First Reviews of 'W.' Trickle In
Filed under: New Releases, Lionsgate Films, Celebrities and Controversy, Newsstand
.jpg)
Oliver Stone's W. has screened for the more important among us, and I am pleasantly surprised to report that people are not openly laughing at it. Some seem downright impressed. Here, for example is David Poland on The Hot Blog:"[Josh] Brolin should be nominated for the Oscar. We'll see whether the crowd around Best Actor is too big for him to crack, but it is a letter perfect performance that looks much, much easier than most critics and audiences, I think, will understand . . . . The only downside is that the movie doesn't offer the massive supporting cast a lot of big awards-style moments. They are just really, really good. And that really should be enough."
Variety's Todd McCarthy is a bit more mixed than Poland, but concedes that W. "offers a clear and plausible take on the current chief executive's psychological makeup and, considering Stone's reputation and Bush's vast unpopularity, a relatively even-handed, restrained treatment of recent politics." And Kirk Honeycutt over at The Hollywood Reporter says that though the film is more bold than it is good, "Stone goes out of his way to give Bush a fair hearing."
Over the summer, I guffawed at the notion that Stone was going to be fair and sympathetic to Bush in W., but it looks like I may be eating those words before too long. Apparently the problem people are having with the film isn't its politics but its lack of formal audacity, which is the opposite what I expected to hear. But it's certainly good to learn that Stone at least attempts a serious treatment of the subject -- those script pages that Slate "leaked" a while back could have fooled me.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
10-09-2008 @ 3:21PM
monstermac said...
' Serious ' meaning not too TRUTHFUL, right ?
Reply
10-17-2008 @ 8:04AM
Brad said...
I wonder what would happen when Obama becomes president, If someone made a movie mocking him and his past associations with Terrorists?? Now that would be funny!!
Sadly I dont think it would get that good of reviews..... you decide why not
10-17-2008 @ 5:01PM
carol said...
Saw the movie today. This looks to just be a lot of half truths strung together to make a story. I have followed the middle east for more than 20 years and the treatment of Iraq is wrong. The Clinton admin debated invading Iraq and thought SH should be removed because SH sought to control the middle east but deemed it too unpopular. 911 created a political situation where there was finally enough support to take action but it was recognized that this window would not last. What troubles me so much about this movie is that it also makes America look like a corrupt by trying to make Bush corrupt and dumb. I wonder how many Americans will be stupid enough to think this is reality.
My comments are not a reply to anyone else comments. But the reply button was the only option.
10-17-2008 @ 7:12PM
Astenson said...
Not in reply, but it was the only option. I just left the theater. I was impressed & surprised that the movie wasn't a complete and total mockery of President Bush. But I was disappointed, considering I thought that the film was going to be a bit more statorical than it was. OK writing, good directing, GREAT job by Josh Brolin - who knew that he was actually a good actor?! The film was slow and dragged on at many points not to mention that the few attempts at humor were weak. Overall, however, I'd like my $6.00 and the 2+ hours of my life back.
10-09-2008 @ 4:03PM
John said...
Let me set politics aside for a moment and focus on the man.
I think this movie could be good because of the way people have spoken of his character in the past.
- Apparently, GWB and Rumsfeld used to have reading contests. They would go through several books a week and compare notes and discuss them. To me, that says that while he may not be a very good public speaker, he isn't the dummy he is made out to be. (please pay attention. drop the cracks about childrens books. I know what you're thinking.)
- By many counts, GWB above all else, is a very loyal person. He takes care of the people he cares about, including his friends. Regardless of what people may think of his choice of advisers, good or bad, he picked them because they had the skills he needed and they were his friend.
If you put any human being under the microscope that this person has endured over the last 8yrs, you are going to find lots of things. Again, setting aside the motivations of those who don't like him, look at what he had to deal with.
_The dotcom bust that started just before he got into office and burst in his very early days.
_9/11
_The airline industry crash because of fear from 9/11
_Huge stock decline because of 9/11
_Afghanistan/Iraq
_Hurricane Katrina devastating the south.
_High gas prices due to... whatever actually caused it. Have they actually found out why yet? Speculators? Opec? Increasing demand from China? Other?
_Adjustable Rate Mortgages
_Housing bubble
_New troubles with Russia
_Hurricane Ike
_Now all the banks crashing
All of those are above and beyond what a normal president has to deal with. They usually get one or two big ones and that's it. To me, it doesn't really matter what you think the causes for these things are. The point I'm making is this: Everyone points to the guy on top. People look, people investigate. His fault or not, he's the guy held responsible.
I agree that it is time to have someone else in the office. If nothing else, give the poor dude a break. He's probably ready to have a nervous breakdown. Look at pictures of him when he started and look at him now. It looks like he's aged 20yrs.
That is why this movie sounds interesting to me; it looks to be about the man, not the politics. It looks divorced (mostly) from analysts, insiders, and political gain.
I'll watch it. Maybe I'll learn something. I suggest others do the same. Set your prejudices aside and try to identify.
Finally, when you are deciding who you thinks should be elected president next month, look at your candidate and ask yourself, "Can he handle the responsibility? Does he have what it takes?".
Reply
10-09-2008 @ 9:06PM
NP said...
It doesn't take prejudice to see he's been a horrible president. What's his approval rating at these days? 20some percent? Enough said.
10-10-2008 @ 8:52PM
NP said...
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. I'm not going to get into a full-on political argument here. You can apologize and make excuses for him as much as you want. I still say he's a HORRIBLE man, who has done far more bad than good for this country in eight years.
10-10-2008 @ 12:05AM
Jane said...
re: NP's comment
How do you feel about President Truman? Did you know that when he left office, his approval rating was as low or lower than Bush's has ever been? But decades later, he is considered by scholars as one of the "top ten best presidents".
I'm not saying that Bush is perfect. I am saying that I think we might view history differently in 50 years.
Reply
10-10-2008 @ 10:16AM
NP said...
History also tends to be revised...
Reply
10-10-2008 @ 12:02PM
John said...
"It doesn't take prejudice to see he's been a horrible president. What's his approval rating at these days? 20some percent? Enough said."
Yes, I think that is around where it is. But, congress is down around 10. That isn't to say that either of them are good, just that nobody is happy with the way things are.
I don't see it as him being a horrible president. I see that he had a staggering amount of issues to handle. Some he did well on and others he didn't. Again, I agree we are ready for someone new in the office, but I don't think treating him as if he were scum is fair. He's a man, he makes mistakes too. Some people just go too far. The way some people talk, you would think that he was Hitler's meaner uncle. I just don't believe he is a bad man. That's why I'm looking forward to this movie. It looks like it discusses him as a person.
10-10-2008 @ 9:09PM
Justin said...
The bottom line is this. Regardless of how many books he read or reads, or how charming he is drunk, he refused to adhere to constitutional and democratic law in a systematic way, reaping massive profits for himself, his family and friends, all in many of the same ways as his grandfather, father, his brothers, cousins, and in many cases friends.
Our nation has literally starved intellectually, financially, psychologically, structurally, and if it means anything, spiritually, while this intentionally oblivious clown has benefited any person or institution willing to do what he, or his staff, want them to, at the expense of the freedom, fairness, morality, integrity, future, health, and attractiveness of everyone outside that tiny percentage.
His legacy is a wake of destruction, both physical and metaphysical, with roots that will poison every attempt at balance for at the very least decades. He is not the first nor last to do this, but you cannot excuse it and not accept some responsibility. Say what you will, if you enabled this, know that you are guilty.
It is disgusting and beyond defense, period. It was his sworn duty to lead our nation away from trouble, so that we could benefit ourselves and others. He chose the opposite path, in favor of personal wealth.
Apologists, what is it you hate deep in yourselves that make you want to stand up for what destroys you, intentionally or no?
Reply
10-11-2008 @ 1:08AM
John said...
Justin,
You could point out stats and studies, one after the other on how this man has ruined everything. Then, there are others who could show you that each and every one of those is wrong or flawed. Someone could find stats and studies supporting him, and then another could refute each and every one. What you have decided is that the man is guilty on all counts and nobody, including myself, is going to change your mind. I, on the other hand, admit that the guy has faults, but I don't believe that anything that went wrong is because he did it on purpose. You won't sway my opinion from that. He may not have been the most skilled, or the best for the job, but I don't hate the man.
