As far as biographical films go, it was okay. As far as entertainment goes, it’s mildly entertaining and slightly informative. It loses focus in the back half as it delves more into the Iraq War. Still, it’s better than 45/47.

A great film by Director Oliver Stone. The film has a solid cast and a great storyline. It takes you on a general in depth biopic of the 43rd President George W. Bush. Josh Brolin knocked his portrayal of former President George W. Bush out of the park. He got alot of Bush's mannerisms correct. The film takes a deep look at everything from Bush's very untamed youth, to his decision to quit the bottle to the decision making that went into The War in Iraq. A very eye opening film. Also, Elizabeth Banks shines as Former First Lady Laura Bush. She also got Mrs. Bush's style and mannerisms down to a T. A very well done and eye opening political drama/biopic. Mr. Stone should be proud. An A+ film.

Looking back I think the biggest problem here is this tried to do two things. It tried serving as a bio pic for Bush AND trying to explain what went wrong with the Iraq WMDs. It's simply too much for a 2 hour film to cover. and what ends up happening. This should've taken a queue from All The President's Men where it didn't try to show all of Nixon's life only 2 years after Watergate, but focused just on the event in razor focus. It didn't need to show the Presiden'ts life to understand the motivations for such a event. The same would porbably work here and that movie didn't even show Nixon once in anything that wasn't stock footage. The editing, pacing, and cinematography aren't good here and everything else is just alright. It's VERY unfocused with it's ideas and skips over big events. We never see bush as a kid despite seeing his early college years. But the father relationship is huge in this so seeing that would've probably helped. we don't see the campaigning, the 2000 election , literally NOTHING once he's elected govenor or Texas, and nothing else besides the Iraq War during his tenue including 9/11. Also his relationship with Cheney isn't really explored. Looking back also, this doesn't do a good job explaining the actual Iraq War origins and kind of just expects you to have lived through those events (a simliar but not as severe problem in All The President's Men had also). There are scenes that are just VERY boring also paritculary anything where they sit around explaining the WMD stuff. It gets very repetitive and the music is SOOOOOO boring. The direction feels inconsisitent. The non WMD White House stuff feels like it was shot by a different director almost and feels uninspired. I will say this. It's impressive given this is Stone that it doens't feel heavily political but I think that's an unintended byproduct of it being so unfocused too. Brolin really is hit or miss here. He feels miscast, alright, and other times does a good job. Dreyfuss as Cheney is solid and the best casting choice in this. Everyone else is very forgettable including Cromwell. There just isn't any electricity between him and Brolin which makes the father son dynamics hard to buy into. Skip This.

"W." is a film that delves into the presidency of George W. Bush, showcasing the historical significance of every individual who holds the highest office in the United States. The movie suggests that every president deserves a biography that captures their time in office, regardless of their successes or failures. Josh Brolin delivers a standout performance as George W. Bush, despite initial skepticism about his casting in the role. He effectively embodies the essence of Bush, portraying him as a somewhat goofy and party-loving figure who may not have taken his political responsibilities seriously at first. The film sheds light on Bush's journey to the presidency, depicting his struggles and personal growth leading up to the events before 9/11. It offers a captivating insight into Bush's term in office, particularly his decisions regarding going to war during his first term. Overall, "W." is a film that exceeds expectations and is worth watching for its portrayal of a complex political figure.

It was always going to happen. Pretty much every major person has had a film made about them. However, the simply-titled 'W.' came out almost before the man himself (President George W. Bush, in case you wondered) had left office in 2008. It's fair to say that there was plenty to say about his time as 'the most powerful man in the world,' largely because it was he who was in charge during 9/11 and the subsequent 'War on Terror.' Before Josh Brolin hit the 'real' big time (or do I just mean 'lucrative?') with his various Marvel roles, he turned in a pretty convincing performance as the leader of the free world. Much of the film's second half centres on the invasion of Iraq and the problems the war churned up for all those who supported it. I remember the news coverage (and media coverage in general) and little portrayed Bush in a favourable light. At best he was a 'buffoon' and at worst a 'warlord.' Therefore, Brolin had quite an uphill job trying to make him seem like a sympathetic character. We see the President as someone who means well, but is sometimes a little too convinced of his own course of action to be able to consider that he might be choosing the wrong path. Plus he's one of the few Presidents whose father was in office only a few years before hand. We see how 'W.' finds it hard living in George Bush Senior's shadow and is constantly trying to impress him and outdo his (seldom seen in this film) brother, Jed. The supporting cast all seem to have been picked - mainly - based on how well they look like the person they're supposed to be in real life. They all do their jobs well enough, but it's Josh Brolin who carries on the film as, from what I've seen of the REAL Bush Jr, Brolin captures his mannerisms and personality very well. This is the second time I've watched the film and, until I saw the opening credits again, I'd forgot that this was an Oliver Stone film. He's certainly no stranger to getting amazing performances out of people and, although everyone plays their parts well (mainly Brolin, of course) I'd hardly say this was his most memorable of productions. I certainly enjoyed 'W.' but seeing as this is history that has happened during my lifetime, there wasn't that much extra I didn't already know from watching the news throughout the early 2000s. The film is just over a couple of hours long and goes past pretty quickly. Although this is probably a 'positive' it does seem to be a bit of a 'whistle-stop' tour of Bush's life, starting during his college days and ending with his time in office. If you're a fan of Brolin or looking for something that's more akin to a 'drama-documentary' on the subject matter, this is certainly entertaining enough. However, if you hated the man in real life, you may find this portrayal a little too 'favourable' if you're hoping to see him made out to be a monster.

Seriously does not encompass any of the highs of the career of the president. Paints him as a horrible person and president. Plays him off as a fool who does not take into consideration any of the advisors. Also uses a horrible actress for one of the presidents advisors. No one in his cabinet looked or spoke like her. The movie was made and portrayed by liberals who did not like him and only wanted to ruin his name and reputation.

W portrayed very well.

Good acting, interesting portrayal. Won’t watch again

I'm no George W. Bush fan, but the movie was a disservice to everyone, including this country. The movie focused purely on President Bush being a drunken, failure in his early years to the mistakes the Bush administration made in the years following the 9/11 Terror attacks. It completely glosses over EVERYTHING President Bush experienced/did in the days/weeks/months following 9/11. The movie plays out as someone who as an agenda rather than any sort of biography.

Oliver Stone has tackled the American presidency before, with Nixon (1995) and in a more conspiratorial manner with JFK (1991). W, a biographical account of George W. Bush, suffers from being almost an hour shorter than either of these. Josh Brolin's performance as Bush is astonishing, embellishing the role in such a way that Stone's efforts to make the audience sympathise with the former president do not go to waste. For someone who didn't know a huge amount Bush's background, W is an interesting watch, but Stone's goal of merging comedy and drama leave the film feeling a little confused. At times you're almost rooting for Bush, at others you're dumbfounded at how he ever got into office. In a longer cut, and with a more Nixon like focus, removing the bizarrity (if that's a word) this could have been something intriguing. As it is, you wish that there had been more material, it would have been fascinating to see Brolin's reaction as Bush to 9/11 for example.

When W. came out, I remember the liberal media disparaging its sympathetic portrayal of George "Dubya" Bush. The movie can now be viewed with some distance, especially after a less sympathetic man has held the office of presidency, making Dubya look a little better in hindsight. I would say Oliver Stone's portrayal of Bush was sympathetic, but not particularly flattering. Bush is an insecure man who consistently fails to live up to his parents' expectations, while his younger brother Jeb gets all the admiration. Believing God is calling him to run for president, he falls into the hands of puppet masters Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and Donald Rumsfeld. The script hits all the expected notes: "Is our children learning," "Fool me once..." "Misunderestimated." My main criticism of the film is more along the lines of its style. One never really gets a sense of time or place, with shots from the '70s, '80s, '90s looking the same as shots from the '00s, with Bush's hair color or personal style being the only noticeable difference. Most of the film is shot either in shakey cam close-up or on closed sets, contributing to the lack of a sense of setting and giving it an anachronistic and claustrophobic feel, which was probably unintentional. I think this was done less as a necessary artistic decision, and more to hide its shortcomings in production value.

