W. (2008)

Sadly Over-hyped

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

I'm not American, not well-versed in American politics and not a big fan of either political party, but I still feel that this movie grossly misrepresented George W. Bush both as a man and as a president. His presidency was riddled with controversies and difficulties, and I hoped to get an insightful explanation of his ups and downs. This movie did not deliver. It simplifies, caricatures and mocks President Bush.Josh Brolin's performance has been lauded as excellent. I thought he was okay but lacked the bravado and confidence of the real George W. Bush. James Cromwell as his father, President Bush, was much better.I understand that the point of the movie was to humanize political figures and make their motivations and flaws relatable and understandable to the general audience, but the difficulty of their decisions and the sheer amount of work and responsibility that comes with political power was overlooked.For a political drama/comedy that actually works, check out the French comic book 'Weapons of Mass Diplomacy'.

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.

Oliver Stone's W. is an incredible viewing experience, and one of the greatest biographical dramas ever made. Josh Brolin is absolutely amazing in the title role (he should have been nominated for an Oscar). James Cromwell, Elizabeth Banks, Jeffrey Wright, and especially Toby Jones, also give great performances.The film follows Bush throughout his life-troublemaker young adult and alcoholic, his decision to give up alcohol, his wanting to move out of his father's shadow, his decision to run for governor of Texas, and finally, his run for the presidency and decision to invade Iraq.The acting is good (even Thandie Newton, granted she overdoes it but her acting is still good), the script is incredible, and the film itself is a masterpiece. Watch this film! You will NOT be disappointed.4 out of 4

Just like artists at theme parks draw exaggerated portraits, this film offers a caricature of George W Bush at best. Many scenes are designed to paint a picture of Bush in a negative light with obvious intentions. A few SPOILER examples: Close up of W talking with his mouth full of food, showing W getting briefly lost on familiar land, conversation with Cheney over lunch where he takes lettuce out of his sand which based on hypothetical discussion- showing the deep persuasion Bush was supposedly under. Did these things really happen? They all seemed artificially constructed to give false credit to ideas of the caricature this film is selling of W.Political agenda of the film aside--- It was entertaining to watch. Though I disagree strongly with Josh Brolin's personal and political opinions, I do think he did well to capture several of the mannerisms of W as well as his accent and vocal delivery. Overall, i was glad that the movie didn't focus 100% on attacking the character of W, even if it did attempt to belittle him and make him appear foolish.