I love this movie so much

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

If George W. Bush was anything, he wasn't his father. His father, George H.W. Bush was originally a New Englander, born in Massachusetts and then grew up in Vermont. While George H. W. did not have a Texas accent, son George W. did, growing up mainly in Houston and Midland, Texas. George W. sported cowboy hats, consumed burgers and beers, and boozed it up with broads at bars unlike his father who was the consummate intellectual New Englander, although both went to Yale. The present bio-pic is a kind of montage of the life of George W. Bush, interspersing scenes from his presidency with those of his formative years.Josh Brolin offers one of the best performances of his career, portraying the younger W. Bush as a carousing adolescent whose irresponsibility with booze is only matched by his exceptional driving techniques, which involve swerving through streets and running into things. Some of the best scenes are Bush's early years where appears almost diametrically opposite from his prominent father. While his father (James Cromwell in an equally compelling performance) was tempered and intellectual, Bush is the free-wheeling party animal. His first "test" is when he rushes Delta Kappa Epsilon, a Yale fraternity, where during a hazing, he's able to outdo his fellow rushers. (Legend has it the character of Bluto from "Animal House" was based on George W. when he was a member of the Yale frat house!) He is portrayed as a directionless scatterbrain, unable to hold down jobs and careers for any length of time. Unlike his steady father, W.'s drinking continually worsens, and he often proposes to women he barely knows.Frequently, we fast-forward to the Bush presidency. Richard Dreyfus is outstanding as Dick Cheney, and honorable mention goes to Jeffrey Wright as Colin Powell. His presidency is as scattered as his adolescent years, not quite knowing who is doing what in his cabinet. There is a sense that others with more intellect than himself are actually calling the shots behind his back. In an interesting early scene, during lunch with the Vice President, Cheney proposes a "hypothetical" scenario in which the President takes it too literally and compromises his sandwich as a result!Back in the formative years, Bush volunteers to help his father in his presidential bid. And then has life-changing experience after he's boozed it up hard one night. He goes on a jog which does not go as planned and by the end of the sequence, he's rubbing shoulders with Evangelicals. Eventually he would convert, help to bring out the Evangelical vote in favor of his father in 1988, and become governor of Texas in 1994. And then he would run for president.A thoroughly entertaining film which ponders more questions than it answers. Who was the real George W.? In a few places, we see W. standing in the middle of an empty baseball field, trying to catch an imagined fly ball. Every time the scene returns, the ball is more uncatchable. Which maybe speaks to various aspects of W. Was it that he couldn't quite catch the life he desired? Or maybe he was over-reaching? Or maybe the figure of W. is us, and the ball represents him, and we can't quite grasp him? Certainly not Stone's best film, but a good one.

I watched this in 2016 for the first time and it's just sad to see how bias the film and acting is in terms of representing all the left wing bigotry they have for Bush and Republican party. The reviews by others are predictably confident that Stone's portrayals and spot on and show the "real" characteristics of Bush. Right. Even the "Trivia" comments that Brolin lost lots of weight to play a younger Bush then had to put it back on to play an aging Bush. On the tails of Clinton's obsession with Cheeseburgers and fries, one can only imagine that was Bill's request in light of Bush's healthy lifestyle.I'll just leave it at this, there's no getting around the idea this movie was made as a vehicle for Stone to get his message out about a man he and other liberals disagree with. So much for an honest biography that comes anywhere close to factual or fair and balanced.

After directing presidential films like 1991's 'JFK' & 1995's 'Nixon', Oliver Stone now has his eyes on George W. Bush. However, instead, of directing a realistic mostly accuracy movie of the president, Stone choose to directed yet another fictionalized dream-like portrait. While, it's a largely sympathetic portrayal of the man. It does somewhat make Bush look like a cartoon than a real person. I don't agree with some of the critics that says, this was a down-to-earth portrayal. Don't get me wrong, George W. Bush is indeed goofy, however, while he did make some stupid mistakes, he's also shown to be savvy and reflective about some things, from time to time, and generally means very well. While, I'm not a big fan of the guy at all, never did voted for him, I do have to say, that he wasn't the worst president ever. However, I can't agree with this film, in the way, he is presented as a Man Child with daddy issues who is over his head. He's more complex than that. This biopic movie is almost directionless. It doesn't know, what part of George W. Bush's life, it wants to talk about. So, it pick all, the gimmicky outrageous parts. Despite that, I didn't mind, too much of Oliver Stone, taking artistic license on the history, too much. The real-life quotes from George W. Bush being used in very different contexts is fine with me. I just wish, the movie feels more like a realistic tone film than a series of over-the-top dream theatrics, news clipping and political caricatures. It was a bit jarring. During the editing process, there was said to be up to five different cuts of the film, each with a different tone, with some being more satiric, others darker, etc. While, the movie makes a great satirical comedy, it doesn't really give us, the viewers; a true understanding of the man named Bush, besides that he love baseball, supposedly. It doesn't really shown, any of his hard work to reach the presidential, nor does it explore, any of the key controversial issues that George W. Bush had, during his administration, besides his push for the war with Iraq. It's kinda a letdown, because I really wanted to know, what he was going through, during the controversial 2000 election. I kinda wanted to see, if he thought that Al Gore really win, over him. I also really wanted to see, how he dealt with the events of 9/11 event, and Hurricane Katrina. Most of all, I wanted see, some fore-shadowing to the financial crisis of 2007–08. After all, the banking collapse of 2008 could still be added on, during filming in mid-08. Just think, how much more popular, this film would had been, if they did that. Anyways, the version that Stone pick is the story of Bush's life, mostly away from the Presidency. Only a short half is honestly, about him, being president. I guess, this turn from the main focus, is a way to combat the controversy of releasing, a biopic of president, while that said, command and chief is still in office. Understandably, but why even make it, if you're not going to cover all of the keys events of his presidential? It felt like a waste of time. Anyways, conservatives on the right, accused it of being liberal propaganda, and many liberals of the left accused Stone of being too soft on Bush; which is basically, the same criticisms Stone received for Nixon. Despite, the unrealistic Daddy issues, Bush has, in his film, I thought, the rest of how Bush was portray, was alright for the most part. I kinda like Josh Brolin as George W. Bush. He really does seem to inhabit Bush's skin, through his facial expressions, and voice, despite, not really looking like him at all. Still, Josh Brolin lost about 20 pounds in order to better play Bush as a college student, and then had to gain it all back in order to play him in senior age. So, he try to look the part, even if he kinda fails at that. Even the supporting actors were alright in their performance as these real-life characters. I kinda like the soulless version that Richard Dreyfus was giving us, as Vice President Dick Cheney. Yes, Cheney in the film was so Machiavelli, but it's really hard to dispute that, when actual accounts, says he was. It's suck that Dreyfuss and Stone did not get along well during filming. I was really hoping for more of them, teaming. Anyways, mad props to Richard Dreyfus, he really brought it to this role. The same, can be said with James Cromwell as President, George H. W. Bush, Jeffrey Wright as Secretary of State, Colin Powell, Toby Jones as Policy Adviser, Karl Rove, and Scott Glenn as Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. They really made this movie, so much more mature than juvenile. The only supporting actor that didn't really bring it, is Thandie Newton as National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice. I found her character, so useless. Anyways, the movie is well-shot. The soundtrack was good enough to listen to, and the film pace was standard. Overall: 'W' was somewhat enjoyable and provocative. I wouldn't call it, the best presidential biopic, but it's no way, near the worst. It was average at best.

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.