|
Showing reviews from 1 to 50 (total: 87)
|
|
 |
What a great movie! Bush is an idiot and it's great to see the spotlight on his whole life, also check out Will Ferrells HBO comedy special you welcome America, it's GREAT!
8/10
9.9.2009 -
michjulien@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
Nice interpretation showing the general expectation level for an American President. Other than that, it's not even trying to dig an inch deep to understand the structure of who/what controls things in Washington. For Oliver Stone, very poor!
5/10
5.23.2009 -
lnpaul@ - age: 26-35
I really liked this movie. I thought Josh Brolin was fantastic. The accent and character may have been a bit over caricatural (especially for condoleezza rice played by Thandie Newton) The movie itself works on several level and although there is no such thing as the truth in hollywood or the media at large, I liked knowing a little more about this man's life.
8/10
2.1.2009 -
sacoca_@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
Entertaining. Oliver Stone Exaggerated the characters stupidity. Funny to watch, especially if you don't like Bush.
7/10
1.4.2009 -
yasmineamyotte@ - age: 26-35
The worst movie I have ever seen. Very very disappointing movie. I would like to give it -1 instead of 1.
1/10
12.22.2008 -
kelo@ - age: 36-49
Excellent Movie. This movie is not a blame game thing but shows the facts so that we can decide ourselves. An excellent attempt to store history.
9/10
12.3.2008 -
nadim_zafar@ - age: 36-49
Much better than I expected. A very human story about a very imperfect man. You will shake your head at his grave incompetence- and at the tragic mess it led to, while somehow also feeling sorry for him. Oliver Stone handled his subject beautifully, and Josh Brolin delivered an amazing performance.
9/10
11.29.2008 -
coocoosnest78@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
Very interesting film, the subject of which is, arguably, the greatest "watershed" president since FDR -- the man who launched the first War of Nuclear Non-Proliferation. The film's treatment of this, which is its primary focus, is a bit simplistic. Bush did not hang his Casus Belli on the actual existence of WMD, but on Saddam's capability -- in the form of a sophisticated workforce with long experience in industrial-scale WMD development -- to resume development and production on short notice. Bush's biggest mistake was to get drawn into feeling he had to "prove" there were actual WMDs in Iraq. But was this really a mistake, or was it just a natural part of attempting to legitimize toppling Saddam by involving international partners? Ironically, in trying to avoid charges of unilateralism, Bush ensured that most of the world could stay out of the invasion on the grounds that he had failed to prove Saddam had actual WMDs. When it came down to it, he decided that ridding the world (i.e., America) of an intolerable threat was more important than avoiding being accused of unilateralism. Congratulations to Oliver Stone for taking on such a controversial and important subject.
7/10
11.24.2008 -
steve,aplin@ - age: 36-49
Real Bush is way better then movie Bush... Do not rust to see it... Are better movies out there... wait to rent...
6/10
11.20.2008 -
pegas007@ - age: 36-49
People are being hard on this film. What were they expecting? A surprise ending? A different plot. Well casted and still an interesting story that allows us to see this person, who will have great historical importance, came to power... only in America! Quite an enjoyable film.
7/10
11.14.2008 -
clchsa@ - age: 36-49
Brolin was absolutely breath taking. He is now my 6th favorite actor. (of course colin ferrel is number one) I will see this movie 10 times in the theatre I liked it so much.
10/10
11.14.2008 -
ahoile_07@ - age: 50+
It's an OK movie that provides some insght into Bush's "mind". Some points could have been better explored to make for a more interesting story telling. Overall, a little dissapointing consideting that it was an Oliver Stone film.
6/10
11.13.2008 -
sutheat@ - age: 36-49
W. does not live up to Oliver Stone's usual standards. It's an interesting look into Bush's life, but I spent more time wondering if the content was fact or fiction than actually following the story. Wait until it comes out on video to see it.
5/10
11.11.2008 -
whodat@ - age: 36-49
I didn't think I would enjoy this movie. And now I find myself seeing it again. It is excellent - after all politicians make decisions that impact our lives greatly. Great to see what goes on behind the scenes - even if we've read about it. Good reminder of why we're in the shape we're in.
9/10
11.9.2008 -
dcosmob@ - age: 50+
| | | | |
Don't see this movie. It's a complete waste of time and you will end up leaving or wanting a refund at the end of it. We know that Bush isn't anywhere near being a great president, but really, this is taking it to a new low. I actually felt sorry for Bush. There's so much speculation as to what goes on in the White House, but this is just too fictional for me. Not worth your time!
1/10
11.8.2008 -
drfilmcritique@ - age: 18-25
What on earth was that... that wasn't even as crappy as I thought it would be it was worse than crappy and quite frankly I cant think of a word without using fowl language to describe it.
1/10
11.4.2008 -
squeaker_124@ - age: 13-17
Great story on "W" life a little long but it is worth it. The only negative thing is it's a bad ending.
10/10
11.4.2008 -
babyloon69@ - age: 18-25
If the depiction of W is accurate, then this was a very interesting movie. It shows W as he was and as he is, and his relationship with his father. Frightening. Good movie.
