W. (Widescreen)
|
List Price: Our Price: $3.49 You Save: $11.49 (77%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.01 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of W. (Widescreen)
Movie Review: From a life of let-downs to a life of Presidency
Summary: 4 Stars
Oliver Stone directed-movies are usually on the kooky side, but this one is not filled with so much archive footage this time.
Oliver Stone was able to get an all-star cast for this film.
Josh Brolin portrays "George W. Bush".
Bush soon to have a father who will become the Vice President of the United States and eventually The President of the United States, just got himself into some trouble after a football game. He calls his father, George H. W. Bush (James Cromwell) to help him out of jail. Congressman George Bush already has his hands full with Jeb, Neil, Marvin and Doro. "Poppy" will help him this one last time. George must be one honky-tonk, hell-raiser of a young man.
As the movie jumps around to George W. as President of the United States to flashbacks of his young adult life, we see Bush has had it up to here with an oil rig job. An intense, dirty job I am sure he was all too proud to get fired from.
Destiny would prevail.
In 1977, George W. decides he wants to run for Congress in Texas. Later that year
at a barbecue, he meets the lady of his life, Laura Welch (Elizabeth Banks).
He loses the election.
Four years later, he marries Laura.
After turning 40 in 1986, he gave up alcohol and decides to help his father, who has been Vice President since 1981, campaign for Presidency.
He wins the election, but only becomes a one-term President as he loses the re-election in 1992.
It is at this point that George W. decides to change his entire life around with Laura by his side. He wants to run for Governor of Texas. His father and mother, Barbara (Ellen Burstyn), disapprove as they want to concentrate on Jeb who is running for Governor of Florida. George tells his son, "one Bush at a time".
George W. decides to start a campaign anyway.
Both Jeb and George won their office.
This all leads to George W's historical bid for Presidency in 2000.
Josh Brolin in some scenes really nails the mannerisms and voice of George W. Bush. If you were to look away from the screen, you might think you were listening to the real person.
I did not know that was Thandie Newton as "Condoleezza Rice" until I saw the end credits. What a transformation.
Stacy Keach as "Rev. Earle Hudd" blew me away with his performanace. I have never seen him in such a role before.
Richard Dreyfuss is a scene stealer as well as Jeffrey Wright.
Jeffrey Wright was fun to watch as "Powell". I have liked Jeffrey Wright in several films, including his role as "Felix Leiter" in Casino Royale [Blu-ray] (2006) and Quantum of Solace (2008).
Ellen Burstyn is always stunning in every performance I have seen her in.
I thought James Cromwell was miscast as "George H.W. Bush", but did capture the emotions in some scenes.
I did not recognize Scott Glenn as "Rumsfeld".
Also in the cast: Bruce McGill, Colin Hanks, Jason Ritter, Noah Wyle, Ioan Gruffudd.
Note: Had some problems with the DVD loading. It can start the film automatically, but you might get a black screen. Just press your remote button to get it to play. When you see the Lionsgate tradmark wheels, you are fine.
Special Feature included.
Not the best film I have seen that included the portrayal of George W. Bush. May I suggest the tv-movie, DC 9/11 - Time of Crisis, with Timothy Bottoms. as "President George W. Bush".
Movie Review: Oliver Stone's Best Film In Years
Summary: 4 Stars
Oliver Stone has never shied away from controversy as any student of films from the last two decades can tell you. Stone has also never shied away from using past Presidents of the United States (JFK, Nixon) for his own dramatic purposes either. Yet Stone choose to make a film about a sitting President, something that hadn't been done before (at least not in name i.e. Primary Colors). So how exactly does Oliver Stone's W. hold up? I'll put it this way; W. is his best film since Nixon in 1995. Why do I say that?
Well to start of Stone has gotten himself one of his best casts. Josh Brolin plays the title role and it is far from a caricature. Brolin's George W. Bush is a fully formed character that while it might not be a dead-on version of the real man is so close at times it can send shivers up the spine. Brolin has the character and voice of Bush done very well though one could argue on how truthful it is to real-life (more on that later). Surrounding Brolin is a whole smattering of excellent actors. First there's Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney who is not only very close to real but also manages to steal any scene he happens to be speaking in,especially the whole "empire" speech during one briefing. James Cromwell turns in a memorable turn as George H.W. Bush as does Jeffrey Wright as Colin Powell, Toby Jones as Karl Rove and especially Elizabeth Banks as Laura Bush. There are some miscasts though such as Scott Glenn as Rumsfeld and Thandie Newton as Condoleezza Rice, both of whom seem more suited to Saturday Night Live then to this film. Stone also fails to make use of some of the cast as well, especially Ioan Gruffudd as Tony Blair but the strength of the rest of the cast makes up for this admirably.
W. also has some strong production values as well. While technically a low-budget film by most Hollywood standards (approximately $30 million), Stone makes good use of it. The film takes across the country (and part of the world for that matter) in its locations and it does so without ever feeling cheap in any way. Stone might not have had a lot of money but he certainly spent it well to judge from things like Bush ranch in Crawford or even the White House sets which could arguably compare with those on The West Wing.
And now we come to the controversial part of the film: its portrayal of George W. Bush. It seems that everyone was expecting Stone to portray Bush has either a caricature or has some kind of tyrant. Stone has chosen (wisely in my opinion) to do neither. instead he portrays Bush as a relatively simple minded man who allows others to guide him down whatever path he lets them for the most part. While there are those who would argue this is too sympathetic to Bush I would argue that, at least from I have gathered in reading books like Jacob Weisberg's excellent The Bush Tragedy, that this is a fairly accurate view of the forty-third President of the United States. Even if it isn't do we really expect it to be? To say that we expect the George W. Bush of this film to be true to life is like saying we expect Shakespeare's Henry V to be true to the real life Henry V. You don't watch Shakespeare to see true to life history any more then you should see this film and expect a true to life portrayal of George W. Bush.
However one feels about the way the film portrays its title character, one should admire the film on its other grounds as well. That includes an excellent leading man in the form of Josh Brolin, a good supporting cast and strong production values. Overall the result is Stone's best film in years and one he should be proud of.
Movie Review: "Fool me once...umm...shame on you...you ain't gonna fool me again"
Summary: 4 Stars
A lot of people will hate "W." People who love/respect the former president will find it distasteful, biased and untrue. Those who hate the man will probably find it as an over glorified and too restrained portrait of a man who many call the "worst president of all time". So, who is this movie for? In my opinion, anyone who just likes good biographies.
"W.", Oliver Stone's controversial biopic of George W. Bush from his college days to the end of his first term as president is a fascinating film that you just need to see. "W." marks what is possibly the first film by the director that actually just shows the story. There is really no way to tell which way the writer/director voted in 2000 and 2004 based on this film because it's that neutral. There are scenes where speech flubs are made (the famous "misunderestimate" is casually throw out near the end), fights (both verbal and nearly physical) between father and son Bush and moments of complete embarrassment (in a press conference Bush tries to remember a reporter's name but comes out with "Miss China" because the woman is Asian). These could be taken as signs that this is a Bush-bashing film, but how can something be demeaning if Bush actually said and did these things?
According to Stone, everything in this film can be proven with documented evidence (with the exception of several 'dream sequences' where Bush is on a baseball field). In fact, there's apparently a documentary or book in the making chronicling all the sources used to make the film.
I'm sure Bush supporters will find this evidence falsified and inaccurate, but regardless nothing happens in the film, I feel, that doesn't seem far fetched or made up. Most of what's shown was publicly seen by millions so I don't see how that can be untrue.
But by this using this straight forward approach to Bush's life and presidency is where Bush haters will jump off the wagon as well. Early advertisements for this film make it appear as a comedy; a real roast of the 43rd president, but to the dismay of those expecting that, it's not.
I know people will disagree, but I feel this film to be one of the most unbiased biographies ever made; and to think it came from Oliver Stone only adds to my praise for the director and his work.
The performances are all universally excellent. While not my first choice to play the commander-in-chief, Josh Brolin is amazing. There are moments when you actually believe it's Bush onscreen (the voice is extremely realistic). Elizabeth Banks (as Laura), James Cromwell (as H.W.), Ellen Burstyn (as Barbara) and Toby Jones (as Karl Rove) are never truly convincing in their respective parts, but still put on a pretty good illusion. The actor to see in this movie, however, is Richard Dreyfuss; who morphs himself into Dick Cheney. The disgruntled facial expressions, slightly hunched shoulders and those menacing dark eyes can send chills down your spine. But we get no more than that. In fact, the only viewpoint we get is Bush's and no one else's; this is really "THE George Bush Movie"; "BUSHOVISION" as I remarked after watching the film. This helps and hurts the film, because you want to see what's going on in the lives of those around Bush as well, but you don't. Maybe there will be a Cheney film next; I'm thinking "Undisclosed Location" as a title.
Regardless of the controversy that has surrounded this film, if you like biopics, then this movie is for you. But if you're looking for a Bush-praising or Bush-bashing story then move along, because this is neither.
