W. (2008)

Featured Audience Ratings

• Phil H

  
  Very interesting and insightful movie which flips back from W's youthful days to his days in the White House, its amusing in places and lets you in on all sorts of area's of W's life. Wether its all true is another matter, from his on off relationship with his father to… More
  Very interesting and insightful movie which flips back from W's youthful days to his days in the White House, its amusing in places and lets you in on all sorts of area's of W's life. Wether its all true is another matter, from his on off relationship with his father to his boozeful youth and to his almost inept controlling of the White House, I was always thinkin 'is this all really accurate?' I'm sure some is and some is artistic license, buts its still good. The cast is excellent as you would expect for a bio of the president, Brolin does very well as W and really makes you believe he's just a regular joe born with a silver spoon in his mouth haha but I guess that he is. Very good and well made but like all bio's its abit boring in places and as I'm not into politics that much its alittle hard to follow in other places, but its still very good, it actually makes you kinda like W in the end :)

• Alexander D

  
  It's very rare that I hear poor feedback with regards to a film by director Oliver Stone. Several months ago, I got tired of hearing all this, so I went and watched his 1991 political drama JFK, which is now one of my favorite films. After spending what seemed like forever… More
  It's very rare that I hear poor feedback with regards to a film by director Oliver Stone. Several months ago, I got tired of hearing all this, so I went and watched his 1991 political drama JFK, which is now one of my favorite films. After spending what seemed like forever trying to get my hands on another Stone film, I finally got a chance to see W., a film which now makes me skeptical about Stone. This makes me believe that he must have either worshiped or loathed Bush; this film was released before Bush was even out of office. Full Review: http://wp.me/p1Urcx-z5

• Nadira I

  
  A wonderful biographical piece. Whether you hate or love Bush,he has a lot of impact in the world we live in today. The move give us some interesting insight to the Bush's precidency and how he reach it. Josh Brolin is brilliant to play Bush Jr. The story is delivered to the… More
  A wonderful biographical piece. Whether you hate or love Bush,he has a lot of impact in the world we live in today. The move give us some interesting insight to the Bush's precidency and how he reach it. Josh Brolin is brilliant to play Bush Jr. The story is delivered to the audience in strange way, but great. It is divided to parts before he become president and when he's the president. I waited for the second election, but I don't think they are filming that. Some important part of Bush precidency might be left out due to the early release. But it is very enganging one.

• Jeff "

  
  For years, I've always took Oliver Stone's films to be mediocre, his last good film was Natural Born Killers. After that, his career was a constant string of mediocre films. But W. is a better film than what his recent films have been. This is one of Oliver Stone better… More
  For years, I've always took Oliver Stone's films to be mediocre, his last good film was Natural Born Killers. After that, his career was a constant string of mediocre films. But W. is a better film than what his recent films have been. This is one of Oliver Stone better films in recent memory as Alexander and World Trade Center weren't good. But in W. Stone paints a unique portrait of one of the most controversial in recent memory. Josh Brolin delivers a strong performance as George Bush, and in the film he really does look and act like him. The film follows the rise of George Bush from University to his run for Governor to his presidency. The thing that surprises me the most about the film is the fact that this was released while Bush was in office. The film has a good dose of drama and comedy, as the film tends to show the ineptitude of George Bush. The cast alongside Josh Brolin is well picked and give great performances especially James Cromwell who gives a great performance as Bush senior. W. is Oliver Stone's best film since Natural Born Killers. Everything from the casting and story is good, but this is not a film for everyone because it kinda drags on at times and it's slow. But to those want a personal look into this politicians life, then give W. a viewing. W. is a near flawless portrait of George Bush, not perfect of course but it gives you a look at his life and his presidential legacy, as much as George Bush was hated by the general public, he has made an impact in politics.

• Thomas J

  
  Even I do not feel this movie was very accurate and I in no way support George W. Bush. This movie should be watched the same way you rely on Wikipedia for information - check other sources! A big disappointment from Oliver Stone trying to be political more so than tell a story on… More
  Even I do not feel this movie was very accurate and I in no way support George W. Bush. This movie should be watched the same way you rely on Wikipedia for information - check other sources! A big disappointment from Oliver Stone trying to be political more so than tell a story on exaggerated truths.

