IMDb user comments for
W. (2008) More at IMDb Pro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 14:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

139 comments in total

---

206 out of 325 people found the following comment useful :-
A Fair And Balanced Portrait of a... Fairly Simple Man, 12 October 2008

Author: doubleosix from Hollywood

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

This is a very good movie, but not the classic it wants to be. It's funny and tragic, although not too informative if you've read a newspaper with any regularity over the last eight years. In short, there are no surprises.

Josh Brolin gives an excellent performance as W., and the supporting cast is generally superb, although Jeffrey Wright, Richard Dreyfuss, and James Cromwell particularly stand out. Thandie Newton is hysterically funny as Condie Rice, but it's an SNL-type parody, not an emotionally honest performance.

The film is obviously meticulously researched and carefully considered, which is why the sequences that are clearly either utter conjecture or merely political finger-pointing stand out by a mile.

Bush -- whom I personally despise for his offensive combination of idiocy and self-righteousness -- is treated with fairness and sensitivity. The effort here is obviously to fashion him as a tragic hero; a man who genuinely wants to do good but simply doesn't grasp how hard that is, especially when surrounded by the likes of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney (who is, very specifically, the villain of the piece, as he is in life). And it generally works. I found myself feeling bad for the poor guy.

However, while trying to make W. a sympathetic character, Stone pushes his theme -- "It Was All To Prove Himself To Daddy" way too far. He overplays his hand, including a mood-breaking dream sequence near the end. There simply has to be more to George W. Bush than that..... doesn't there? The film ultimately plays much, much better when Stone relies on actual transcripts and information gathered by experienced reporters, and those sequences, whether they are cabinet meetings, press conferences, or more personal moments, snap and zing.

---

116 out of 189 people found the following comment useful :-
Only in America., 17 October 2008

Author: M. J Arocena from New Zealand

That's what great artists do. They share their P.O.V with the rest of the world. There is no judgment involved, not really. Just a vision of the world through his own heart and soul. You may or may not agree with his vision but his artistic honesty is undeniable. The George W Bush of Oliver Stone is not a bad guy just an utterly incomplete man with too much power. Junior seems to be immune to guilt and as horrific a trait that is for the leader of the free world it also makes him profoundly human. The question is, this guy is the President of the United States a country who won the admiration of the world through deeds not words. Through compassion and inspiration, the acceptable, even, desirable face of capitalism. The last 8 years have damaged the face of America around the world just because the man a the helm didn't have any talent for it. Nothing more sinister than that but just as dangerous. Josh Brolin is superb not looking like the real man the illusion, at times, was total. Richard Dreyfuss was born to play the "vice" he is eerily perfect. The Condy Rice of Thandie Newton is as enigmatic as the real Condy Rice. As I'm writing this a thought crossed my mind. Only in America could be a film like W. be financed and distributed in a Country where the subject is still the sitting president. By showing us his emotional and intellectual P.O.V Oliver Stone has shown to the world one more time that the United States of America is still ahead of the rest of the world precisely because of this. The sacred respect for the first amendment. You're right Mr Stone, America is great.

---

109 out of 179 people found the following comment useful :-
Don't Misunderestimate this Film, 17 October 2008

Author: gryffindor249 from United States

Lefties expecting a hatchet-job will be as disappointed as Righties expecting a hatchet-job. Demonstrating decency and restraint far beyond what his subject is deserving of, Oliver Stone demonstrates rare wisdom and the hindsight of someone trying to understand this period of history from a standpoint of decades in the future. He creates a film that swings wildly between comedy and tragedy, tragi-comedy and comic tragedy in his portrait of a man who though born to privilege, needs to have greatness thrust upon him-and is not up to the task he seeks. It is , and I do not use this term lightly: Shakespearean.

Josh Brolin's Oscar-worthy performance manages two amazing feats: 1) He makes you forgot you are watching Josh Brolin as he portrays W. over a 40-year period and 2) He makes even a left-leaner like myself forget how much one may hate George W. Bush. I just wanted to yell at the screen ala Rocky Horror, "You seem to be a nice guy who enjoys people...stay with baseball!!!" All of the supporting cast of characters in the Bush Dynasty are handled with dignity and respect (particularly James Cromwell as Bush the First), and Stone is decent enough to leave the Bush Twins out of it. Jeffrey Wright might be up for a Best Supporting Actor nod for his thoughtful and restrained portrayal of Colin Powell.

I am racking my brain trying to remember when recent history was made into such a vital film; this is the antithesis to a quickie made-for-TV movie about Amy Fischer and the like.