I'm trying to have a non-partisan discussion about the movie "W" and the reasons why it seems interesting to me. I've admitted that I don't think that this president has been the best, but I'm trying to look past the negatives and see the potential for a good movie about someone who may be a bit misunderstood at times. You and NP are just haters no matter what is said. Then you call me an apologist and tell me that I hate myself. The vitriol that you spew is the kind of thing that makes advancing this country in a non-partisan way very, very difficult. You want everything, and are willing to give nothing. You speak of duty, which to me is part of patriotism, but what you mean is that everyone should feel and think as you do or they are evil or stupid.
Next thing you know, you'll be saying that he caused Katrina, Ike, 9/11, Russia's invasion of Georgia, and Iran's hate of Israel. You've entered into an intellectual discussion unarmed I'm afraid.
This is the last I'm speaking in this thread. I feel sorry for those of you who have such hate and little reason. Have a little charity, put some honest thought into it, and stop reading talking points. It may make you a better person. Good luck with that.
To Eugene and Cinematical,
I apologize for this comment being a tad harsh, but I'm not all that keen on being attacked... especially when I've tried to keep my thoughts/opinions open-ended and general.
10-11-2008 @ 2:34AM
Patrick said...
This isn't a political site so I'll check the political banter at the door. I'm with Justin on that.
The movie is about George W, the man. The title says a lot about how W will be seen by the audience; a child struggling to step out of his father's shadow and distinguish himself as a man. He has the most unique story of any President, being the son of a former President. The guy is kind of still in office and a movie is coming out about him. Has that ever been done for any public figure? I always enjoy movies that take people who are under the telescope of the public eye and show you a point of view that is up close and dramatic. One of my favorite movies is "Cobb," for this reason. I am expecting to see a lot of depth in the portrayal of the man, since this is an Oliver Stone film, and not just a 2 hour long sound bite compilation. I feel privileged to see this film while I am so affected by the circumstances and temperament of our times. I hope it doesn't disappoint.
Reply
10-12-2008 @ 9:53PM
Justin said...
John,
I'm sorry if you took my comments personally. I nowhere in my post addressed them to you, however, when you say, "I'm trying to have a non-partisan discussion about the movie "W" and the reasons why it seems interesting to me," I think you are re-interpreting your post much like Bush (and you) re-interpret his role and actions. In other words, as if reality was at your disposal to amend.
You go on to state that "stats and studies" can be interpreted the same way. Really? How do you feel about gravity being 9.81 m/s? Let me guess.
Also, you are stating that you are armed intellectually, and that the bullets are what? Your ability to deny reality when it doesn't suit you.
If that's not Bushian logic, nothing is.
But the icing on your proverbial cake (or cowpie) is this tasty quote;
"You speak of duty, which to me is part of patriotism, but what you mean is that everyone should feel and think as you do or they are evil or stupid."
No, sir. I speak of duty as the assignment of the president as stated by law, period.
And when the dereliction of duty by that elected official (or even one put in office by his Daddy's buds on the Supreme Court, or any other manipulation of democracy available) causes citizens to die, when it destroys the credibility of the entire country, then I have the right to speak out.
Any where and time I see fit.
If you label it vitriol, it does not make it false.
Maybe you're the type of person who cares more about movies than politics, government or economics, and therefore your country and the future of you and those you profess to care about.
If so, you are an average American, and I salute your indifference.
You also might want to read up on the Georgia crisis if you think we didn't provoke it.
As for partisanship, a criminal is a criminal... is a criminal.
Reply
11-02-2008 @ 7:40AM
Michele said...
Justin, you sure seem to know what you are talking about. I agree with your assessment of the situation. That explains to me why the movie left me feeling unsettled. W is a human portrayal of the man who was behind everything that has gotten us to where we are today. I guess I didn't like feeling empathy for him. He is human, but I agree that what he has done (flaunting our beloved constitution, the most unpatriotic thing of all) is criminal.
10-14-2008 @ 3:04AM
Michael Bauer said...
The goal of any president is to leave the country in better shape than when you took the office.
Did George W. Bush accomplish this goal?
Definitely not. The country isn't anywhere close to where it was in 2000. He gets a resounding "F".
Reply
10-15-2008 @ 6:04PM
Kevin said...
"The goal of any president is to leave the country in better shape than when you took the office.
Did George W. Bush accomplish this goal?
Definitely not. The country isn't anywhere close to where it was in 2000. He gets a resounding "F"."
And Clinton did? Bush did not take office until 2001, months after the economy began to decline while Clinton was still president. Yet all the blame was passed on to Bush, along with all of the pressure of trying to clean up Clinton's mess.
Employment advances began to slow in 2000. The average workweek began to decrease. Financial equity markets began to slow about mid-2000 as well. According to the Council of Economic Advisors in September, 2002, “It was widely recognized that the economy was weak coming into 2001. Manufacturing employment started falling in August 2000, industrial production started falling in July 2000, and manufacturing trade and sales started falling in April 2000.”
In October of 2002 during an interview, Joseph Stiglitz, Clinton’s chairman of the council of economic advisors, said, "It would be nice for us veterans of the Clinton administration if we could simply blame mismanagement by President George W. Bush’s economic team for this seemingly sudden turnaround in the economy, but the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office.” Yet, George Bush did get the blame from day 1.
Yes, times are pretty bad now and mistakes have been made, but where and when did it really all begin? And since George Bush has been president this country has suffered a horrible terrorist attack, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Hurricanes Katrina and Ike, and I still have a place to sleep, clothes to wear and food on my table.
I'm not fully supporting Bush, but I won't bash him either because I refuse to follow the popular opinion that 'it's all his fault.' I wouldn't want to, then or now, be in his shoes. From dealing with all the finger pointing and blame shifting before he ever even took office to terrorist attacks, war, and natural disasters, I'm surprised he hasn't had any major medical issues due to the stress. And to say that he did all sorts of bad things just for the money, that's just plain ignorant. Who would want to deal with all that crap and be hated by so many people just to make a buck?
It was the general public and numerous politicians, American and foreign, that turned Bush into an unpatriotic villain, which he is not. It's no wonder he had trouble making the right decisions since a huge percentage of people refused to give him any support. If you're a villain in the eyes of the people, you can do no right.
As for Obama or McCain: Be prepared for a very long and harsh four years!
10-17-2008 @ 11:10AM
B-Realer said...
I have seen most of Oliver Stone's movies. Not all of them are great, although most of them garner favorable reviews. I do want to see this movie. Much of it will (probably) be dramatic license flavored with assumption. At least that's what I'm assuming ;)? Still, I'm sure many elements of truth will be gleaned.
Regarding the political banter- G.W. Bush will go down in history as being one of the most oblivious and "conveniently" naive presidents of all time. His past, my friends, is definitely prologue. I wonder if anyone attributes his failures as president to the fact that he is a businessman, academically , and philosophicaly, a glorified cheerleader for blind faith?
Case in point: McNamara was a good executive in the business sector, but a complete idiot and "yes man" when it came to governance.
Being a businessman myself I can tell you that it doesn't take a genius to get a Bachelors or Masters in Business. Being a Biologist I can tell you that, just like minds and hearts, not all college degrees were created equal. Look at the state of the "Free Market".
Do high-priced con-men with pyramid scheming machinations deserve to be rewarded with praise, respect and vast sums of money? Is pure capitalism a fallacy like pure Marxism, pure Fascism, myopic Theocracy or idiotic Autocracy? Of course it is! This is a universe of balance. Nature abhors extremes!
Why do Americans believe this "99% perspiration, 1% inspiration" guff touted by many a devious shark? Hard work has its place, but it is not the end-all-be-all. There is something to be said for having the ability to adapt quicker, learn faster, correct mistakes expeditiously, avoiding future trangressions and to act in an imperturbable manner. An high academic, emotional AND social aptitude are attributes that the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth should possess. IMVVVHO.
As for Truman being a top ten prez. Ummm, he dropped an atomic bomb on two major Japanese cities inhabited largely by innocent civilians. The devastation lasted decades. Hundreds of thousands were killed instantly, and thousands more consequently.
The country was in its agonal throes. They had no fuel, steel, ammo, food, transportation and their military was utterly impotent when we decided to drop death incarnate twice over. That is the real history. He was an ignoramus, and a bumpkin. He rode the wave of FDR's greatness and momentum. So wtf are you saying?
The problem with Joe/Josephina Plumber is that he/she is uninformed, brainwashed, extremely overconfident without merit, devoid of anything novel or creative, a follower, a cowardly bully; an animal afraid of its own shadow and of unfounded fear. He/she is half-a-human. A holistic retardation born of laziness and weak mindedness.
He often has this unwavering patriotism, yet never served a day in the military or has ever been to war. He accepts revisionist history without researching to see if it true. He elects and pumps up those who are most likely to validate his worthlessness and selfishness.
She follows religion at the detriment of the lessons that are supposedly espoused by her beliefs. Hypocrisy is her credo. There is no room for growth and expansion, only obstinance and stasis.
He is sadistic and masochistic all at once, and he has such a devout, often subconscious hatred for his own inadequacies, that he cannot understand the tenets of acceptance and the value in depth of character. Integrity is redefined to suit his and his kind's needs. Fairness is unattainable for these people who believe in auto-cannabilism.
It is NOT enough to survive and to perpetuate the norm. More is going to be required of all humans from here on out. This is a new millenia. One where technology, logic, science, SKILLS, responsibility, accountability, uniqueness, free thinking, and global teamwork will decide whether or not that "Omega Point" will be reached.
God will not save us from destroying our planet or ourselves. The answers are being revealed, and we are often ignoring these facts. All things are connected. Beyond the esoteric, science and math have PROVEN this to us. "God helps those who help themselves" and others. God does not want us to define It. We cannot do this; it is impossible at this point in time. God would want us to redefine who we should be. Who It would want us to be.
There really is no need to try and drum in reason, independent thought, empathy, intelligence or empiricism. We are dealing with a soon-to-be extinct subset, or should I say, median of people. The middle of the bell curve will HAVE to shift towards progress so that our country and world will prosper in rhythm.
The average will be subpar soon enough. Those arrhythmic types understand this so they will try and stop the advancement of the world family. Step up or step off. It cannot be halted. It is preordained.
W. is the beginning of the end for the endangered, sociopathic dolts that have run this world for eons.
Or maybe not...
Still, I'm gonna see this flick!
Reply
10-18-2008 @ 3:34AM
Nathalie said...
Just got back from the movie theater and I have to tell you Stone hit the mark. Of course, there were a lot of rather biased interpretations of events in W.'s life, but what a great master of details Stone's is (I don't want to give anything away, but watch the Texas Rancher's sized belt buckles). And he brought back to mind the shams and taboos of this administration. The key issues: Loss of direction (beautifully illustrated by the whole cabinet lost on a casual walk under W.'s lead in the fields of Texas), annihilation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution regarding separation between church and state, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney et al as the fundamental forces and manipulators behind this administration, loss or withholding of information in W.'s cabinet, intentional distortion of opposing countries delivered by W. and his cabinet to the people of the United States, and... the list continues...
I live in Austin, Texas and while most of the people in the movie theater were very quite (actually the people right next to us left during the first half an hour), I couldn't hold back my laughter. And hold off your fast judgment, this is a very liberal Texan city. I don't want to know what kind of tomatoes were flying onto the screen during this show in, lets say, the Midwest (just as an example). I don't feel the least sorry for Bush, politicians and celebs are narcissists and want to be in the lime light: They crave it, but on the downside they will have to suck up the criticism.
Reply
10-18-2008 @ 8:54PM
clair said...
I honestly dislike George W Bush and his entire administration. They have screwed up more than most any president in the history of time. Seriously, they suck in my estimation! Terrible!
The movie pretty much sucks as bad in my opinion. I wouldn't waste a dime or your time on this movie. It was so far out of touch with reality, I honestly thought of leaving 1/2 way through. The acting was fine, the shooting of the scenes were just fine too.
The message was straight out of a playbook for the hardcore democratic base and had very little merit. I would like to reiterate that I hate Bush but this movie actually made me embarrassed that I have been even remotely associated with democrats. Embarrassed!
It was a bad movie. Don't go!
Reply