The Tomatometer rating – based on the published opinions of hundreds of film and television critics – is a trusted measurement of movie and TV programming quality for millions of moviegoers. It represents the percentage of professional critic reviews that are positive for a given film or television show.
From the Critics
From RT Users Like You!
The Tomatometer is 60% or higher.
The Tomatometer is 59% or lower.
Movies and TV shows are Certified Fresh with a steady Tomatometer of 75% or higher after a set amount of reviews (80 for wide-release movies, 40 for limited-release movies, 20 for TV shows), including 5 reviews from Top Critics.
Percentage of users who rate a movie or TV show positively.
It's Stone's faith in himself that's the stumbling block here, first convinced he has something new to contribute to the already exhaustive Bush-analysis business, and then rushing to get the film out in theaters before the election.
More of a hastily executed charcoal sketch than a portrait, Oliver Stone's W. is nonetheless an often compelling, tragicomic psychological analysis of Dubya, viewed through the prism of his relationship with an allegedly disapproving father.
W. is not the hatchet job some may have expected (or hoped for). It is instead a measured and thoughtful meditation on a leader who, this terrific movie believes, inadvertently made the world as roiling as his soul.
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.
We're awfully close to the real events in W., still feeling the effects of this presidency. ... So the concentration on personality flaws feels a little off-point somehow — insufficient, almost frivolous.
Unsure where to aim or what to hit, Stone appears flummoxed, even flaccid, content to holster his own opinions and recycle others, mainly the tried-but-tepid notion that, hey, Junior has a Daddy complex.
It doesn't stand with Stone's acknowledged masterpieces. The history is too fresh and under-digested. But W. does show a master filmmaker plunging into the history and politics that have been his passion for much of his career.
The film is unable to achieve any aims higher than as a sort of engaging pop-history pageant and amateur, if not inapt, psychological evaluation, due to the unavoidable lack of perspective and a final act that has yet to be written.