---

63 out of 100 people found the following comment useful :-
Waiting for the final ball to drop..., 18 October 2008

Author: David H. Schleicher from New Jersey, USA

With his "in the moment" biopic "W." the normally volatile Oliver Stone wisely saves his judgments for history when hindsight will be 20/20. Achingly subdued and slightly satirical, Stone plays it straight and to the bone. Here he presents us with the early years of our current lame duck president, showing Dubya rushing a frat-house at Yale, meeting Laura at a barbecue, living in the shadow of his father and brother, his troubles holding down a job, his failed bid to become baseball commissioner, and his defining moment when he gives up drinking and becomes born-again. All of which leads us to his first term and the Iraq War quagmire, where Dubya honest-to-goodness truly believes "God" wanted him to become president and that Iraq did have those rascally WMD.

In the lead role, Josh Brolin is an endearingly bumble-headed Dubya, and Stone presents him as a simple-minded man with good intentions who has been crippled by his "daddy issues" and has surrounded himself with the most cynical, self-serving, and corrupt administration in modern American history. The supporting cast is a hoot, with highlights including Thandie Newton eliciting big laughs just with her facial expressions as a wicked and moronically faithful Condi Rice, Elizabeth Banks giving a winning portrayal of Laura Bush, and Richard Dreyfuss playing Cheney as the most insipid megalomaniac American politics has ever seen.

Stone accomplishes three major coups here that should surprise those who expected a one-sided liberal smear job. First, he humanizes George W. Bush. The director does this with savvy editing showing the back-story of why Dubya does the things he does (i.e. why he uses nicknames for everyone or why running three miles every day is so important to him), and then juxtaposing that with the inane decisions he has made as president. By utilizing actual transcripts from press conferences, news coverage, and meetings, Stone and scribe Stanley Weiser allow Bush and his administration to speak for themselves, and it's both comically cathartic and occasionally frightening to see it dramatized so well. Second, he redeems the presidency of George "Poppy" Bush (a somewhat miscast but still effective James Cromwell) by showing what a restrained and thoughtful Commander in Chief he was compared to his naive and too-eager-to-please son. Thirdly, he redeems the legacy of Colin Powell (a surprisingly good Jeffrey Wright), who is shown here as the only person in the administration with any hindsight or foresight, and the only sane voice who questioned the motives for entering Iraq, though he eventually caved in and played along. His "f-you" to Cheney towards the film's final act is priceless.

As the actual presidency still has a few months to go at the time of the film's release, Stone's biopic was never written a true ending, leaving us with a symbolic image of Dubya looking up to the sky in center field waiting to catch a ball that will never drop. It may be another twenty years before we can pass any accurate judgment on Dubya's legacy, and likewise, Stone's film will have to wait. It's going to be a long time before anyone catches all those balls George W. Bush's administration threw up in the air.

---

80 out of 134 people found the following comment useful :-
Enjoyable, Provocative - Like Him or Not, W. is Us, 15 October 2008

Author: beckwith10 from United States

Saw W in a preview last night and overall found it engaging, provocative and, frankly, a bit eerie. Of course, because Mr. Bush is still in office, watching re-enactments of critical moments in his administration, still fresh in our memory, has a quality of watching an SNL spoof; one is always aware one is watching actors, and very good ones at that, play the parts of principal figures on the Bush team, leaving a viewer continually comparing the actors' portrayals, make-up, etc, with the real life figures we know from the news. In other words, the film never completely transcends the spectacle of its simulation to feel seamlessly naturalistic. This is hardly a fault of the film necessarily, only the curious timing of its making and release here in the waning months of the Bush administration. (Had the film been made several years from now, no doubt audiences would bring a different. more relaxed, attentiveness to it.) I won't spell out my conclusions on Stone's version of Bush - that for you to discover - however, I will say it is fully appropriate we allow our private and public preconceptions of Bush the man to be challenged and examined. There is more to be said about the man than merely we like or dislike him. After all, we put him in office for eight years, and that says a great deal about us as a nation.

---

81 out of 142 people found the following comment useful :-
Great Acting, Very Entertaining Film, 16 October 2008

Author: Kaddie from United States

I had a chance to see this film on Wednesday and I loved it !!! I'm not a Bush fan or supporter, however what I loved most about it is that it isn't a Bush-hate fest. Rather, it was a successful attempt to show Bush as simply a man with several human foibles, many of which just happen to be hilarious.

What makes the movie so amusing is that Stone miraculously finds a way for you to not laugh at Bush the man. Rather, one laughs at the improbability of the entire Bush saga.

Against that backdrop is the importance of the fine performances given by the actors.

Some actors, like Banks as Laura Bush, give performances that are good but that are altogether too predictable and uninspired.

On the other hand, Brolin nails his performance as he turns Bush from a doofus to a poor schmuck that finds out too late that he's in over his head.