7/10
11.2.2008 -
howardw2112@ - age: 50+
| | | | |
Boring just another fictional perspective on a corrupt democracy.
2/10
11.2.2008 -
hectorp@ - age: 26-35
If you follow the news and politics then you'll probably appreciate this film, as I did. Some of the actors didn't really look like the people they were trying to represent, including W himself, although his Texas accent was right on. You don't know whether to feel sorry for W or to laugh at him and his botched life. Either you love W or you hate him, either way this film will give you the insight into him, his life, and his presidency that you wanted.
8/10
11.1.2008 -
vorvis@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
The Michael Moore version on W was far more entertaining. If you're looking for more of that you won't find it in this movie. All of the funny parts were in the trailer... the rest of this movie is just plain 'hogwash'. The movie was scattered and I'm still not sure, are we to feel sorry for him or ashamed that they elected him a second time... or did they really. And does the president have that much control and is he that empty to allow Cheney to manipulate him... still shaking my head and washing out my mouth from this very bad tasting movie... worst I have ever seen, really.
3/10
10.31.2008 -
karenbw@ - age: 36-49
Brolin did an excellent job, especially bringing out the nuances of W. However the movie was facile and vacuous. For example: the depictions of Laura Bush and Condi Rice as empty headed 'Barbie Dolls' means Stone didn't do any research or chose not to flesh out their characters. One may not like Rice, but even her critics would not treat her as 'Stepford wife like', as Stone did. Probably would work for Sarah Palin. Unlike JKK, this movie tried to treat the audience as simply as its protagonist W. Maybe that was the point.
5/10
10.30.2008 -
bola@ - age: 50+
| | | | |
Ce film simili-historique-biographique et volontairement précoce réalisé par une main de maître ultra-patriotique est une sorte de filtre discréditant Dick Cheney et Rumsfield, valorisant quelque peu Bush père et Colin Powell et donne à Bush junior l'exact place qui lui revient dans l'histoire: Une grande déception. Ainsi la machine Hollywoodienne a fait un bon coup pour rabaissé l'administration actuel sans pour autant insulter ses principaux acteurs. Tiens donc, les élections américaines y serait-il pour quelque chose? VERDICT: C'est un moyen film politique à propos d'un sujet très intéressant et actuel. Ce film n'est pas un documentaire et vous apprendrez probablement rien de nouveau. Vous n'aimezez pas moins, pas plus Bush qu'avant le visionnement. Au Québec (et au Canada en général), notre culture politique est très différente de celle des États-Unis. Je le conseille qu'à ceux dont le propos intéresse, sinon ça peut être très ennuyant et il n'y a aucune nouvelle information à se mettre sous la dent.
7/10
10.29.2008 -
remus@ - age: 26-35
Josh Brolin as Dubya is worth the admission price and, as are, Richard Dreyfuss and Ellen Burstyn and Thandie Newton. The movie was good but I think they glossed over September 11, 2001 and the fallout from that incident.
7/10
10.29.2008 -
hexarmcpentax@ - age: 50+
| | | | |
I never thought I'd say this about an Oliver Stone film, but W is a waste of time and money. With the notable exception of Richard Dreyfuss, every actor portrays a milquetoast parody of the personage they play. None of them strike the right note, and I have to conclude therefore that fault must be laid at the director's feet for this. As the film ended I found myself thinking," That's it? What was the point? " And I still don't get why this film was made. It certainly couldn't convince me that poor old George the Second is just a bumbling, well-intentioned guy, unwittingly taken advantage of by his political buddies.
3/10
10.29.2008 -
veggie_eater@ - age: 50+
Yep, it could have been a totally different movie c/w a different ending (like he gets whacked for example) Perhaps Stone will regret making this one but who knows for sure. I presume this film will end up on the rack very soon... see it then?
6/10
10.29.2008 -
samy@ - age: 36-49
This movie is pure propaganda which is delivered to absolve W of any personal wrong doing or scandal. Oliver Stone must be on the Bush family’s payroll.
1/10
10.28.2008 -
nickluksha@ - age: 26-35
Josh Brolin is hilarious, his rendition of the President is ok, although personally I would have chosen Will Ferrell.
9/10
10.28.2008 -
holymoly008@ - age: 36-49
Just bad. Nothing else to say. I was hoping for something interesting, different, a satir, humor noir, something... but its simply a pathetic movie that portrays a PATHETIC person. PATHETIC is the only word that comes to mind.
1/10
10.27.2008 -
waynekwan@ - age: 26-35
Not my kind of movie... I had hoped for a comedy but found this too political and if all the facts are true very disturbing. It did leave me with "food for thought" because I've always felt Bush was false.
5/10
10.26.2008 -
izzie,b@ - age: 50+
Not as scary or funny as I thought it would be, but excellent choice of actors. Didn't change my opinion of W in anyway, for the better or for the worse. But kind of interesting.
6/10
10.26.2008 -
rachellebout@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
An interesting if not a bit too long film which portrays Bush as a son struggling to live up to an accomplished father. Strong across the board performances from all actors, especially Josh Brolin who thankfully did not turn Bush into a caricature. I recommend this film mainly for the chilling scenes leading to the invasion of Iraq to remind one and all of this huge deception and lie which has brought so much grief and tragedy to the people of Iraq.
8/10
10.25.2008 -
yque88@ - age: 50+
| | | | |
Boring, terribly boring! I couldn't help but sleep and peep with my left eye to see if the film was ending. Not worth even to watch on DVD. The chosen timing to launch it, just before his long-awaited departure, is better than presenting it AFTER for Stone to make the money. Nobody would consider seeing this film after B. Is gone for good. Who cares about the problems he had with his father? It wasn't even funny, tragedy is written all over his face. Save your money and put Bush and family in your brain archives, then delete them for good. Let's hope this Universe will never, ever, have such a loser represent the once-great territory of the US! What a total waste! DID NOT like it, period.
3/10
10.25.2008 -
abba,lotus790@ - age: 50+
| | | | |
Has its funny moments and Josh B is very good in the role. But it is a lightweight movie, best as a rental.
5/10
10.25.2008 -
baylady@ - age: 50+
Dreyfus as Cheney, James Cromwell as George Senior are outstanding.
6/10
10.25.2008 -
knighter@ - age: 50+
| | | | |
It's interesting that responses to the film are polarized in much the manner of responses to Bush. This tells me that Stone must be onto something in his portrayal. What might that be? Well, I think he manages to paint paradoxical features into Bush, the sort of characteristics that might make him attractive to some and repulsive to others. Most important, he seems to grasp that the most repulsive things in Bush are the things that many people won't even see. Bush has an IQ of 125, while the average IQ is 100. Nevertheless, he is a stupid man. Smart enough to become President, stupid enough to destroy the Presidency. This is one of the paradoxes of W. And Stone manages to show this intelligence and stupidity in action. For this reason, a lot of the humor and satire on Bush in this film is so subtle that it might even be missed. A number of times there were only two people laughing in the viewing I saw -- I would be one, and then some straggler in the seventh row. Of course you don;t really learn anything about Bush. This is a film. But what you get is an imaginative representation of the man that attempts, not to do history, but to make sense of history. I thought Stone did a good job.
8/10
10.24.2008 -
com2013@ - age: 13-17
| | | | |
What kind of movie is this? Not a documentary. Certainly not a comedy. A drama... Much of it relies on intimate conversations between major players and how accurate are these? Josh Brolin seemed to overact the immaturity aspects of W.
5/10
10.24.2008 -
russreid1000@ - age: 50+
Stone could have gone much deeper but probably couldn't do to legal issues.
7/10
10.24.2008 -
ryann,w@
Not worth it. Boring boring boring! I typically love Oliver Stone and this was a waste of time.
4/10
10.23.2008 -
alibrough@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
It is difficult to separate "W" the movie, from W. the president and the last eight years of what has been a disastrous decline for the US in prestige, even respect worldwide. The movie itself as enertainment is OK, the only actor showing real distinction being Richard Dreyfuss, portraying Cheney. Brolin gets perhaps B for effort, but despite the good aproximation of the Bush voice, he lacks any real show of talent. The only other was the lady who portyrays the wife of W. Father Bush, the originator of this breed is mediocre."W" itself, is an American tragedy. The greater tragedy however is the fact that the people of the US re-elected the man. Instead of this movie, we should have watched reruns of NYPD Blue, or maybe Jeopardy. George W. Bush, the man and movie are depressing fare. Stone has clout , so the movie got funded, but will tank, big time!
5/10
10.23.2008 -
sherman@ - age: 50+
This movie was great! If your into U. S. politics and world affairs like I am you will love W. Oliver Stone has done a great job in laying out the fact and showing the behind the scene interactions that led up to some of the most controversial and disastrous decisions made by a President. The casting was incredible. Although I highly recommend this movie and enjoyed it I would not necessarily recommend it to those who are not into world affairs or politics. Perhaps this is why some did not rate this move as high as I.
10/10
10.22.2008 -
sandhu1234@ - age: 26-35
Very well done. Recognizable players from CNN news, Cheney and Rove particularly stood out. Josh Brolin was quite believeable as W. I liked the film--is it historically accurate? I hope not, but fear it may be.
9/10
10.22.2008 -
rozzw@ - age: 50+
| | | | |
Interesting vision of the man G. W. Bush. I was expecting a movie criticizing Bush and his policy but what I got was an insight in the man trying to seek his father approval. I even felt sympathy for the man leaving in his father shadow.
7/10
10.22.2008 -
sentenza99@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
I have to admit that there was probably too much material for Oliver Stone to cover; too many scandals, too many speeches, too many moments. But if anyone could make a monster look mediocre, it's Oliver Stone. You can't help but feel like "GW" is being used by people more intelligent and more ruthless than he is. I doubt we'll ever know the full story.
9/10
10.22.2008 -
donho1@ - age: 36-49
| 