• Chris W

  
  I'm really conflicted about this movie, specifically what rating to give it. On one hand, it's an interesting movie, and I applaud Stone for having the balls to release it while Bush was still in office. On the other hand, there are a lot of issues going on. For one thing,… More
  I'm really conflicted about this movie, specifically what rating to give it. On one hand, it's an interesting movie, and I applaud Stone for having the balls to release it while Bush was still in office. On the other hand, there are a lot of issues going on. For one thing, maybe this film was released too early. It covers only a small portion of Bush's presidency, leaving a lot of important stuff out. It also seems confused about what it is trying to be, and the point it's trying to make. The one thing that it definitely makes clear, is that Bush has "daddy issues". That seems to be Stone's thesis, and he is mostly successful with it. However, the apporach being taken is a mess. The narrative and the tone are all over the place, the film is very selective with what episodes in time it features, and, even with the apparent pyshoanalytical approach, the film still feels a little pointless. It doesn't help that the pacing needs a lot of work as well. It feels longer than it is, and at 129 minutes, this is not good. Like I said though, the subject matter is interesting, and some of what is featured is rather fascinating. It would have been nice to see a balance between family stuff and political stuff though. The performances are terrific, and the casting is quite good, even though some of the actors' resemblances are a little spotty. They make up for it with their acting though. I give this film a mild recommendation, if only for the acting. I should give this film a 3, due to all of the flaws, but I liked it enough to feel comfortable giving it something higher. 3.5 is too much, but It'll have to do since there is no option for 3.25. I really want to know what happened to the old Oliver Stone. I'm not saying tihis film wasn't important enough to be made, but I really question the way it was handled. Stone used to be a master at sharp, insightful, and daring cinematic gems. This has very little bite or drive, and, even though I am not a fan of Bush, I'm glad this film wasn't a total condemnation of him. Still, it needs work.

• paul s

  
  Just as I'm not sure what to think about the subject matter, I'm just as conflicted about this film, which is riviting in places (especially the scenes concerning policy and the Iraq mess), but mundane and pedestrian in others. Stone tries to be evenhanded here, the net… More
  Just as I'm not sure what to think about the subject matter, I'm just as conflicted about this film, which is riviting in places (especially the scenes concerning policy and the Iraq mess), but mundane and pedestrian in others. Stone tries to be evenhanded here, the net result is a portrayal of W. as an almost savant - smart (as compared to intelligent), with a certain way with people (remember, just after 911 he had a 80% approval rating - almost unprecedented). Stone has Brolin (who really does a fine job with some of W.'s ticks) coming off as too trusting of those "in the know" around him - from the slimey Cheney (brilliantly portrayed by Richard Dreyfuss), to the ultimate yes man, Condolezza Rice. It seems he was manipulated by those in power around him, giving him, if not mis-information, then not ALL the information; so W.'s decisions were skewed. Through this portrayal I was able to glean a bit of how a man could begin to believe in devine providence - not saying that to do so is right or wrong - but as an abstract study, I found it fascinating. I also found James Cromwell's portrayal of Bush senior to be equally fascinating, showing surprising depth for a "minor" charactor; although the "daddy didn't give affection" (sorry Veder) angle was a bit too trite and commonplace. I also wondered about the scene portraying Bush senior taking the initiative in not persuing Saddam back into Iraq after Desert Storm - my memory of those events had him backing down against his will due to United Nations pressure - for him to do it on his own.... oops, what a mistake; could have saved a whole lot of grief 10 years later. For this film the final analysis goes like this: a flawed film about a flawed man, running a country with a flawed system.

• Michael G

  
  I was as disappointed with W. as I was in 2004 with the US for reelecting Bush. W. doesn't come across as a movie as a bunch of vignettes. I'm no fan of George W. Bush but all that aside, but I know a dull, lifeless and uninspiring movie when I see it. Oliver Stone cements… More
  I was as disappointed with W. as I was in 2004 with the US for reelecting Bush. W. doesn't come across as a movie as a bunch of vignettes. I'm no fan of George W. Bush but all that aside, but I know a dull, lifeless and uninspiring movie when I see it. Oliver Stone cements his reputation as a nutless wonder with a completely boring script that makes World Trade Center look great. Like World Trade Center, W. is a fantastic subject that Stone by reputation should easily hit a home run with--instead he shoves it down his pants and sings nursery rhymes before going into an epileptic seizure. Josh Brolin does okay as Bush but everyone else seems to be doing bad celebrity impressions (I wanted to club Thandie Newton to death with a Cadillac for her obnoxious performance as Condoleezza Rice) that aren't fit for the worst Saturday Night Live skits. There is no reason in hell you need to go out of your way to see W.