Newton is the OTHER BRIALLIANT performance in the film. Although, some critics apparently wanted the average TV-Movie-muck type of performance where the actress finds the "lighter side" of the real life person, Newton and Stone smartly resist that trite nonsense.

Newton transcends her own glamorous persona and gives a hard-as-nails imitation of Rice as a person that is smart enough to understand and follow those that actually have the power in the Bush White House as she helps them manipulate Bush to acquiesce to their desires.

Newton's performance successfully evokes images of the Rice that recently went to Russia and had the nerve to coolly and robotically lecture Putin on why it's OK for the U.S. to travel half the globe to punish those who kill Americans, but it's not OK for Russia to go over its border to punish those that kill Russian citizens.

It's one of the gutsier performances all year by anyone, male or female, and it really helps make the movie great.

As I stated at the beginning W. is great, and we finally get a movie that appeals to those of us that don't want to waste $10 bucks on a film about a Hollywood Chihuahua.

---

36 out of 53 people found the following comment useful :-
A Few Pieces Of An Historical Puzzle, 21 October 2008

Author: fanaticusanonymous from Italy

Oliver Stone and Josh Brolin manage the impossible by giving a present reality a sort of farcical look. Frightening to see how easily the farce and the reality merge and marry in the most natural way. Brolin, eats his way into history. The most mediocre of men drowning in a pool of his own making and in a way, drowning all of us with him. But, somehow, neither Stone nor Broli describe a monster. On the contrary, here the monstrosity is in our hands. The man was voted (sort of) twice. Richard Dreyfuss IS Dick Cheney. A terrifying truthful performance. Thandie Newton is the one really out there. She plays her "yes woman" like Talia Shire in the Godfather III. Very bizarre, but fun. So, the biggest surprise is that Stone didn't come with a hatchet but with a magnifying glass. Seeing what we already knew but a bit larger made for a riveting evening at the movies.

---

17 out of 19 people found the following comment useful :-
Uncomfortable, 27 October 2008

Author: robertgrimm-1 from United States

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.

---

28 out of 44 people found the following comment useful :-
god help us all, 18 October 2008

Author: nrafei from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I truly enjoyed watching this movie, yet I can say it is not what I was expecting from Oliver Stone. President Bush ratings are very low right now, this movie actually will help his ratings not hurt them. It shows the president as a simple, cool, truly nice dude who is ill qualified to manage a country. The kind of guy you would expect to see at any Frat party, focused on booze, girls and having a good time. Even as a born again baptist, his focused shifted away from booze but did not make him a shrewed leader. The movie never explained how Bush made the transformation from a lost young man, in and out of jobs, barely passing school, a C student, to the Governor of Texas and the president of the United States. I would say he is a lot like Sarah Palin. What bothers me, is how we let people like W lead the world superpower just because they are nice and we can relate to them. I would want to hang out with this guys to have a good time, but I would not trust him to run any operation that requires high level of intelligence and sophistication. I guess it explains why we are stuck in a trillion dollar war with no good end in sight or positive return on our investment. It also would explain why we lost the respect of other nations. If I want to use the baseball analogies, voting Bush president is like the owner of a baseball team making his son the Ace pitcher because he is his son and he is a nice guy. Never mind the fact he is the worst pitcher in the league. No wonder why we are losing games. I think next time we should focus on having a pitcher who can actually pitch. A president who can actually lead, inspire, unite.

---

39 out of 70 people found the following comment useful :-
Less about his presidency than about how he got there, 18 October 2008

Author: Fargoisgreatmovie from Canada

Enter the theatre with the wrong expectations and you will be disappointed. I was excited to see the movie because I thought it would be a chronicle of George W Bush's presidency (2001-2008) as well as a biography of his life before assuming office. Unfortunately, the movie does not extend past 2003 and most of the screen time is given to his earlier life and his love/hate relationship with his father. Easily the most interesting scenes in the movie are the ones with him and his Cabinet. One significant flaw in the movie is the casting, particularly the ones for Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and George Bush Sr., who either do not have the proper voice (the former two) or bear any physical resemblance (the latter). Josh Brolin's performance in this movie is one of the best things about this movie and he should deserve an Oscar nod as he should have gotten for his outstanding performance in the Coen Brother's masterpiece No Country For Old Men. This movie could have been better had Stone waited for the real Bush to complete his presidency and then painted a complete portrait of his Presidency instead of just the first 3 years and if he had changed some of the cast around. The father-son relationship is interesting but becomes redundant. The writing, acting and craftsmanship are impressive, however. 8 out of 10.

---

---

Page 1 of 14:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot synopsis	Ratings	External reviews
Parents Guide	Official site	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user comments	Your vote history