W.

Audience Reviews

View More

thiago s @Thiagostone Aug 15 Filme fraco, o roteiro é fraco, as cenas são fracas, a história é fraca, o elenco é fraco, e ninguém ajuda a melhorar o filme, os personagens são fracos, e o filme deveria ter cenas bem melhores e relevantes, para fazer o filme ser bom See more Jeffrey P @vanillavoodoo1 03/20/2025 As far as biographical films go, it was okay. As far as entertainment goes, it’s mildly entertaining and slightly informative. It loses focus in the back half as it delves more into the Iraq War. Still, it’s better than 45/47. See more Alan C @RT79027768 12/23/2024 A great film by Director Oliver Stone. The film has a solid cast and a great storyline. It takes you on a general in depth biopic of the 43rd President George W. Bush. Josh Brolin knocked his portrayal of former President George W. Bush out of the park. He got alot of Bush's mannerisms correct. The film takes a deep look at everything from Bush's very untamed youth, to his decision to quit the bottle to the decision making that went into The War in Iraq. A very eye opening film. Also, Elizabeth Banks shines as Former First Lady Laura Bush. She also got Mrs. Bush's style and mannerisms down to a T. A very well done and eye opening political drama/biopic. Mr. Stone should be proud. An A+ film. See more Blu B @RT43513976 11/18/2024 Looking back I think the biggest problem here is this tried to do two things. It tried serving as a bio pic for Bush AND trying to explain what went wrong with the Iraq WMDs. It's simply too much for a 2 hour film to cover. and what ends up happening. This should've taken a queue from All The President's Men where it didn't try to show all of Nixon's life only 2 years after Watergate, but focused just on the event in razor focus. It didn't need to show the Presiden'ts life to understand the motivations for such a event. The same would porbably work here and that movie didn't even show Nixon once in anything that wasn't stock footage. The editing, pacing, and cinematography aren't good here and everything else is just alright. It's VERY unfocused with it's ideas and skips over big events. We never see bush as a kid despite seeing his early college years. But the father relationship is huge in this so seeing that would've probably helped. we don't see the campaigning, the 2000 election , literally NOTHING once he's elected govenor or Texas, and nothing else besides the Iraq War during his tenue including 9/11. Also his relationship with Cheney isn't really explored. Looking back also, this doesn't do a good job explaining the actual Iraq War origins and kind of just expects you to have lived through those events (a simliar but not as severe problem in All The President's Men had also). There are scenes that are just VERY boring also paritculary anything where they sit around explaining the WMD stuff. It gets very repetitive and the music is SOOOOOO boring. The direction feels inconsisitent. The non WMD White House stuff feels like it was shot by a different director almost and feels uninspired. I will say this. It's impressive given this is Stone that it doens't feel heavily political but I think that's an unintended byproduct of it being so unfocused too. Brolin really is hit or miss here. He feels miscast, alright, and other times does a good job. Dreyfuss as Cheney is solid and the best casting choice in this. Everyone else is very forgettable including Cromwell. There just isn't any electricity between him and Brolin which makes the father son dynamics hard to buy into. Skip This. See more SkyRo P @TheMovieSearch 09/02/2024 "W." is a film that delves into the presidency of George W. Bush, showcasing the historical significance of every individual who holds the highest office in the United States. The movie suggests that every president deserves a biography that captures their time in office, regardless of their successes or failures. Josh Brolin delivers a standout performance as George W. Bush, despite initial skepticism about his casting in the role. He effectively embodies the essence of Bush, portraying him as a somewhat goofy and party-loving figure who may not have taken his political responsibilities seriously at first. The film sheds light on Bush's journey to the presidency, depicting his struggles and personal growth leading up to the events before 9/11. It offers a captivating insight into Bush's term in office, particularly his decisions regarding going to war during his first term. Overall, "W." is a film that exceeds expectations and is worth watching for its portrayal of a complex political figure. See more John C @RT25427934 07/13/2024 It was always going to happen. Pretty much every major person has had a film made about them. However, the simply-titled 'W.' came out almost before the man himself (President George W. Bush, in case you wondered) had left office in 2008. It's fair to say that there was plenty to say about his time as 'the most powerful man in the world,' largely because it was he who was in charge during 9/11 and the subsequent 'War on Terror.' Before Josh Brolin hit the 'real' big time (or do I just mean 'lucrative?') with his various Marvel roles, he turned in a pretty convincing performance as the leader of the free world. Much of the film's second half centres on the invasion of Iraq and the problems the war churned up for all those who supported it. I remember the news coverage (and media coverage in general) and little portrayed Bush in a favourable light. At best he was a 'buffoon' and at worst a 'warlord.' Therefore, Brolin had quite an uphill job trying to make him seem like a sympathetic character. We see the President as someone who means well, but is sometimes a little too convinced of his own course of action to be able to consider that he might be choosing the wrong path. Plus he's one of the few Presidents whose father was in office only a few years before hand. We see how 'W.' finds it hard living in George Bush Senior's shadow and is constantly trying to impress him and outdo his (seldom seen in this film) brother, Jed. The supporting cast all seem to have been picked - mainly - based on how well they look like the person they're supposed to be in real life. They all do their jobs well enough, but it's Josh Brolin who carries on the film as, from what I've seen of the REAL Bush Jr, Brolin captures his mannerisms and personality very well. This is the second time I've watched the film and, until I saw the opening credits again, I'd forgot that this was an Oliver Stone film. He's certainly no stranger to getting amazing performances out of people and, although everyone plays their parts well (mainly Brolin, of course) I'd hardly say this was his most memorable of productions. I certainly enjoyed 'W.' but seeing as this is history that has happened during my lifetime, there wasn't that much extra I didn't already know from watching the news throughout the early 2000s. The film is just over a couple of hours long and goes past pretty quickly. Although this is probably a 'positive' it does seem to be a bit of a 'whistle-stop' tour of Bush's life, starting during his college days and ending with his time in office. If you're a fan of Brolin or looking for something that's more akin to a 'drama-documentary' on the subject matter, this is certainly entertaining enough. However, if you hated the man in real life, you may find this portrayal a little too 'favourable' if you're hoping to see him made out to be a monster. See more Read all reviews

W.

My Rating

Read More Read Less POST RATING WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW

Most Popular at Home Now