W.

W. Seems to have disappointed many of Oliver Stone's fans; actually the movie lacks the vehemence, the all-around attacks, the gloomy conspiratorial narrative of most of his documentary films.

Mr Stone might have thought all his usual arsenal was not needed in the case of George W. Bush Jr; in fact, an almost subdued if not moderate tone voice worked best - in my view - to call out the key traits of our hero: a mediocre man, actually a dumbass, an insecure kid turned into an obsessive man, a puppet manoeuvred by a bunch of dangerous acolytes.

Exposing reality as is was more than enough here, actually an over-dramatisation might have proved counterproductive.

I thought it was interesting to compare and contrast W. With Adam McKay's Vice; the very same facts, told from Cheney's perspective and with a totally different style but very consistent, offer a nice complement to W.

Oh, boy, a film about George W. Bush, could be the new "Forrest Gump", lol. My head still hurts, because I was just banging it on the wall after I watched this film, how in the heck did this man run our country for 8 years without burning it down? Now I understand why this film was released right before election time, now I work at a movie theater and everyone who came out of the theater said they felt bad for W. and a couple of my friends who I saw the film said they also felt bad for him... how about us?! OK, before I start banging my head up against the wall again, so Oliver Stone is the critical director who decided to take on this wonderful project. The film is actually well made, Josh Brolin does a decent job of portraying our constant dumbfounded president, the story is pretty sad when you think about all the pressures he must face on a daily basis.

Based on George W. Bush's life, we go from when he was just a crazy party animal in college. Dubbed as the black sheep of the family, that his brother would be more suited as president, facing constant criticism from his father George Bush, Sr. who was also our president for a short time. We explore W.'s life with his family, his presidency, the pressure he faces, and the Iraq war. We also go into his world of having to pull himself out of his rut with his family who constantly puts him down with a country who is not exactly proud of him as well.

W. is a good film, it's well acted and put together, however, my main complaint, but I think there is a reason why, is that Oliver completely skips the election controversy we faced in 2000 as well as 9/11 which I thought was an important subject to touch. But I have a feeling why he didn't bring it up is due to how hard those times were for him and wasn't exactly sure how to go at it. Over all this is a watchable movie, but for me, it is forgettable, I don't know if it will be considered a classic down the line, but I guess we'll find out if our future kids are watching it in their history classes and asking us "what were you on when you voted for this guy?".

6/10

W. Was released in the wrong time. Probably 10 years too soon. If you stumble upon this film now, you will be entertained. Because this story and this character are just absurd. Politics aside, Brolin does a good job portraying W.

I suggest watching VICE first and then back to back this one and you will appreciate it more.

7,1/10.

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.

Two of my least favorite people in one project! A president with a blunt intellect, but a remarkable ability to project a simple story. And a filmmaker with the same qualities. Each would be relatively harmless as clerks who amuse at lunch breaks, but these are men whose inadequacies break worlds.

It is no wonder that this portrays Bush respectfully. No wonder that it is all about intent: the man is a good, honest, unselfish man whose only weakness was a vision of an unrealistic utopia and the accident of being surrounded by fools and devils. I believe that all of Stone's projects are autobiographical and he impresses on them his own story. Its Woody Allen, except instead of placing himself in the cosmic forces of personal relationships and self, he wanders among what he sees is a cosmos of global conspiracy. That he is able to make a living in Hollywood is, I think, because our notions of noir are close enough to this so that he (and Spike Lee) can bloviate and make a living.

As time goes on, he worries more and more about himself, so he makes his heroes basically good men, lost.

But this time history bucks him. The culpability of this man cannot be explained away by blaming Rove and Cheney. His qualms about torture are known to not have happened. We know that he pushed for policies that will be evaluated in time as war crimes. Now, he may have done that with noble intent, but more ruthless and scheming than this golden Rube we see here.

This is a disaster for history. Because so few Americans read books, instead getting their history from films and blogmobs.

The cinematic values of Stone's prior work are not even visible. The energy of "Platoon," the craft of "JFK" are gone. We have normal TeeVee movie framing here.

I think we should vote Stone out.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.