W. - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

W. Reviews

Page 1 of 11
Eric Hynes
Stop Smiling
June 14, 2016
Not only does W. fail as both drama and comedy, it's unclear which sequences are meant to be which.
Jeff Meyers
Orlando Weekly
October 31, 2008
It's uncertain if W. was made too late or, more likely, too soon, but this movie does what everyone in George Jr.'s life has always done: Let him off easy.
Full Review | Original Score: 2.5/5
Philip Martin
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
October 24, 2008
Nixon and W. are more "responsible" films than JFK, but neither has the visceral power of that dark conspiracy theory; neither comes as close to capturing a primal American impulse.
Full Review | Original Score: 82/100
Top Critic
James Berardinelli
October 17, 2008
W. does for recent history what Oliver Stone's epic Alexander did for ancient times.
Full Review | Original Score: 2/4
Top Critic
Lisa Kennedy
Denver Post
October 17, 2008
Despite a talented cast that includes James Cromwell as George H.W. Bush, a.k.a. 'Poppy', and Jeffrey Wright as Colin Powell, W. achieves the depth of a TV miniseries.
Read More | Original Score: 1.5/4
Top Critic
Joe Morgenstern
Wall Street Journal
October 17, 2008
In spite of Josh Brolin's heroic efforts, W. is a skin-deep biopic that revels in its antic shallowness.
Sonny Bunch
Washington Times
August 30, 2009
I'm unsure who W. will really appeal to: It's a poor historical document; it's not nasty enough for people who hate Bush and too nasty for the few still supporting him.
Full Review | Original Score: 2/4
Fernando F. Croce
August 26, 2009
Stone's filmmaking fails to charge the narrative with the needed turmoil
Edward Douglas
October 16, 2008
Excellent performances by Brolin, Cromwell and others get lost within a generally dull piece of political fantasy fiction trying to sell itself as an entertaining biopic.
Full Review | Original Score: 6/10
Chris Hewitt (St. Paul)
St. Paul Pioneer Press
October 17, 2008
The letter W doesn't stand for 'Walker' in Oliver Stone's film about our current president; it stands for 'Why?'
Read More | Original Score: 2/4
Karina Longworth
October 16, 2008
If history remembers W. at all, it'll be as a monument to the erosion of Oliver Stone's balls.
Top Critic
Laremy Legel
May 6, 2011
Full Review | Original Score: C+
Christian Toto
What Would Toto Watch?
October 31, 2008
W. is just as shallow, poorly conceived and biased as advertised.
Full Review | Original Score: 2/4
Top Critic
Andrew Dansby
Houston Chronicle
October 17, 2008
Instead of satire, W. works best as a filmmaking allegory. That going into a production unprepared is a lot like doing so with military conflict. The execution was off before the first camera started rolling.
Full Review | Original Score: 2/4
Top Critic
Christopher Orr
The New Republic
October 17, 2008
This may be the most overdetermined psychological profile since Hitchcock wound up Norman Bates and let him go.
Nick Schager
Slant Magazine
October 16, 2008
The Oliver Stone of the 1990s might have found something epic in the strange saga of George W. Bush, but he undoubtedly would not have made W., the contemporary Stone's incomplete rush-job of a portrait of our embattled 43rd president.
Full Review | Original Score: 1.5/4
Cole Abaius
Film School Rejects
February 11, 2009
The bulk of the story comes straight from things widely known about the man, and the blanks are filled in by surreal familial moments that make Barbara Bush look like Mommy Dearest and George Sr. look like a mannequin with a Quaalude addiction.
Full Review | Original Score: D+
Sean Gandert
Paste Magazine
October 17, 2008
W.'s issue isn't its political statements; it's that there isn't a satisfactory film there to back them up.
Full Review | Original Score: 38/100
Philippa Hawker
The Age (Australia)
March 6, 2009
Stone and screenwriter Stanley Weiser have little...to offer us.
Full Review | Original Score: 2.5/5
Jason Di Rosso
MovieTime, ABC Radio National
February 27, 2009
An interesting post-mortem on the still warm corpse of a presidency, but not top-shelf Oliver Stone.
Page 1 of 11