W.

W.

42% Liked It
liked it

W.

Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks, James Cromwell, Ellen Burstyn, Thandie Newton

Josh Brolin stars as George W. Bush in this Oliver Stone biopic that traces the head of state's rise to power from a privileged alcoholic to a born-again Christian whose belief in religious destiny he... read more read more...lped move him to the top ranks of political power. Co-written by Stanley G. Weiser, Bush is produced by fellow Stone collaborators Moritz Borman and Jon Kilik, with Elizabeth Banks co-starring as the first lady, James Cromwell as the elder President Bush, Ellen Burstyn as Barbara Bush and Richard Dreyfuss as Vice President Dick Cheney. ~ Jeremy Wheeler, Rovi

Id: 10943486

Do you want to see this movie?

My Friends Said...


Register or sign-in to see your friends' reviews !

Recent Reviews


  • January 2, 2013
    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 ... read morethis 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.
  • April 24, 2012
    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... read more 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.
  • February 9, 2012
    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 booze... read moreful 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 :)
  • December 22, 2011
    It's very rare that I hear poor feedback with regards to a film by director Oliver Stone. Several months ago, I got tired of hearing all this, so I went and watched his 1991 political drama JFK, which is now one of my favorite films. After spending what seemed like forever tryi... read moreng to get my hands on another Stone film, I finally got a chance to see W., a film which now makes me skeptical about Stone. This makes me believe that he must have either worshiped or loathed Bush; this film was released before Bush was even out of office.

    Full Review: http://wp.me/p1Urcx-z5
  • January 15, 2011
    A wonderful biographical piece. Whether you hate or love Bush,he has a lot of impact in the world we live in today. The move give us some interesting insight to the Bush's precidency and how he reach it. Josh Brolin is brilliant to play Bush Jr. The story is delivered to the audi... read moreence in strange way, but great. It is divided to parts before he become president and when he's the president. I waited for the second election, but I don't think they are filming that. Some important part of Bush precidency might be left out due to the early release. But it is very enganging one.
  • November 29, 2010
    For years, I've always took Oliver Stone's films to be mediocre, his last good film was Natural Born Killers. After that, his career was a constant string of mediocre films. But W. is a better film than what his recent films have been. This is one of Oliver Stone better films in ... read morerecent memory as Alexander and World Trade Center weren't good. But in W. Stone paints a unique portrait of one of the most controversial in recent memory. Josh Brolin delivers a strong performance as George Bush, and in the film he really does look and act like him. The film follows the rise of George Bush from University to his run for Governor to his presidency. The thing that surprises me the most about the film is the fact that this was released while Bush was in office. The film has a good dose of drama and comedy, as the film tends to show the ineptitude of George Bush. The cast alongside Josh Brolin is well picked and give great performances especially James Cromwell who gives a great performance as Bush senior. W. is Oliver Stone's best film since Natural Born Killers. Everything from the casting and story is good, but this is not a film for everyone because it kinda drags on at times and it's slow. But to those want a personal look into this politicians life, then give W. a viewing. W. is a near flawless portrait of George Bush, not perfect of course but it gives you a look at his life and his presidential legacy, as much as George Bush was hated by the general public, he has made an impact in politics.
  • October 21, 2010
    Even I do not feel this movie was very accurate and I in no way support George W. Bush. This movie should be watched the same way you rely on Wikipedia for information - check other sources! A big disappointment from Oliver Stone trying to be political more so than tell a story... read more on exaggerated truths.
  • April 5, 2010
    Just as I'm not sure what to think about the subject matter, I'm just as conflicted about this film, which is riviting in places (especially the scenes concerning policy and the Iraq mess), but mundane and pedestrian in others.

    Stone tries to be evenhanded here, the net result... read more is a portrayal of W. as an almost savant - smart (as compared to intelligent), with a certain way with people (remember, just after 911 he had a 80% approval rating - almost unprecedented).

    Stone has Brolin (who really does a fine job with some of W.'s ticks) coming off as too trusting of those "in the know" around him - from the slimey Cheney (brilliantly portrayed by Richard Dreyfuss), to the ultimate yes man, Condolezza Rice. It seems he was manipulated by those in power around him, giving him, if not mis-information, then not ALL the information; so W.'s decisions were skewed.

    Through this portrayal I was able to glean a bit of how a man could begin to believe in devine providence - not saying that to do so is right or wrong - but as an abstract study, I found it fascinating.

    I also found James Cromwell's portrayal of Bush senior to be equally fascinating, showing surprising depth for a "minor" charactor; although the "daddy didn't give affection" (sorry Veder) angle was a bit too trite and commonplace.

    I also wondered about the scene portraying Bush senior taking the initiative in not persuing Saddam back into Iraq after Desert Storm - my memory of those events had him backing down against his will due to United Nations pressure - for him to do it on his own.... oops, what a mistake; could have saved a whole lot of grief 10 years later.

    For this film the final analysis goes like this: a flawed film about a flawed man, running a country with a flawed system.
  • December 24, 2009
    I was as disappointed with W. as I was in 2004 with the US for reelecting Bush. W. doesn't come across as a movie as a bunch of vignettes. I'm no fan of George W. Bush but all that aside, but I know a dull, lifeless and uninspiring movie when I see it. Oliver Stone cements his re... read moreputation as a nutless wonder with a completely boring script that makes World Trade Center look great. Like World Trade Center, W. is a fantastic subject that Stone by reputation should easily hit a home run with--instead he shoves it down his pants and sings nursery rhymes before going into an epileptic seizure. Josh Brolin does okay as Bush but everyone else seems to be doing bad celebrity impressions (I wanted to club Thandie Newton to death with a Cadillac for her obnoxious performance as Condoleezza Rice) that aren't fit for the worst Saturday Night Live skits. There is no reason in hell you need to go out of your way to see W.
  • November 18, 2009
    Nothing terribly memorable in this besides Josh Brolin's total commitment to his role of Bush. He had him down to the way he walks, which was truly amazing to see. The rest of the movie is enjoyable, but falls under the same spell of most Oliver Stone movies. What is so important... read more that needs to be expressed? I don't think anyone working on this movie had an idea.

Opening This Week

Top Box Office

Upcoming Movies

New on DVD