W. - L'improbable Président

From Fidel Castro's friend I was expecting a hateful political mumbo-jumbo, but to my surprise I got a naive piece of work, the script for which was perhaps written by failed first year political science students. At least Brolin, who perfectly nailed Bush's gesticulation, was excellent. (03/02/2009)

I can't decide if Stone was glorifying or caricaturing Bush, but this biography is incredible. It deliberately avoids "breakthrough" moments (no direct confrontation with 9/11, just talking about it in the past tense), but instead emphasizes the main character who has to struggle with whatever life throws at him. The time when it was made makes it seem complex, but it will lose its relevance in a few years (and after a few other presidents). This also hurts the film in that, for (non)political reasons, no academics will celebrate it in any way, which is unfair at least to Josh Brolin, who is... just think of Bush's speeches (intonations, gestures, attitudes) and then watch the film. You will understand that Josh is simply brilliant! I don't know exactly what I was expecting, but I got something completely different. Stone doesn't provoke, Stone surprises. Cleverly! PS: In a few years, it will be forgotten and will barely get 3 stars, but right now it was entertaining as hell! (21/01/2009)

The conscience of America is speaking up again, but fortunately, it is treading very carefully. Stone has created a perfect compromise, not trying to portray Bush as an ordinary guy at all costs, nor turning him into an archvillain. There were plenty of others who did that in the past decade. In this story, there are mistakes, but not even a trace of personal antipathy is added to them. After all, the relationship with his father explains his ambitions while still wanting to stay within the factual boundaries. Thanks to this, W. became a perfectly serious study. But not a study of a famous personality, but one of mass hatred. (22/04/2012)

Many people expected that Oliver Stone and George Bush would settle things without scruples and that a political pamphlet would emerge rather than a biographical drama. For the American left, Bush's victory was a slap in the face. After all, let's admit seriously that it was on the edge of legitimacy and tested American institutions and society to the utmost. Strangely enough, Stone approached the material with the utmost seriousness and wanted to make a dignified drama. But, alas, screenwriter Stanley Weiser unfortunately didn't excel and the result was also marked by the fact that Bush Jr. simply wasn't a charismatic personality. Instead, he was in the right place at the right time, with his advisors from public relations doing the work for him. The only thing that stands out in the film is Josh Brolin's great performance in the lead role. That is clearly a five-star affair. Everything else is forgettable and, within Stone's filmography, this piece belongs to the least remarkable films. Overall impression: 45%. (19/06/2017)

Given that I quite hated Bush, I liked W. almost too much. I can blame it on a) the excellent Josh Brolin who has Bush down to a T, portrays him perfectly, and on top of that, lends him incredible charisma, b) Oliver Stone, who took this biography in a very different direction than I expected and c), though it doesn't seem very likely to me, George W. Bush himself. I truly don't know. It's definitely a very well-shot biography (which is probably missing the most important chapter but that was obviously the intention) of a funny, confused guy who just wanted to step out of his father's shadow. Which he did, but unfortunately for him, in a negative way. (07/02/2009)

I'm not too familiar with Oliver Stone's work, so I can't say if W. is his worst or best film, or if it seems like it's not his film at all. But the now former most powerful man on the planet was and is of interest to me, so I was looking forward to this two-hour biographical probe. I have to admit, Stone handled it well. The big win is the casting of all the roles (Brolin is really excellent, but James Cromwell or Richard "Cheney" Dreyfuss" are no worse), as well as the script, which has taken most of the interesting moments from the life of "W" and put them together in a "let everyone decide" way. I like the fact that Stone doesn't erect any monument to Bush, remains impartial, doesn't elevate him to the heavens, and doesn't make him the political brain of America. W., on the other hand, is the kind of Texas cowboy who struggled through life for a while before he figured out what he was good at. He's human, he makes mistakes and he doesn't always know things ("Guantanamero Prison"), but he can also be tough and go after what he wants. Especially when it comes to kicking Saddam's ass. I liked it very much, the four pure stars are deserved. (19/06/2010)

Oliver Stone made a film that didn't harm anyone, except perhaps himself. The fact that Brolin is excellent in his role is one thing, but the other is the fact that the film is actually about an ordinary person trying to cope with what is coming. Honestly, I don't care that G. W. Bush is normal - an ordinary person. I don't understand the purpose of watching a two-hour film that tries to convince us that Bush is our man. And if this was meant to be a satire and caricature of this man, Stone has hidden it so well that it ultimately becomes glorification and even justification of the war in Iraq. Taking into account that the film avoids 9/11 as a suitable element, I see it as just a tool to avoid controversy, which this film succeeds in doing brilliantly. It's incredibly flat. (07/04/2014)