W.
Lionsgate | Release Date: October 17, 2008
5.2
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 109 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
41
Mixed:
31
Negative:
37
Watch Now
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
6
JF.Oct 18, 2008
Though funny in parts it is mostly just a plain political movie. great acting all around, especially from Brolin who does a great Bush. the one thing is, is that he can't have made it to the white house being as much of a dufus as he is Though funny in parts it is mostly just a plain political movie. great acting all around, especially from Brolin who does a great Bush. the one thing is, is that he can't have made it to the white house being as much of a dufus as he is portrayed throughout the film. while trudging through his shaky politics the movie does, however, respectfully and successfully manage to paint a sympathetic image of the president as well, and these final sequences of the film are (unfortunately) its best.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
RandyM.Oct 22, 2008
While the film was rather dull in it's presentation, I have to give kudos to the actors for having a very strong presence on-screen. I also found myself looking at Mr. Bush in a rather different light. Rather than my usual extreme While the film was rather dull in it's presentation, I have to give kudos to the actors for having a very strong presence on-screen. I also found myself looking at Mr. Bush in a rather different light. Rather than my usual extreme distaste for him, I almost started feeling....sympathetic. Almost.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
ChadS.Oct 18, 2008
The 1985-1986 season of "Saturday Night Live" was highlighted by the appearance of director Francis Ford Coppola. This hallowed institution of sketch comedy, which reacts to the news satirically on a weekly basis, has been sending-up The 1985-1986 season of "Saturday Night Live" was highlighted by the appearance of director Francis Ford Coppola. This hallowed institution of sketch comedy, which reacts to the news satirically on a weekly basis, has been sending-up presidents since the show's inception in the mid-seventies, beginning with Chevy Chase's take on Gerald Ford, the klutzy one. W. is the dumb one, and Will Ferrell played this angle to the hilt during the sitting president's first term. Josh Brolin, on the other hand, plays the Bush family's black sheep(shades of Elia Kazan's "East of Eden") as the baffled one. That is what's ultimately disappointing about "W.", because didn't Chris Cooper already corner the market on this characterization in John Sayles' "Silver City"? Some of us, liberals, and more than a few conservatives alike, looked to this filmmaker to provide an outlet for the country's anger at the ongoing war and calamitous financial situation. The last thing we expected, or wanted, was an even-handed portrayal that's counterintuitive to Michael Moore's perception of our current commander-in-chief. It's a well-documented fact that the Bush family is synonymous with oil, and yet, a cabinet meeting that lays out the strategy for the impending invasion of Iraq, presents "W." as a babe in the woods who seems oblivious to the cross purposes of the country's official agenda, which is to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. The "weapons of mass destruction" snafu? That's obviously tied to oil interests, a fiction created to line the pockets of industrialists with blood-soaked money, so it follows that W. wasn't part of the conspiracy to break the rules of engagement. Especially during these intelligence briefings, "W." strongly recalls "Saturday Night Live", since all the president's men(and one woman) are all too contemporary and overfamiliar to the people they serve. We need to laugh, so we don't cry, and that's the film's failing. We just stare at them numbly with shock and awe.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
DWillyOct 19, 2008
The basic filmmaking is strong enough, I suppose, but, without vituousity, the straight telling of how this small person damaged so many people just made me slump in my seat getting more and more depressed. Maybe Oliver Stone thought because The basic filmmaking is strong enough, I suppose, but, without vituousity, the straight telling of how this small person damaged so many people just made me slump in my seat getting more and more depressed. Maybe Oliver Stone thought because Josh Brolin also has a famous father he could dig in and give a performance, but he's such an exceedingly modest actor the whole thing comes off as if made for TV. Thandie Newton is the only one who does an impersonation, and while it's broad, I'd rather see the movie she belongs in rather than this pointless exercise.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
ReaOct 25, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
TerryROct 18, 2008
Not sure what I expected going into this movie, and still not sure what I got. First, you are not really going to learn anything new about the people or the situations involved if you currently pay any attention to the news. The performances Not sure what I expected going into this movie, and still not sure what I got. First, you are not really going to learn anything new about the people or the situations involved if you currently pay any attention to the news. The performances were a mixed bag. I actually thought Brolin was very good. Cromwell just horribly mis-cast...you had to keep reminding yourself that he was supposed to be GHWB. The guy who played Powell also got it wrong I think (too angry). I was amused enough, and the movie never felt like it really dragged or anything, but clear that Stone's best days are behind him as a filmmaker at this point.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
ArnoldP.Oct 19, 2008
This much anticipated film fell flat. The actors were excellent, the father son relationship compelling. Considering the story there was little fire in the direction, at times dull, surely predictable. I think if Stone had only done W up to This much anticipated film fell flat. The actors were excellent, the father son relationship compelling. Considering the story there was little fire in the direction, at times dull, surely predictable. I think if Stone had only done W up to him being elected president it would have been infinitely better. The events of his presidency and the characters much too current to appear any more vivid or scary than they were in real life. Seeing it opening night in Hollywood, in a packed audience, there was the sound of only one pair of hands clapping at the end. A somber sign in tinsel town.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
AndrewR.Nov 15, 2008
A little long and too much symbolism for my taste.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
More From This Movie

56 Critic Reviews

5.2 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 81 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple
2 77 Project Hail Mary
3 75 Send Help
4 73 Hoppers
5 72 The Sheep Detectives
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL