1. McBushMaverick

   10

   Eight years of Bush is not enough! Americans like me love this movie because we demand more wars, a bigger deficit, and a president as intelligent as Bush who is buying up more private sectors than a communist regime! Those who hate this film are … Expand

   • Helpful? 0 of 0 users said Yes.
2. RyanB

   8

   Very interesting and compelling movie. Acting was very strong. Would like to have seen more on the story of his Presidency (Katrina etc) but nonetheless a good movie.… Expand

   • Helpful? 0 of 0 users said Yes.
3. StevenF

   7

   Kudos to Oliver Stone for taking on a man who was still President of the United States at the time of shooting this film, but even that aside, this is a truly compelling and often humorous telling of the pivotal moments in the life of George Dub-ya.
   W. chronicles the life of the controversial 43rd President up to the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, we see the lead up to the decision while also jumping back to his early fraternity days while he he attended Yale, his alcohol abuse and is often strained relationship with his father, former President George H.W Bush, a man who the film portrays as being very tolerant towards his son and his lifestyle choices, but isn't particularly favourable towards him running for Governor of Texas, instead trying to focus on his other son, Jeb's campaign.
   It often plays loosely with political satire and at times addresses itself in a far more serious and dramatic tone, and Josh Brolin delivers a fantastic and real portrayal of the President in question, his mannerisms, speech, body movement and even appearance are spot on.
   The film hits its stride in the private meetings between Bush and his Cabinet, where the heated discussions about the eventual invasion of Iraq between VP Dick Cheney (Richard Dreyfuss) and Secretary of State Colin Powell (Jeffrey Wright) being some the better and more intriguing scenes of the film.
   Whether the film holds true or not, it was interesting to see these thrilling encounters, encounters that Bush himself seemed to sit very much on the sidelines.
   The film does, however fast forward a bit too much throughout earlier days of his life, and perhaps not enough attention put on the political aspect of his career, it was a thoughtful and almost no-brainer to pick the pre-Iraq invasion as the setting of the film, but more could have been done to see the man inside the Oval office, with his stuttering, his mis-speaking and his infamous mannerisms given more time to breathe.
   Certainly not one of the best biopics to date, but Stone along with the charismatic and detailed capability of Josh Brolin's acting, has given the film much to talk about when the credits roll, it tries not to take sides, instead delivering and enjoyable and often informative look at the Texan who took the White House in all sorts of directions.… Expand

   • Helpful? 0 of 0 users said Yes.
4. Rea

   4

   I was hooked by the trailer and Director Oliver Stone's reputation. Both disappointed. Though the image was painstakingly crafted to show characters, there was a lack of spirit moving through it. It was basic 'ambulance chasing'..Jerry Springer material. It struck me as low level made-for-TV rather than incisive film making. About an hour into it, I wondered if someone bought off or threatened Stone to do that script, which didn't even begin to scratch the surface of the truths around that family and their politics. Brolin's portrayal was terrific, but the script was so devoid of any real meat, he didn't have enough to work with. Why were W's inner conflicts and demons displayed like dirty laundry without addressing where the dirt came from? This was like a Jerry Springer invites Geo to his show. I imagine there are compelling reasons for Stone to not go beyond painting a sort of distorted Lord's Supper casting W surrounded by his own 'disciples', but I was hoping for something that was less a shallow marionette show of exquisitely crafted puppets for more of HOW this man came to be in that office and WHY. The film was too one-dimensional for me. We are not fully described by our image/presentation--we are also described by the effects we produce, and our relationships. Stone hinted l at the relationships but didn't allow the supporting cast much range to show his reflection-effect in them. Real statements about that vs. constant harping on his mannerisms and weaknesses was the contribution I was looking for...and didn't find.… Expand

   • Helpful? 0 of 0 users said Yes.

See all 37 User Reviews