ROTTEN TOMATOES: Oliver Stone's George Bush Pic W Has Its First Family

Oliver Stone's George Bush Pic W Has Its First Family

Cromwell, Burstyn, Banks, and Brolin to star.

by Jeff Giles | March 28, 2008

George W. Bush's early years will soon be coming to a theater near you, courtesy of Oliver Stone.

Variety reports that Stone's recently rechristened Bush biopic W -- formerly known as Bush -- has assembled its starring cast. Are you ready to meet your new/old First Family?

In the role of George Herbert Walker Bush, 41st President of the United States...James Cromwell!

As his devoted wife, Barbara, it's Ellen Burstyn!

Playing the elder Bushes' daughter-in-law, Laura, say hello to none other than Elizabeth Banks!

And last but not least, in the role of President George W. Bush, Josh Brolin! Give him a round of applause, ladies and gentlemen!

According to Variety, Stone's W will begin filming in Shreveport, LA, at the end of April; Stone will direct from a script by Stanley Weiser, and the movie will take a look at "the formative years" of our current Commander-in-Chief.

Source: Variety

Related Items

Celeb:	Josh Brolin
	Ellen Burstyn
	James Cromwell
	Oliver Stone
	Stanley Weiser
	George Bush
	George W. Bush
	Elizabeth Banks
	Laura Bush

(1-20 of 114 posts) | Reply

MrWhite5252 writes:
on Mar 28 2008 05:22 AM

Way to be objective RT.

(Reply to this)

Bruce Campbell writes:
on Mar 28 2008 05:33 AM

Bush sucks and everyone knows that.

(Reply to this)

Jeff Giles writes:
on Mar 28 2008 05:44 AM

In reply to this comment (#1656847)
What exactly did you have a problem with, MrWhite?

(Reply to this)

SpikesInMySkull writes:
on Mar 28 2008 05:45 AM

"It seems like Stone will have to bend over pretty far to make W complimentary enough to satisfy the small subset of Americans who have been satisfied with the younger Bush's job performance"

...and he's Oliver Stone so this won't happen.

"and by the time he leaves office, the rest of the country will probably be so tired of hearing about anything Bush-related that it's hard to imagine them paying for the privilege of watching his life unfold on the big screen. What's your take on this, RT faithful?"

Now there's the damned truth... I'm esspecially unexcited to have Oliver Stone try and shock me by distorting fact that where already bad enough on their own, thus adding fuel to fire, furthur polorizing the political factions in this country while accomplishing nothing.

I really wish Oliver Stone, Michael Moore, Brian DePalma and the like would stop trying to help. Filmmakers like them are the only reason anyone actually still supports Bush because they make anyone who doesn't look like a nut job.

They're like the Jerry Falwell/Flip Benham/Fred Phelps of the left wing.

(Reply to this)

MrWhite5252 writes:
on Mar 28 2008 06:16 AM

I have a problem with the article making it seem as if Bush has no supporters and he has done nothing positive. If the movie and the article plan to be objective it has to show both sides, something that never happens in the liberal movie business. I just get annoyed sometimes and actually complaion, thats all.

(Reply to this)

MrWhite5252 writes:
on Mar 28 2008 06:20 AM

My main problem is with this comment "It seems like Stone will have to bend over pretty far to make W complimentary enough to satisfy the small subset of Americans who have been satisfied with the younger Bush's job performance." I feel that it is out of place. It is a judgment of Bush that has nothing to do with information about the movie.

(Reply to this)

whiskeyriver writes:
on Mar 28 2008 06:25 AM

How bout we talk about the film, instead?

Josh Brolin as Bush is kind of a stretch. I'm interested in seeing if he can pull it off. And although I am a bigtime lefty liberal treehugger hippie (to use the right's lexicon), I too wish Stone and his ilk quit trying to "help." They do no good when they open their big yappers.

Anyways, this film should be interesting to say the least. Doubtful, though, that it will actually be...ya know...good.

(Reply to this)

Jeff Giles writes:
on Mar 28 2008 06:25 AM

In reply to this comment (#1656864)
My comments weren't a personal judgment of Bush's presidency -- they were a reflection of the very low approval ratings he's suffered throughout the bulk of his second term. I didn't say he has no supporters, I said there are a lot of people who want him out of office. Regardless of how you feel about him, I don't see how you can deny that.

(Reply to this)

Crenshaw writes:
on Mar 28 2008 06:29 AM

Oh the flame-bait is jsut too easy....

" I have a problem with the article making it seem as if Bush has no supporters and he has done nothing positive."

Um...Bush has no supporters and he has done nothing positive.

Heehee! Ooo this is too easy!

(Reply to this)

MrWhite5252 writes:
on Mar 28 2008 06:38 AM

Bush has plenty of supporters and has done many things that are positive.... That was fun!

Sorry I said anything. I usually know better than to state my opinion since it will just be "flamed" and discussions will not occur.

whyskeyriver is right, just talk about the film. I think the film is too soon. It is hard to make longterm judgments about a presidency while it is still going on.

Jeff, you are right about the amount of supporters but you have to remember that at least 30% (not exact changes all the time) do still support him. That is still lots of people.

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Mar 28 2008 07:10 AM

In reply to this comment (#1656879)
compulsion.. too.. great.. MUST.. take.. opportunity..

Things Bush has done right:

>NOT taking a hostage
>NOT giving spoilers to big-budget movies that he has seen that his staff has not
>NOT using the power of the presidency to get a cameo as 'HyperAwesomeLazerFirebetterthanSuperman Boy' in the new JLA movie
*so far
>NOT referring to Cheney as 'Chubby McSkeletor'

...other than that, I'm tapped out. Nothin' else comes to mind.

BUT I digress--

After 'No Country,' I say let Brolin roll with this. I'd be fascinated to see his take. I also like Elizabeth Banks, so this could be interesting.

I share everyone's concern about Stone's 'Objectivity' but my concern actually swings the other way- I'd be worried that he would water down some of retarded monkey-child's younger gaffes in order to heighten drama and make him a more sympathetic character.

Over-all, I'd say this would be better to release about three or four years down the line. Maybe as an HBO special event.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Mar 28 2008 07:38 AM

In reply to this comment (#1656870)
And a well earned low approval rating, Jeff. You ask me, Stone should do a movie about that incredible 30 or percent that still support him. Now THAT would be an interesting high concept. Call it "How?!", and make it satire. I'll probably even pay to see it. But this movie? Smells like another Natural Born Killers to me. I'll wait for it to come on HBO. Sorry, Stone.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Mar 28 2008 07:41 AM

In reply to this comment (#1656870)
"30 or so", I meant to say. Man, I wish you guys had an edit feature.

(Reply to this)

knowingtoast85 writes:
on Mar 28 2008 07:51 AM

The kids love him. His guest appearance on Nick Jr.'s "Wonder Pets" as a hamster brought his 17% approval rating up to an even 30%.

He'll also be in "Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay," except this movie is so incredibly bad (and I liked the first) that it may hurt his shot at getting a few libraries named after him down the road.

For an honest, totally unbiased portrayal of Bush Jr., may I suggest the stridently independent, fair and balanced "Faith in the White House." My sarcasm will not register with anyone except for the six other people who've seen it.

(Reply to this)

jonboy83 writes:
on Mar 28 2008 08:24 AM

"It seems like Stone will have to bend over pretty far to make W complimentary enough to satisfy the small subset of Americans who have been satisfied with the younger Bush's job performance"

No one cares about your opinion. Keep it to the information in the story to the movie and let your ignorant readers bash Bush in the forums, which are easily ignored. I love RT, but I do not visit this site to read liberal propaganda.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Mar 28 2008 08:31 AM

Sweet, a political argument! Can I join?

As I said the other day, Elizabeth Banks will have to be removed from my masturbation rituals with this little gem of bad casting. Thanks, Mr. Stone.

And all Jeff said was the truth. His approval ratings are now at the lowest point he's had. Low approval ratings = small minority of supporters. End of argument.

But I still think this movie is a bad idea.

(Reply to this)

jts52 writes:
on Mar 28 2008 08:36 AM

Bush has done many positive things? The only positive thing this slug can do is slide back into the muck and disappear forever. What a joke of a president. He ruins everything he's touched. That's what you get America for voting in a "Good Ole Boy". Suckers.

(Reply to this)

Jeff Giles writes:
on Mar 28 2008 08:37 AM

In reply to this comment (#1657088)
Again, jonboy, looking at Bush's approval ratings over the last several years will make it clear that the number of people satisfied with his job performance are vastly outnumbered by those who are not. I guess math is liberal propaganda now?

There's a difference between pointing out an obvious fact and "bashing" the President. I sympathize with your frustration over the constant barrage of anti-Bush sentiment -- it's got to be annoying to be subjected to so much of something you disagree with -- but try to read what I actually wrote. Irrespective of my personal political views, I think Stone is giving himself a thankless job here.

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Mar 28 2008 09:05 AM

In reply to this comment (#1657088)
>and let your ignorant readers bash Bush in the forums, which are easily ignored

..Jonboy83, how do you know we're ignorant if you're so easily ignoring us? Are we *automatically* ignorant, simply because we post, here?

Well, since you're clearly ignoring this, it won't hurt for me to sing a couple of choruses of my hit song 'retarded monkey-child douche-bag.'

Here goes:
'Bush is a retarded monkey-child douche-bag ouche-bag ouche-bag'
(Sung to the tune of Rihanna's 'Umbrella')

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Mar 28 2008 09:09 AM

Oh man, I wish I weren't at work so I could property address this thread. I love this stuff.
My Two Cents: Jeff, I agree with Mr White, the article came off incredibly one-sided. Why? Because the Headline is about the cast, not whether Mr. Bush has done a good or agreeable job being the President. Thus, there was no reason to mention his it, either way. And since you did, it comes off very one-sided. It may be truth, but either way it wasn't needed if you take what the article is about in mind.
Dang, boss is watching, I'm out.

(Reply to this)