The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part
Green Book
Widows
The Walking Dead
Log in with Facebook
OR
By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies, and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We want to hear what you have to say but need to verify your account. Just leave us a message here and we will work on getting you verified.
Please reference “Error Code 2121” when contacting customer service.
Critics Consensus: A surprisingly sympathetic portrayal of the 43rd American president, W. is fascinating in spots, but merely rudimentary as a whole.
Critic Consensus: A surprisingly sympathetic portrayal of the 43rd American president, W. is fascinating in spots, but merely rudimentary as a whole.
All Critics (218) | Top Critics (50) | Fresh (127) | Rotten (91) | DVD (5)
It's a film with a shelf life, I think. Unlike W himself, it should mature over time.
As Poppy Bush says, and says again,"You disappoint me, Junior."
'W.' is neither coruscating nor edifying - but without the benefit of hindsight, it's probably the best we can hope for.
This movie is one big pulled punch. Dubya himself becomes a blank hole of neutrality and balance. Almost anyone else shown here would have made a more interesting subject for a biopic.
W. feels poorly timed: too late to have any effect on the public, most of whom long ago checked out on the President, and too early to provide more than a schematic interpretation of who he is.
Perhaps Stone believed that the only way you can make sense of the George W. Bush debacle is by presenting it as a goof -- a Freudian cartoon. But if that's the case, he erred on the side of caution.
If you decide to go see W., just be warned that, once again, Oliver Stone thinks he has some sort of profound insight to share with you.
The trouble, basically, is that this film just doesn't know what it is about. Is it about dynasty? Imperialism? Ambition? The dark side of democracy? What? And, consequently, you are just not made to care about any of it.
Like Bush's presidency, it seems lost: it lacks direction. W. could very well stand for why?
Director Oliver Stone may be off his nut, but you have to give him credit for what he brings to the big screen.
Not only does W. fail as both drama and comedy, it's unclear which sequences are meant to be which.
Neither a smear campaign nor propaganda piece, but rather a fascinating look at one of the more controversial presidents in recent memory that may end up changing your perspective on the Bush you only thought you knew.
It does a pretty decent job to humanize an imbecile and make us almost sympathize with him as we see his efforts to prove himself to his family, but Oliver Stone plays it too safe and this semi-satire is also harmed a bit by its perfunctory jumps in time and random flashbacks.
Super Reviewer
I'm really conflicted about this movie, specifically what rating to give it. On one hand, it's an interesting movie, and I applaud Stone for having the balls to release it while Bush was still in office. On the other hand, there are a lot of issues going on. For one thing, maybe this film was released too early. It covers only a small portion of Bush's presidency, leaving a lot of important stuff out. It also seems confused about what it is trying to be, and the point it's trying to make. The one thing that it definitely makes clear, is that Bush has "daddy issues". That seems to be Stone's thesis, and he is mostly successful with it. However, the apporach being taken is a mess. The narrative and the tone are all over the place, the film is very selective with what episodes in time it features, and, even with the apparent pyshoanalytical approach, the film still feels a little pointless. It doesn't help that the pacing needs a lot of work as well. It feels longer than it is, and at 129 minutes, this is not good. Like I said though, the subject matter is interesting, and some of what is featured is rather fascinating. It would have been nice to see a balance between family stuff and political stuff though. The performances are terrific, and the casting is quite good, even though some of the actors' resemblances are a little spotty. They make up for it with their acting though. I give this film a mild recommendation, if only for the acting. I should give this film a 3, due to all of the flaws, but I liked it enough to feel comfortable giving it something higher. 3.5 is too much, but It'll have to do since there is no option for 3.25. I really want to know what happened to the old Oliver Stone. I'm not saying tihis film wasn't important enough to be made, but I really question the way it was handled. Stone used to be a master at sharp, insightful, and daring cinematic gems. This has very little bite or drive, and, even though I am not a fan of Bush, I'm glad this film wasn't a total condemnation of him. Still, it needs work.
Well-acted and well-shot, but doesn't provide an answer to the question everyone was asking: why make a biopic about a president you hate? It's almost like Stone was just trying to be the first to put this history on film, writing Bush-isms from press conferences into implausible Oval Office conversations and unimaginatively imagining the relationship between the powerbrokers in the lead-up to the (second) Iraq War. Film, unfortunately, is a medium that can't help but glorify its subjects, and though the hackneyed script makes it evident that Bush is no hero, the total effect is one of idealizing the protagonist, and seemingly testing your ability to root for him. But unlike Cronenberg's Crash or Haneke's Funny Games, (or even American Psycho), this is isn't a brilliant examination of our urge to watch that which repels us; rather, it's a sloppy capitalization on generalized sentiment that, much like the WMDs all the president's men are seeking, never quite goes off. Over time, when the realities finally fade in our memories, this film may stand up better, but for the moment, familiarity breeds contempt. Even four years after its release, it's still too soon. This film is an effigy, a straw man burned in the street for momentary effect, and one that regardless of how well we understand the feeling behind it, really doesn't say or do anything to improve our comprehension of what it purports to address: how an utterly unqualified applicant could obtain the biggest job in the world. A shame, too: a lot of good acting went to waste here, Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney, in particular.
Very interesting and insightful movie which flips back from W's youthful days to his days in the White House, its amusing in places and lets you in on all sorts of area's of W's life. Wether its all true is another matter, from his on off relationship with his father to his boozeful youth and to his almost inept controlling of the White House, I was always thinkin 'is this all really accurate?' I'm sure some is and some is artistic license, buts its still good. The cast is excellent as you would expect for a bio of the president, Brolin does very well as W and really makes you believe he's just a regular joe born with a silver spoon in his mouth haha but I guess that he is. Very good and well made but like all bio's its abit boring in places and as I'm not into politics that much its alittle hard to follow in other places, but its still very good, it actually makes you kinda like W in the end :)
View All Quotes
View All