Movie Review: Fascinating and tragic character study of a non-reflective man
Summary: 4 Stars
This film is a mixture of political commentary and character analysis, making it far more interesting that I expected. However, as character study and as political commentary it only goes so deep before turning back, as if the Oliver Stone doesn't totally trust the viewing public with all the details. The film actually paints a sympathetic picture of President George W Bush. This is due to the tension depicted between the cool Episcopalian statesman George Bush and his born-again evangelical son, George W Bush. In some regards, George W Bush follows the policies and ideology of Ronald Reagan rather then the realist approach of his father. The issue of the President's alcoholism was handled very well as we see the President move beyond his alcoholism through his religious faith and the support of his pastor, played by Stacey Keach. There were four events that are missing from the film that are highly significant and I certainly would have been willing to watch 1 more hour of film to see how Stone would interpret the events around the Gore vs. Bush 2000 election struggles in Florida, the response to September 11th, Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, and the Joe Wilson - Valerie Plame incident that revealed so much about the power of the Vice President in framing the war effort with Iraq. However since the film is not really meant to be comprehensive history, and only comments on policy indirectly, it is the character of George W Bush that is the true subject of the film.
Josh Brolin is excellent as George W Bush as is Richard Dreyfuss in the role of Vice President Dick Cheney. George and Barbara Bush are played by James Cromwell and Ellen Burstyn. They do an excellent job of creating the family of origin tensions that drive much of George W Bush's motivations and actions, at least in this interpretation. Elizabeth Banks plays Laura Bush, the most likeable character in the film. Her support for her husband and faith that he will eventually muddle through appears to be one of his greatest assets. I wish the role of Dick Cheney had been larger since we now know the pivotal role in played in the decision to invade Iraq and the growing distance between the President and Vice President during the last 18 months of his second term when President Bush distanced himself from Cheney, the architect of many of the failures of the Bush Presidency. Jeffrey Wright plays the reflective far-seeing Secretary of State, Colin Powell, who must constantly defend his position against Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld. Toby Jones plays Karl Rove and is not given as much emphasis as I would have expected. As far as I can tell, Karen Hughes was completely left out of the film. I was not as impressed with the performance of Thandie Newton as Condoleezza Rice. She seemed stiff and insignificant.
The film does a very good job of revealing how the failure to find any weapons of mass destruction destroyed the credibility of the Bush presidency. At some point George W Bush recognizes that he will go down in history as one of the greatest Presidential failures for taking the United States into a war on false fabricated evidence. The film had to show that President George W Bush was a man who rarely reflected upon his own performance as evidenced by the press conference where he is asked if he made any mistakes in his Presidency, and he responds that he can't think of one. In a presidency that was full of mistakes, this is one of the most fascinating aspects of the film and of the character of George W Bush.
Movie Review: worth seeing
Summary: 4 Stars
The main thing you need to know about W. is that it shows you the life of George W. Bush from a rather funny (and quite often, accurate) point of view. From his early days when he first met Laura at a party, to his constant disagreements with his father, to the constant comparison to his brother Jeb, to his early campaign trails, to his eventual presidency of the United States. W. covers this territory pretty well.
Now here's how the movie works- while *those* events are taking place, quite often the story will switch in a different direction that shows the events (portrayed by characters, of course) where Cheney, Powell, Condoleezza Rice and the rest of the gang were discussing the best strategies concerning the war in Iraq.
All the characters were convincing in their roles, not to mention really *do* resemble their real life counterparts. Just look at them and try telling me they don't look and act almost exactly like them.
What's especially strange about W. is how it shows George Bush as someone who doesn't seem like he has the dedicated desire (or the intelligence level) to eventually become president of the United States.
This means Bush comes off looking rather odd because he's portrayed as someone who definitely wants to change the world and someone who is definitely passionate about doing so (and as we know, he does eventually achieve his dream of becoming US president) but the storyline develops in a way that makes it look like *anyone* can accomplish the same incredible goal, which is honestly not true at all.
Then again, maybe that's the point. Maybe the point is that the writers were trying to make Bush appear like an average man from the get go. That way we can see how flawed he really is.
Anyway, the political arguments dealing with the war in Iraq and the oil supply were interesting in the beginning, but because they are portrayed quite accurately, the only thing these scenes really did for me was allow me to remember the past 8 years. So for me, the strong point of W. were the humorous segments that focused on how George Bush eventually got into office and less on the Iraq war.
W. is a good trip down memory lane with a bit of humor thrown in (especially whenever Bush tries to say something intelligently and ends up stuttering and saying something half-witted- this happens a LOT). It combines the real life situations with a touch of the fictional pretty well... at least, I assume certain parts are fictional.