• Conner R

  
  Nothing terribly memorable in this besides Josh Brolin's total commitment to his role of Bush. He had him down to the way he walks, which was truly amazing to see. The rest of the movie is enjoyable, but falls under the same spell of most Oliver Stone movies. What is so important… More
  Nothing terribly memorable in this besides Josh Brolin's total commitment to his role of Bush. He had him down to the way he walks, which was truly amazing to see. The rest of the movie is enjoyable, but falls under the same spell of most Oliver Stone movies. What is so important that needs to be expressed? I don't think anyone working on this movie had an idea.

• Gordon A

  
  Enjoyable, interesting journey through W's life which tries to explain his character (flaws) without overtly demonising him. Brolin inhabits the role, ably supported by a raft of fine performances.

• Dean L

  
  Honestly, I am not sure where the objections to this film are coming from unless people simply wanted to see Bush skewered. For that, turn to Michael Moore. Stone, while he has really blasted some in his films, takes a more toned down approach in this movie, but it is no less… More
  Honestly, I am not sure where the objections to this film are coming from unless people simply wanted to see Bush skewered. For that, turn to Michael Moore. Stone, while he has really blasted some in his films, takes a more toned down approach in this movie, but it is no less moving. The only surprising thing for me is that I almost ended up feeling sorry for "Dubya" instead of simply the disgust I went in with. Here is the story of a layabout who has a Father who has no faith in him and tells him point blank that he favors his brother Jeb. Georgie Jr. lets the family down over and over again as the alcoholic frat boy who cannot hold down a job to save his life and is constantly bailed out by his Father. Enter...God. Reborn and reformed Bush 'Light' goes forth and makes it just far enough to stain his family's name forever. Here we see a man who is manipulated by others (The Emperor...excuse me-Dick Cheney) and molded by Karl Rove. All objections are met with an "I am the boss" attitude from Bush, but we get to see who is actually running the show and every show ends with a prayer. The performances were fantastic especially Josh Brolin who did an outstanding job of playing the intellectually and emotionally stunted George W. I found this to be a fascinating watch and in no way sensationalistic. Most of these facts have been verified through interview, documentary or books. If you are looking for a total slam of this right wing, homophobic, Bible-thumping, needy little boy then this film is not it. If you want a fair appraisal of what happened and how it all began this movie is an excellent depiction.

• Jose Z

  
  W is a very good movie about the life of ex-president George W. Bush. Directed by Oliver Stone, he manages to give us a very interesting view of this unique person love by some, hated by many more. The story is good and the plot is ok but the movie trends to fall into some slumps… More
  W is a very good movie about the life of ex-president George W. Bush. Directed by Oliver Stone, he manages to give us a very interesting view of this unique person love by some, hated by many more. The story is good and the plot is ok but the movie trends to fall into some slumps causing it to be a little tiresome specially on the second half of the movie. The cast is good, the portrayal of every character is excellent, some of them better than others but still good. Josh brolin as George W. Bush is great, Thandie Newton as Condoleezza Rice excellent, Jeffrey right as Colin Powell great and James Cromwell as George H. W. Bush very convincing. In conclusion, W is a movie worth to see, its pretty enjoyable and recommendable.

• James A

  
  Nothing new is told in this extra long Saturday Night Live skit.

• Tim S

  
  Oliver Stone's W. (pronounced dub-ya) is perhaps one of the most interesting and fascinating movies to come along in a while. A slightly dramatized reality of the Bush dynasty, this film certainly DOES NOT put the man through the ringer, but rather depicts a flawed man who went… More
  Oliver Stone's W. (pronounced dub-ya) is perhaps one of the most interesting and fascinating movies to come along in a while. A slightly dramatized reality of the Bush dynasty, this film certainly DOES NOT put the man through the ringer, but rather depicts a flawed man who went on to do things that he couldn't possibly comprehend. Most people will watch this film with their own personal version of George W. Bush in their minds...a mostly negative version. I think what Stone really manages to portray here is the man as is, without real sympathies or skewed views on his politics or even him personally. Some might disagree with me on that, but I really felt that watching the movie. First of all, Josh Brolin is electrifying, as one would expect. His take on W. is sublime. A true caricature of the then President of the United States, his take is particularly real and always fresh, never tiresome. Layer upon layer is revealed of his past and Brolin never tires us with boring impressions. He simply portrays a true-to-life character efficiently and with relative ease. The rest of the cast does very well, most notably Ellyn Burstyn as Barbara Bush and Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney. The story itself holds true to that Godather Part II type of storytelling. The cuts between the past and the present are all pretty seamless and the story is very much grounded in reality (with a bit of dramatization of course). The film's look is certainly not the look of an Oliver Stone picture, and thank goodness because a story of this type doesn't need any real extreme style to get itself told to an audience. There is actually very little score in the film, and what is there is mostly quiet and unnoticeable. The soundtrack itself is lively and full of mostly 50's and 70's rock tunes, with a sprinkle of folk songs here and there. I found it more effective than the creeping score itself. As interesting as the film is, however, the editing could have used a few tweeks to get it more polished and streamlined because it does tend to drag in some places. I rented this on BD, and noticed a considerable amount of grain, particularly in the darker scenes. So it wasn't shot digitally which is no big deal. The film looks nice to me. If you get the chance to do so, watch all of the documentaries and listen to the audio commentary included with both the dvd and BD versions. They offer more insight into the film and the events surrounding it. This movie certainly won't be for everybody. There is no big spectacle, only storytelling itself. If that isn't your cup of tea, I don't recommend it. I found it fascinating and would probably watch it again (I watched the film, the documentaries and the commentary all in one go, which I rarely do). It offers new insight into a man most of the world would rather just hate rather than understand.

• Stella D

  
  the film is weak. stone has really lost his edge. there was a time when good or bad, at least he was interesting. he can't seem to decide where he wants to go with this. there's nothing really new here. a huge missed opportunity. josh brolin is amazing and i can't… More
  the film is weak. stone has really lost his edge. there was a time when good or bad, at least he was interesting. he can't seem to decide where he wants to go with this. there's nothing really new here. a huge missed opportunity. josh brolin is amazing and i can't wait to see what he does next. goodbye w...

• Mark H

  
  Biopic of then current president George W. Bush, traces his rise from partying fraternity pledge to commander in chief. Director Oliver Stone's point of view is much more sympathetic than expected. Unfortunately, <B>that</B> is the biggest surprise in this dull… More
  Biopic of then current president George W. Bush, traces his rise from partying fraternity pledge to commander in chief. Director Oliver Stone's point of view is much more sympathetic than expected. Unfortunately, <B>that</B> is the biggest surprise in this dull document of the 43rd president. Uninteresting, superficial, and ultimately boring, this political drama fails as both factual biography and as entertainment.

• Lenny M

  
  Great performance by Brolin and Banks, but overall the movie kind of dragged. It was funny tho and I'm not sure if the film is supposed to be satirical or an attempt to be a truthful biopic. Maybe a little bit of both, not a bad effort. Stone really has bad timing with his… More
  Great performance by Brolin and Banks, but overall the movie kind of dragged. It was funny tho and I'm not sure if the film is supposed to be satirical or an attempt to be a truthful biopic. Maybe a little bit of both, not a bad effort. Stone really has bad timing with his film release dates. Way too early for the 9/11 film, way too early for a Bush film. Come on man. Make another 'Nam movie.

• Al S

  
  Josh Brolin gives a brilliant and unforgettable performance, portraying an American president. Brolin shines with his incrediable movie star performance, showing is he's a force to be reckoned with. A brave, risky, intelligent, excellent and rather sympathetic portrait of the one… More
  Josh Brolin gives a brilliant and unforgettable performance, portraying an American president. Brolin shines with his incrediable movie star performance, showing is he's a force to be reckoned with. A brave, risky, intelligent, excellent and rather sympathetic portrait of the one of the most controversial figures in recent memory. Elizabeth Banks is excellent. James Cromwell is fantastic. An outstanding cast of top notch actors. Ioan Gruffudd, Richard Dreyfuss, Scott Glenn, Jeffrey Wright, Toby Jones, Thandie Newton and Ellen Burstyn are all teriffic. A powerful, wickedly funny and extroadinary movie that grabs your attention. It's very entertaining, surprisingly effectionate and moving. A rather sympothedic point of view. Director, Oliver Stone always seems to take chances with these risky projects but manages to deliver in a very promising way. Even when it's fictional, political or non-fictional. A masterpice.

• Emile T

  
  It really looks like Stone didn't take all of his time to give the film what it could have had. Seems like he really wanted the film out for the few last weeks of Bush's presidency. <br/>But then again, I understand, because the film really succeed to make us realize… More
  It really looks like Stone didn't take all of his time to give the film what it could have had. Seems like he really wanted the film out for the few last weeks of Bush's presidency. <br/>But then again, I understand, because the film really succeed to make us realize that, finally, the most powerful man on earth is actually a stupid asshole... <br/>Yeah, who didn't know that ? <br/>Oliver Stone still has the touch to make a strong movie, directing strong actors. <br/>Josh Brolin is really great, and yet, could have been better. <br/> <br/>Disappointing. <br/>Too early. <br/>But to watch, and everybody should find something to really appreciate in W. .

• Chris G

  
  History tends to be kinder to presidents the further ahead we go. Compare the way people felt about Nixon in 1977 as opposed to a decade and a half later at his death. It amazed me how people were coming forward and praising this man who was the poster boy for evil politicians in the… More
  History tends to be kinder to presidents the further ahead we go. Compare the way people felt about Nixon in 1977 as opposed to a decade and a half later at his death. It amazed me how people were coming forward and praising this man who was the poster boy for evil politicians in the 1970's. History had softened itself. I wasn't surprised that Oliver Stone was going to do a film on George W. Bush. Stone loves history even if he butchers it at times- JFK and Nixon being two prime examples. I was surprised on the timing. Shot in the last year of his Presidency and released a month before the 2008 elections I figured it would be an 2009 release to have a little aftermath attached to it. W. is a story that jumps around from past to present with the present being focused on the invasion of Iraq. You see how the back door dealings may have gone on (may being the operative term. I'm not sure how much is fact and how much is a writers fantasy). You also gets to see Dubya's fall and fall and fall, and rise until he sees himself landing in his fathers chair in the White House. All the players are here as it clicks its way to "Mission Accomplished". John Brolin continues his hell of a couple years playing Bush 43 to the point that you forget that you're watching a movie- you think it's CNN or the History Channel. What struck me about the film is that he plays Bush as a guy that wants to do the right thing and protect America. The antagonist is actually Dick Cheney, played by Richard Dreyfuss in one of his best roles in decades. He has swagger and he nails the facial expressions to the point that you just feel unclean watching him. These are the two main acting standouts, but some other powerful performances come from Jeffrey Wright (Colin Powell), Elizabeth Banks (Laura Bush), James Cromwell (George H.W. Bush), and Thandie Newton (Condoleeza Rice in an almost creepy portrayal). Two things struck me about W. The first was that this wasn't a typical Oliver Stone film with a bunch of different films stocks switching from black and white to color and hard angles. It's Stone, but it's a more down to earth portrayal, mainly because most of us remember the Saddam statue coming down. The second was the fact that Stone portrays Bush as the victim to Cheney's obsession with a middle eastern oil empire. It seems as though Bush is just wanting to do what's best for the people and depends on his cabinet for support and fails to get it or is manipulated to their own ends. I don't know how accurate it is, but you come away not being quite as mad at Bush 43 for what he did, though you feel angry because he was easily led astray. It's hard to say what kind of time capsule W. will be or how history will actually view the 43rd President. I see the tone lightening up a few decades from now, depending on what the next few presidents get accomplished. Perhaps Stone has a trilogy planned with this first act being how we made our mess and the remaining acts on how we cleaned it up are TBD.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings