W. (2008)

When making a semi-biographical film, there really are two ways that one can go about the task. The first method would be to try to be as objective as possible in trying to present all sides of a person's life and public reception equally. Sadly, that method was most definitely not used by Oliver Stone in the making of "W".Upon just a surface-level viewing of the film, one might think that, objectivity-wise, it isn't really too bad. George W. Bush is portrayed both at his worst (the college years) and at his best (the 9/11 response), including pretty much all his important life events in between. Yet, for viewers who did not feel that Mr. Bush was the root of all political evil while in office, they will be able to see the framework from which Stone is portraying our latest departed President.Basically, the #1 problem inherent in "W" is that it clearly takes the stance that Bush is an idiot, no matter what the time period, situation, or office he holds. For example, instead of the strong leadership ability that was the Bush administration's "claim to fame", Stone projects G.W. as a stupid, bumbling idiot who was nothing more than a puppet of a few of his more superior cabinet members (such as Vice President Dick Cheney). Then there is also Stone's take on George W. Bush becoming a born-again Christian. Instead of perhaps even hinting at the fact that Bush might have made a sincere and heartfelt transformation towards God, Stone portrays the revelation as just emboldening Bush to keep blundering through life, as now he supposedly has God to back him up.Unfortunately, those two examples do not stand alone...the entire film is just dripping with the "idiot Bush" mentality. It seems to be as if Stone's thought process behind the film was not "let's make a live-action biography of George W. Bush" so much as "let's show how idiotic Bush is and yet he stills becomes President".Now, with that being said, the movie wasn't (by far) the worst that I have seen in terms of political favoritism/non-objectivity. Essentially, Stone just examines the life of George W. Bush through a single prism: that of a bumbling fool who somehow became President. Is that correct? Who's to say...it's just one possibility. I just wish that Stone would have widened his view a bit.

No, it's truly awful. There is no factual basis for any of the movie, which is made up almost entirely of private conversations which there is absolutely no way to confirm the existence or contents of. So as it is, it's just a smear against Bush.If you hate Bush and conservatives, it will probably be enjoyable on those grounds. Otherwise, just skip it and try watching a historical movie that actually has some body.

Of all political biopics out there, this remains to be the strangest. It plays out like a dark comedy from the Coen brothers. But Oliver Stone wanted to provide some truth, as well as humanizing a detested U.S. president. He really, kind of fails.. and he really, just makes Bush look even dumber than people thought he was. This film is also, historically, WAY TOO early to have been made. Bush wasn't even out of the Oval Office. I'd say the American public would've been ready for this half-way through Obama's 8-year term. This film would've been more effective, poignant and fascinating as a look back from today's political landscape. But, W. ends up being a knee- jerk reactionary film, hoping to sway an entire election in 2008. What's so pathetic about that, is that America was looking for a change, regardless if Oliver Stone threw his two-cents in or not. W. truly displays the arrogance of Oliver Stone as a director.

I think the best description of this film would be 'Shakespeareian' in the sense that it is the tragedy of a boy trying to please his father and failing abysmally, and the action being played out on the world stage. I guess, in a way, this is an interpretation of the reasons behind what some have considered to be one of the most disastrous presidencies in the history of the United States. The main reason as to why this presidency was disastrous can be pointed at one particular event and that is the invasion of Iraq, however in many other cases it appears to be the actions of a boy who, in his younger life, has repeatedly displeased his father, and has overcompensated in his attempts to win back his father's favour, however in doing so he has further alienated his father and the respectable name of his family.The other sense that it is Shakespearian is that it is played out in the background of what some could consider to be a noble household. To suggest that the United States has a form of nobility would be repugnant to many Americans who consider such a structure to indicate the lack of the ability to advance where they consider that the unique nature of the United States is that one can go from being a beggar on the street to a millionaire, all that it requires is hard work (and there is certainly evidence that this has happened).However, it is not the lack of mobility that I am referring to in my commentary, but rather the nature of entrenched wealth. In this film the characters speak of the various houses, such as the Kennedy's and the Bush's almost as if they were noble houses in and off themselves. One could even add the Rockefeller's to that list (and I am sure there are others). They are families who live in the upper echelons of society in which they have access to both wealth and power, and the children of which receive privileges that many of us do not get (such as the best skills, connections, and access to the best jobs). This is much more so in American where there is an inbuilt reluctance to receive handouts, and a belief that people are no oppressed or exploited (because if they were to actually realise that then they would be out on the streets protesting, when in reality it is only a handful of left wing intellectuals).As for the film, I think that W is actually a pretty good film that portrays Bush in a much different light than many of the others would, and it in both ways not too hard, and not too supportive. For a director that was pretty much opposed to the policies and actions of this particular administration, I believe he actually does a pretty decent job, along with throwing in some rather amusing scenes that is typical of a class of people who have effectively lost touch with the common person. As for the portrayal of Cheney, it is clear that he is the villain of the piece who is carefully playing an easily led and misguided boy for his own particular goals. With the exception of Cheney, who is clearly a villain, the rest of the cabinet are all portrayed in a farcical and quite satirical way.