go from when he was just a crazy party animal in college. Dubbed as the black sheep of the family, that his brother would be more suited as president, facing constant criticism from his father George Bush, Sr. who was also our president for a short time. We explore W.'s life with his family, his presidency, the pressure he faces, and the Iraq war. We also go into his world of having to pull himself out of his rut with his family who constantly puts him down with a country who is not exactly proud of him as well.

W. is a good film, it's well acted and put together, however, my main complaint, but I think there is a reason why, is that Oliver completely skips the election controversy we faced in 2000 as well as 9/11 which I thought was an important subject to touch. But I have a feeling why he didn't bring it up is due to how hard those times were for him and wasn't exactly sure how to go at it. Over all this is a watchable movie, but for me, it is forgettable, I don't know if it will be considered a classic down the line, but I guess we'll find out if our future kids are watching it in their history classes and asking us "what were you on when you voted for this guy?".

6/10

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.