Days later & after reading 100+ reviews, I’m still not sure what I think of this film. Josh Brolin was great and some of the “imagined” scenes in the war roomaDays later after reading 100+ reviews, I’m still not sure what I think of this film. Josh Brolin was great and some of the “imagined” scenes in the war room were interesting. On the other hand, I felt it glossed over the issues, left out a lot. Most disturbingly to my brain is at the end of the movie, no matter how many gaffes they showed Bush doing, how unqualified they showed him to run the country (NO ONE at Yale gets “C”s unless they’re failing!)—I still felt the film made him out to be sympathetic. A bumbling loser out of his depth, letting forces around him dictate his actions.

It left me with nearly exactly the same taste in my brain as did the Cusack film Max (2002).

After watching Max, I felt like the message was “Hitler was a messed up guy who wanted to be an artist. If only he’d gotten to be an artist, so many people wouldn’t have died.”

After W., I kept thinking, if only he’d been more secure in his father’s love and gotten that football commissionership—maybe our country wouldn’t have been ruined (morally/financially, etc.)/our entire global economy tanked, etc. And I can see by a lot of the comments that a lot of people, had a “oh poor Bush” moment.

That doesn’t feel right. I don’t want to feel bad for these guys. They were awful human beings – who did awful things. I don’t care about the “privations” or disappointments they “suffered”. They then went on to choose to do some very bad things and no early future acts/environments excuse those later acts.

Plenty of people are frustrated artists – and don’t go on to become megalomaniacal genocidal rulers.

Plenty of people have papa issues and don’t go on to take over and ruin countries.

Both films were interesting, trying to guess at some of the issues that drove the person… but I think they ran the danger of trying to make the subject someone you pity/someone you can almost empathize with.

In trying to “humanize” these people and not just have them be symbols of evil, I felt that it somehow lessened the fact that these people are BAD PEOPLE WHO DID BAD THINGS.

Maybe that was not the intent of either picture, maybe it was just an attempt to show the forces that molded these men…but somehow it came off as sympathetic to the historical figure. And that disturbs me.

P.S.: I?m NOT saying Bush is Hitler. I’m pointing out similar portrayals in movies that explore the backgrounds of bad leaders!
were interesting. On the other hand, I felt it glossed over the issues, left out a lot. And most disturbingly to my brain is at the end of the movie, no matter how many gaffes they showed Bush doing, how unqualified they showed him to run the country (NO ONE at Yale gets “C”s unless they’re failing!)—I still felt the film made him out to be sympathetic. A bumbling loser out of his depth, letting forces around him dictate his actions.

It left me with nearly exactly the same taste in my brain as did the Cusack film Max (2002).

After watching Max, I felt like the message was “Hitler was a messed up guy who wanted to be an artist. If only he’d gotten to be an artist, so many people wouldn’t have died.”

After W., I kept thinking, if only he’d been more secure in his father’s love and gotten that football commissionership—maybe our country wouldn’t have been ruined (morally/financially, etc.)/our entire global economy tanked, etc. And I can see by a lot of the comments that a lot of people, had a “oh poor Bush” moment.

That doesn’t feel right. I don’t want to feel bad for these guys. They were awful human beings – who did awful things. I don’t care about the “privations” or disappointments they “suffered”. They then went on to choose to do some very bad things and no early future acts/environments excuse those later acts.

Plenty of people are frustrated artists – and don’t go on to become meglamanical genocidal rulers.

Plenty of people have papa issues and don’t go on to take over and ruin countries.

Both films were interesting, trying to guess at some of the issues that drove the person… but I think they both ran the danger of trying to make the subject someone you pity/someone you can almost empathize with.

In trying to “humanize” these people and not just have them be symbols of evil, I felt that it somehow lessened the fact that these people are BAD PEOPLE WHO DID BAD THINGS.

Maybe that was not the attempt of either picture, maybe it was just an attempt to show the forces that molded these men….. but somehow it came off as sympathetic to each historical figure. And that disturbs me.

NOTE: I’m NOT saying Bush is Hitler. I’m pointing out similar portrayals in movies that explore the backgrounds of bad leaders!

I keep reading people’s take on this flick and how the characterization of W was somehow compassionate and humanizing. Maybe I’m way off base, but I didn’t get that at all. As I was watching this film, I kept thinking that it was like watching Dr. Strangelove, only based in reality rather than fiction and more of a tragedy than a comedy…unless you think the abuses commited by his administration under the pretense of protecting the American People are somehow funny.
Anyway, it wasn’t really Stone’s best work, but some of the actors did a pretty admirable job portraying personalities we’re already pretty familiar with (Dreyfuss in particular.) I have to agree with the take that the soundtrack was pretty weak; usually one of Stone’s stronger points, but it just didn’t seem to do much to drive this one.
Really though, check out the scenes in the war room again and tell me they don’t SCREAM Dr. Strangelove…

sympathetic, compassionate view of Mr Bush. I wonder if in reality Mr Bush and Mr Cheney shared a more accurate and honest understanding of who exactly was in charge. Somehow I doubt that their relationship was as depicted in this film.

I’d’ve liked to be able to read what was on the T-shirt W. was wearing in the depiction of the pretzel choking incident. There was a Scottie dog emblazoned on the shirt.

The Tony Blair segment was funny. The Tony part was written like he was a callow youth in comparison to W.—which is probably correct. In reality Tony Blair always looked to me to be very uncomfortable in Mr Bush’s presence.

Knowing very little about the subject, and if there is any truth in saying that the true judgement of a man lies in looking at his spouse, then at least from this depiction of Laura Bush, Mr Bush may be a decent man after all (although he fails miserably in projecting this in his words or actions as President of the USA).

The soundtrack was crap, and confusing I thought. Maybe one or two exceptions.

W. is a biography of a president who is not only alive, but still in office. Watching the life story of someone as high-profile and still relevant as George W. Bush was strange.

Add in the fact that every significant event of his life was crammed into the two hour film and turned into a dramatic interchange between the main characters and the film just did not seem convincing.

That being said, I was very impressed with Josh Brolin’s performance and I felt that the movie did a good job of not being preachy. In the end, it did not make me feel any more or less sympathetic toward the man (full disclosure: I never voted for W.). There are a slew of books and documentaries already out on the subject and many of them either vilify Bush 43 and a few paint him as a saint. This film does neither.

The character is likable, but not lovable. Still, I felt it was too weird to get emotionally attached to a dramatized modern history lesson, one which has played itself out in the media over the last eight years. This movie offered nothing new to the W’s legacy other than a fabricated account of his issues with his father, his alleged “born again” Christianity and victory over alcoholism. C+, maybe B-

OK, in all honesty I’m neither an Oliver Stone fan nor a fan of our current administration, so I approached this movie with some trepidation but still some hope because, well, I wanted to be pleased, was willing to be pleased.

About 2/3 of the way through, though, I gave up and just waited for the end (I don’t walk out of movies unless they’re truly horrible, like Boxing Helena horrible). Oliver Stone is another director who’s bought into his own hype and dragged a lot of quality talent into the muck with him. Nothing but caricature (why bother getting an actress to play Condoleeza when the role as written and realized could have been played by a trained bird?) and slapdash and stock footage edited in to beef up poor storytelling (though possibly it’s suffering, this film, from contrast with the near-genius editing of Religulous, which I took in last Monday).

This is a horrible story of a bad and embarrassing period in our history that isn’t quite over yet, but it’s still an important story that needs better treatment.