GAMES: GameSpot | GameFAQs | SportsGamer MUSIC: Last.fm | MP3.com MOVIES: Metacritic | Movietome TV: TV.com
Home | About Metacritic | About Metascores | What's New | Wireless Versions | Discussion Forums | Advertising Inquiries | Contact Us | RSS
Metacritic.com: We Deal With Criticism
     Help
> Switch to Advanced Search  
Film Video/DVD Music Games TV

Film

Upcoming Release Calendar
Weekend Box Office
Film Awards & Top 10s By Year
All-Time High Scores
All-Time Low Scores
How Metascores Are Calculated
Discuss Film In Our Forums

 

Wide Releases

sort by name sort by score

Stars indicate the most critically-acclaimed movies.

 

Limited Releases

sort by name sort by score

Stars indicate the most critically-acclaimed movies.

 



Printer-Friendly Version Email This Page Discuss In Our Forums

W.
Lionsgate

W. reviews
Critic Score
Metascore: 56 Metascore out of 100
User Score  
4.9 out of 10
based on 36 reviews
Read critic reviews
How did we calculate this?
based on 60 votes
Read user comments
Rate this movie

MPAA RATING: Rated PG-13 for language including sexual references, some alcohol abuse, smoking and brief disturbing war images

Starring Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks, Richard Dreyfuss, James Cromwell, Ellen Burstyn, Thandie Newton, Jeffrey Wright, Scott Glenn, and Ioan Gruffudd

Whether you love him or hate him, there is no question that George W. Bush is one of the most controversial public figures in recent memory. In an unprecedented undertaking, acclaimed director Oliver Stone is bringing the life of our 43rd President to the big screen as only he can. W. takes viewers through Bush’s eventful life -- his struggles and triumphs, how he found both his wife and his faith, and of course the critical days leading up to his decision to invade Iraq. (Lionsgate)


GENRE(S): Comedy  |  Drama  
WRITTEN BY: Stanley Weiser  
DIRECTED BY: Oliver Stone  
RELEASE DATE: Theatrical: October 17, 2008 
RUNNING TIME: minutes, Color 
ORIGIN: USA 

What The Critics Said

All critic scores are converted to a 100-point scale. If a critic does not indicate a score, we assign a score based on the general impression given by the text of the review. Learn more...

100
Chicago Sun-Times Roger Ebert
W., a biography of President Bush, is fascinating. No other word for it.
Read Full Review
88
Charlotte Observer Lawrence Toppman
You'll be disappointed if you expect famed leftist Oliver Stone to apply a coup de grace to this man.
Read Full Review
83
Seattle Post-Intelligencer William Arnold
Seems a much more even-handed and thoughtful take on the man than anyone might have expected.
Read Full Review
80
New York Daily News Joe Neumaier
A measured and thoughtful meditation on a leader who, this terrific movie believes, inadvertently made the world as roiling as his soul.
Read Full Review
80
The New York Times Manohla Dargis
The pleasure of Mr. Stone's work has never been located in restraint but in excess, a commitment to extremes that can drown out the world or, as in this film, give it newly vivid, hilarious and horrible form.
Read Full Review
75
San Francisco Chronicle Mick LaSalle
In the end, W. makes up in immediacy what it lacks in objectivity.
Read Full Review
75
New York Post Lou Lumenick
An often compelling, tragicomic psychological analysis of Dubya, viewed through the prism of his relationship with an allegedly disapproving father.
Read Full Review
75
Chicago Tribune Michael Phillips
In the end it depicts its subject as lost, and pitiable--like Richard Nixon, but more a pawn than a dark knight.
Read Full Review
75
USA Today Claudia Puig
The performances are good (some scarily realistic), and the movie is enjoyable to watch. But as a probing analysis of the 43rd president, it falls short.
Read Full Review
70
Slate Dana Stevens
Like Tina Fey's Sarah Palin, Stone's George Bush gets his best lines straight from the source.
Read Full Review
70
Los Angeles Times Kenneth Turan
W. is not a dispassionate biography; it is an interpretation of personality intersecting with history, and as a piece of drama it is persuasive and perfectly creditable.
Read Full Review
63
Boston Globe Ty Burr
When it works, W. can take your breath away. When it doesn't, you can feel Stone still working out his feelings toward the man.
Read Full Review
63
Miami Herald Rene Rodriguez
Passably interesting, occasionally riveting and largely superfluous. But it's certainly a worthwhile curiosity, and it's not what anyone expected. At the movies these days, that alone is worth something.
Read Full Review
63
Rolling Stone Peter Travers
Whatever you think of Dubya, he has balls. The movie doesn't.
Read Full Review
60
Newsweek David Ansen
Like all Stone movies, W. has energy and forward momentum--particularly in the pre-presidential sections, when Bush is in his loose-cannon phase. It's not boring, and Brolin is often remarkable.
Read Full Review
60
Film Threat Don R. Lewis
W. is the kind of film that demands discussion and only then can we start to decipher what Stone's intentions are towards our President.
Read Full Review
60
Salon.com Stephanie Zacharek
It's when Stone engages in shameless editorializing -- when he lets his freak-flag point of view fly, rather than tempering it -- that W. is most entertaining and most vital. The rest of the time it feels too much like awards bait: stiff, arch and knowing.
Read Full Review
60
NPR Bob Mondello
A surprisingly unsurprising film.
Read Full Review
58
The Onion (A.V. Club) Scott Tobias
Stone paddles down the giant river of Bush's life without exploring any of the tributaries; he passes by two or three dozen better movies along the way.
Read Full Review
58
Entertainment Weekly Lisa Schwarzbaum
The intrepid one is the outstanding Josh Brolin, who does such a phenomenal job in the title role that he carries every scene he's in to a place of subtlety and integrity far beyond what Stone needs to make his attention-grabbing noise.
Read Full Review
50
Austin Chronicle Josh Rosenblatt
In our age of 24-hour news coverage, this rehashing of current events doesn't just come off familiar but completely unnecessary. And, worst of all, prosaic.
Read Full Review
50
Wall Street Journal Joe Morgenstern
In spite of Josh Brolin's heroic efforts, W. is a skin-deep biopic that revels in its antic shallowness.
Read Full Review
50
ReelViews James Berardinelli
Superficial, uninformative, and inert, this two hour snoozefest isn't even inflammatory enough to stoke a righteous anti-Bush brushfire. W. does for recent history what Oliver Stone's epic "Alexander" did for ancient times.
Read Full Review
50
Philadelphia Inquirer Carrie Rickey
Unlike the filmmaker's previous stabs at presidential biopic-ing and conspiracy theorizing - "JFK" and "Nixon" - this one doesn't have the luxury of historical perspective.
Read Full Review
50
The Hollywood Reporter Kirk Honeycutt
It's a gutsy movie but not necessarily a good one. Its greatest strength is that it wants to talk about what's on our minds right now and not wait for historians.
Read Full Review
50
Variety Todd McCarthy
For a film that could have been either a scorching satire or an outright tragedy, W. is, if anything, overly conventional, especially stylistically.
Read Full Review
50
The Globe and Mail (Toronto) Rick Groen
None of it is new, nor is the recycled stuff presented in a newly revealing context.
Read Full Review
50
Chicago Reader J.R. Jones
It's most entertaining for its stunt casting of movie stars as the president's family and advisers.
Read Full Review
42
Christian Science Monitor Peter Rainer
Stone may think he's made a movie about the toxicity of the Bush presidency, but what we have instead is a cautionary tale of a decidedly lower order. As far as I can make out, the real message of W. is: Don't vote for anybody who talks with his mouth full of food.
Read Full Review
40
New York Magazine David Edelstein
W. isn't gripping enough as drama or witty enough as satire. It's neutered.
Read Full Review
40
The New Yorker David Denby
Richard Dreyfuss, hunching over and baring his teeth like a shark cruising off a Martha's Vineyard beach, does a wicked impersonation of Cheney. His relish for the part suggests that the movie should have been done not as an earnest bio-pic but as a satirical comedy -- as a contemporary "Dr. Strangelove," with a cast of satyrs and clowns.
Read Full Review
40
Empire Helen O'Hara
Disappointing. Stone whipped this out in time for the US Presidential election, but it’s hard to see how it’ll make any significant impact on voters. Or why it even should.
Read Full Review
40
Washington Post Ann Hornaday
Why this movie -- a rushed, wildly uneven, tonally jumbled caricature -- and why now?
Read Full Review
40
Village Voice J. Hoberman
A painful movie to endure.
Read Full Review
40
Time Richard Corliss
The movie is an X-ray of an invisible man -- by the film's end, the W. still stands for Who?
Read Full Review
38
Baltimore Sun Michael Sragow
The movie plays like a dunk-the-clown game at a carnival. Through intent or ineptitude, he sets up the Bush family and administrations as caricatures.
Read Full Review

What Our Users Said

Vote Now!The average user rating for this movie is 4.9 (out of 10) based on 60 User Votes
Note: User votes are NOT included in the Metascore calculation.

Mark L. gave it a0:
I did expect that the movie would cast Bush in a bad light, but do so in an interesting and educative way. This was a Bush critique at the level of a Middle School yard fight. Virtually every scene showed him as a weakling, bafoon, or eviildoer. It was a boring and obvious caricature, not a movie that explained his (perceived) failures in an intelligent or illuminative light. There was no hint of the qualities and strengths that made him president, and before that, a successful and immensely popular Governor, and therefore, no explanation why these qualities failed him and the country during the last eight years.

Armond A. gave it a7:
While this film doesn't offer the viewer any new information, it does assemble the pieces we have all seen before into an interesting and plausible account of the man who many consider the worst US President in a long list populated with few heroes, numerous mediocrities, and a good bunch of failures. There is something morbidly fascinating about someone who has done so badly in such high office. Stone's timing in bringing out this film has been questioned by some, but one might say that it would have been very interesting to have gotten an account of the captain of the Titanic while standing on the deck of the ship as it slipped lower and lower into the icy ocean. Adding to the dark humor are the performances of several of the supporting players. Let me single out Thandie Newton's stunning interpretation of Condoleezza Rice as a fawning, servile Aunt Jemima, and Richard Dreyfuss as a ferociously intense schemer. Like many, I don't know what, exactly, to make of this film, but it really is a thoughtful piece, and it has some very clever moments. If you're one of the 25% of the populace who still consider the real W's job performance acceptable, then you're not going to enjoy this movie. For the rest of us it's an intriguing and amusing effort by a very good craftsman.

Commando Dude gave it a3:
This movie was incredibly lame. It failed to tell me anything which I didn't know about Bush, namely that he's an incompetant moron who acts before he thinks and is a horrible leader. The film trys to garner sympathy for the man the entire time and made me want to Gag. It wasn't funny, and about halfway through I just wanted to get up and leave, and I've NEVER had that feeling before.

Barold W. gave it a2:
Good acting but I thought this movie was going to be funny and was extremely disappointed. Who cares what happened in this idiots life, at least give us some laughs after all he's done to us!

Rea gave it a4:
I was hooked by the trailer and Director Oliver Stone's reputation. Both disappointed. Though the image was painstakingly crafted to show characters, there was a lack of spirit moving through it. It was basic 'ambulance chasing'..Jerry Springer material. It struck me as low level made-for-TV rather than incisive film making. About an hour into it, I wondered if someone bought off or threatened Stone to do that script, which didn't even begin to scratch the surface of the truths around that family and their politics. Brolin's portrayal was terrific, but the script was so devoid of any real meat, he didn't have enough to work with. Why were W's inner conflicts and demons displayed like dirty laundry without addressing where the dirt came from? This was like a Jerry Springer invites Geo to his show. I imagine there are compelling reasons for Stone to not go beyond painting a sort of distorted Lord's Supper casting W surrounded by his own 'disciples', but I was hoping for something that was less a shallow marionette show of exquisitely crafted puppets for more of HOW this man came to be in that office and WHY. The film was too one-dimensional for me. We are not fully described by our image/presentation--we are also described by the effects we produce, and our relationships. Stone hinted l at the relationships but didn't allow the supporting cast much range to show his reflection-effect in them. Real statements about that vs. constant harping on his mannerisms and weaknesses was the contribution I was looking for...and didn't find.

Mike D. gave it a3:
Nothing particularly enlightening about the movie.

Randy M. gave it a6:
While the film was rather dull in it's presentation, I have to give kudos to the actors for having a very strong presence on-screen. I also found myself looking at Mr. Bush in a rather different light. Rather than my usual extreme distaste for him, I almost started feeling....sympathetic. Almost.

Read more user comments...

Discuss this movie in our forums

Return to top of page
Home | FILM | DVD/VIDEO | MUSIC | GAMES | TV | Forums | About Metacritic metacritic.com

Popular on CBS sites: MLB | Spore | iPhone 3G | Paris Hilton | Antivirus Software | GPS | Recipes | Shwayze | NFL

About CBS Interactive | Jobs | Advertise

© 2008 CBS Interactive Inc. All rights reserved. | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use