This is actually a very sympathetic portrayal of George W. Bush. I am a person on the left, yet I found myself rooting for him in the movie. The movie is way too sympathetic to these people. It also presented the first Gulf War as a "good war" and Colin Powell as a great guy even though he lied us into the Iraq War despite knowing better. I don't like that. Overall the movie was interesting and entertaining. However, most of the actors didn't even bother trying to do proper impressions at all. James Cromwell sounded just like himself and not Bush Sr. Bush Sr. has a very distinctive voice which isn't all that hard to imitate. So I don't know what happened there. Brolin was great as W. Bush. He really embodied him. Only problem is some of his wigs looked bad and it was obvious they were wigs. The Colin Powell actor, Jeffrey Wright, had his regular voice and didn't seem to bother trying to sound like Powell. The absolute worst was Richard Dreyfuss as Cheney. He had that full on Richard Dreyfuss nasally lisp voice. It was awful. He didn't even try to sound like Cheney. However, he really nailed his pattern of speaking and his mannerisms. Thandie Newton as Condi Rice was the best besides Brolin. She got her voice and pattern of speaking down perfectly. Great job.

I got bored with this movie, even though I supported President George W. Bush, Dallas, Texas, currently, I believe. During the 2005 workplace mobbing and multiple perpetrator stalking, "W" flew into Kansas City and ate at Eggs, Etc., off of the Country Club Plaza in Kansas City, Missouri, as broadcast on my television. There were a few of them flying in and out of Kansas City, which I think may have included Hillary, too. Hillary was also mentioned during this ordeal, with the likeness of her face on a "nutcracker." The scenes about the fraternity, I guess it was supposed to be in the movie, at Yale, was actually the secret society of the Skull & Bones, based on my understanding. This is allegedly a powerful secret society, with even world leaders as members. The Skull & Bones were mentioned during the 2005 workplace mobbing and multiple perpetrator stalking. Additionally, this causes it to appear that George was a disappointment to his father, as compared to Jeb. While I have no firsthand knowledge of the late President George H.W. Bush's opinions of his sons, surely to God it was the other way around. Recall that Jeb was in office in Florida during the national display of the Terry Shiavo case. He could have stepped in, but refused it. Recall that Terry's parents just wanted to take care of their child, but her husband, who was already in another long term relationship, wanted to "pull the plug." As I recall, it was by starvation that the world watched Terry Shiavo die. While not broadcast by Fox News to the best of my knowledge and recollection, I believe it was on the parents' website that they stated additional facts that it may have been her husband's abuse that put her in the vegetative state in the first place, as well as her money being spent, and other details. This was while euthanasia was being spun around as "the right to die."

Could have been so much better. Stone pulls his punches in this one, and he doesn't seem sure exactly what he wants to do.

The strong cast makes it interesting but I am not sure the script knew how it wanted to portray Bush, leading to a confused film.

Certainly an important biopic, one that takes a closer look on a presidency that we love to brush aside. Much better excecuted than Vice, but nothing groundbreaking. Sad that people don't pay enough attention to this film. Some may call it extremely niave, but I think Oliver Stone justifies his portrayal well enough, although I must agree with the former in some parts. Didn't go for the right tone if redemption was Stone's goal.

Just bad. Not a redeemable aspect of this train wreck.

Decent. It's a slow-paced, at some points dull, film but that's what I expected coming into it. 'W.' features an excellent cast, with a number of familiar faces. Good performances from Josh Brolin and James Cromwell in particular. Not a great film, but not a bad one either.

I liked it. Expected it to be very slanted toward the left. Seems to be a portrayal of an imperfect man who tried to protect the world from a bad person.

An interesting view on the president's life. Josh Brolin does a really good job of capturing George W. Bush's speech and maneurisms.