We just discovered that the tickets we bought for W. last week were, in fact, for Lakeview Terrace. I wish I'd noticed at the time.

Spike Lee was right!

Meandering would be the best term to describe this movie. It's interesting and effective at times, but then the next scene is just as likely to be dull and plodding. I don't think it ever really finds its rhythm. The movie almost feels too impartial, which is rather shocking from the likes of Oliver Stone. I already knew everything that this movie tells us about George W. Bush. It just doesn't reveal anything particularly noteworthy or interesting, and as a result, ultimately feels a little pointless. Despite the film's overall inconsistency, Josh Brolin is outstanding in the lead role and does his damndest to shape Dubya into a fully-realized "character." The rest of the cast is all over the map. James Cromwell and the lovely Elizabeth Banks are solid (I would've liked to see more with Laura Bush, frankly). Richard Dreyfuss manages to make Dick Cheney look even more like Satan than usual. Jeffrey Wright and Toby Jones are also effective. Scott Glenn and Ellen Burstyn seem unsure how to play Rumsfeld and Barbara Bush, with Burstyn lapsing into histrionics more than once. And, as others have said, Thandie Newton is jaw-droppingly awful; I don't know what happened there, since she's usually an engaging actress. There are some interesting scenes and the movie is worth watching if only for Brolin's performance. But because Oliver Stone can never seem to decide what tone he wants the movie to have, it left me scratching my head and feeling like I had maybe wasted my time a little bit. C

Brolin is great - I wouldn't mind an Oscar nom for him. He won't be though. I actually liked Thandie Newton in this...?

But yes, the movie as a whole seems way too eager to please both sides, playing it safe most of the time, and at the end of the day, while it was never boring, it was just underwheming (specially considering Stone's reputation as an incendiary filmmaker).

Brolin's fantastic. The movie itself is slow but good.


B+

I really enjoyed the pre-President part of the movie. Brolin and the rest of the Bush characters are great. The scenes that depicted his actually Presidency rang a little hollow, though. It almost felt like a parody at times. I would have much prefered if Stone entirely focused on W's journey to becoming President. B-

Yeah, like the last scene him getting the calling or his state of the union address. It speeds far too through it. I mean, his reasoning for finding christianity is never really explained other than having chest pains after running a few miles while hungover.

W. - 5/10 (C-)

To call this underwhelming would be an understatement. It is really just not good, and I hate George Bush. My parents couldn't wait to see it and none of us liked it. Also, I do not believe for one second that Condoleezza Rice really acted like that. Thandie Newton gives a Razzie-worthy performance. The movie should have been longer as events feel rushed, except I'm so glad it wasn't. Really it doesn't seem to know what kind of movie it wants to be and it would have been better if it had picked either a serious biopic or a satire. I myself would have preferred satire, though I didn't feel the way they went about that side of the movie to actually work. And yet it doesn't work as a serious movie either. It's all over the place.

I'm so glad I didn't waste my time seeing this in theaters.

'W.' is rather bad. - 4/10.

A fascinating failure. It was really doomed from the start, and Stone knew that, so I give him props for managing to create something that feels like a movie at all. Very well-filmed - with a surprising but respectable lack of bashing - and extremely well-acted. Not to mention, this should've gotten an Oscar nod for Best Makeup. Considering we see all of the people in this movie on TV every day, it's amazing that it came across as even somewhat believable (this applies mainly to Brolin, who deserved at least some Oscar consideration for his work). Of course, Bush's life doesn't have a real movie structure, which is why it's hard for this to work, but I'd say Stone did as good a job of handling it as anybody could've.

B

Not quite what I expected, but I enjoyed it. It had trouble deciding what it wanted to be, though. Josh Brolin is what really made the film, though.

I liked it, but it's really uneven. Most of the White House material is very compelling, with the debate about Iraq being the best scene of the movie. But the flashbacks aren't nearly as interesting, since they just stand as a smattering of "best of" moments. Josh Brolin is very good in the lead role, and there's good work from Richard Dreyfuss and James Cromwell, but everybody else in the ensemble cast seems either underused or doesn't make an impression (apart from Thandie Newton, who is nails on a chalkboard annoying as Condoleeza Rice). For being an Oliver Stone movie, there's also not much firepower to speak of; it's pretty tame. All in all, I think the good outweighs the bad, but there's no doubt that it could have been a better movie.

B-

Not Stone's best movie by far, but great nonetheless. I'm glad this wasn't an all out attack on Bush because that would have been less artistic and more populist to do. The fact is the George W. Bush should have never been in the White House precisely for the reasons Stone explores by showing us the world through Bush's eyes. B+

Such a strange film. I saw it during its theatrical release and watched it on Showtime a month ago. Certain scenes are compelling and Brolin delivers a solid, convincing performance, but it does, as others have said, have a "greatest-hits" feel. Stone seems uncomfortable behind the camera here. His usual stylish confidence is M.I.A.

Filming Bush's controversial, storied time in the White House will never be simple, but it's clear there is a better film to be made in the future. The fact the name "Katrina" is not said once in Stone's W. underlines how incomplete it is, even if there are positive elements.

Oh, and Thandie Newton: WTF? I was also disappointed Ioan Gruffudd had just one scene as Tony Blair.

C

C


I'm really not sure what to write about this. I suppose, it's ambitious? But it is very very unfocused and never manages to make any message clear it tries to convey (or does it). Josh Brolin is utterly convincing in the leading role and it's too bad he hasn't been up for any awards consideration. The rest of the cast, however, ranges from being cardboards to just ridiculously annoying (Thandie Newton, what the hell were you doing?!). At times funny, at times poignant, but most of the time just chugging along with no real purpose. That describes the movie rather well.

This is not a very good movie, but considering Gunslinger's C is equivalent to most people's F- this is a preposterous grade.

i think my new favorite totally fucking random kj feud is gunslinger vs. michael a