Do not waste your time and money on "W!"

[MoonRiver]

It's a total whitewash of the criminal * cabal. Dimson is presented as a well meaning but confused dufus, with an obsession about getting his rejecting father's attention. There was not ONE mention of his two election thefts, his AWOL status in the NG, or his infamous crimes against humanity. And on top of that it wasn't even funny.
:argh:

[PCIntern]

1. I agree 100%

[yourguide]

2. I dont want to see anymore GWB

ever again. Not even if he was in one of those carnival dunking tanks.

[carnie_sf]

30. Actually I might go for that

I still have a pretty good arm

[1corona4u]

3. I'd never spend money to see what we just went through 8 years of....

doesn't make sense to me why anyone would want to see it.

[Veruca Salt]

34. Darn right, I lived it

and don't want an encore...

In the form of a movie or McFalin. Though, give me 10 years to recuperate and maybe then I'll check out the flick.

[AlCzervik]

4. i'm done with all things W.

[azmouse]

5. Never had any desire or intention of watching a movie about that POS.

Just 86 days, 43 minutes until he's out of office.

[tularetom]

6. Even the trailers they show on TV made it look like a POS

And they usually show the best parts of the film.

Our daughter is an auditor for a chain of multiplex movie theaters and we can usually get free tickets to anything we want to see. But she went and saw "W" and told us she wouldn't give us tickets and not to waste our time. And although she won't admit it to her mom and me, I think she may have voted for the asswipe in 2004.

[Trajan]

7. Well ... to be fair ...

Film making, as an art, is not specifically intended to satisfy partisans of one party or another ... But as an expression of the filmmaker's aesthetic sensibilities ....

While it may not have value to your personally because it does not contain the elements you find most significant in this travesty of history, films aren't necessarily produced to generate political satisfaction for one group or another.

I have not seen the film, and, frankly, I don't have a desire to see it now ... But I respect Stone's prerogative to create a work of his own making, formed to render his ideas; and let the chips fall where they may as filmgoers view it through their own particular filters ...

There is no accounting for art ...

[abumbyanyothername]

19. This film is not art.

1) If you want to make a "biopic" you need a novel angle. Oedipus Bush has been worn out. If you simply want to relate the historical narrative (appears to be Stone's intent), then save money on actors and do a documentary.

2) With one notable exception, there is not one actor in this film that could land a starring role in a 6th grade public school play. That said, Brolin's performance was very good, but probably not Oscar worthy unless its a very weak field.

3) Absolutely no story. The writer should be blacklisted, and not for communist ties. Nothing, nada, not one moment of dramatic suspense.

4) The worst movie I have ever seen. Partisanship aside. I told my wife to tell her friend who liked it to never recommend another movie to us again.

5) I realized that I have liked nothing that Stone did, other than "The Doors."

[Trajan]

28. Maybe its bad art ... but it is art ....

I again refer to my original statement ....

Really ... Art doesnt have to be liked to be art ....

[Genevieve]

8. The acting was horrendous. nt

[MoonRiver]

13. Definitely.

With good acting, even the watered down portrayal of that cretin and his minions I saw, would have been tolerable, maybe.

[Genevieve]

26. And all the bushisms were taken out of context.

Made bush look like he only spoke like an
ass in private, when he reality he made all his
idiotic verbal gaffes when addressing the nation.

[MoonRiver]

33. Yeah, it was like he was just saying some cute things for the "folks."

:wtf:

[Vinnie From Indy]

9. Does anyone need any additional proof that Stone is nuts?

It seems he always gets it wrong.

[Arkana]

10. Um, I saw it and liked it.

And my mother and sister are going to it tonight.

[rox63]

12. Me too

It was never meant to be an indictment of *. But it does show how very unsuitable he was to be president.

[Colobo]

14. I agree, Very good movie and it DOES make him look like an asshole.

[libertad]

23. I liked it, but it was much kinder, gentler portrayal than he deserves,

in my opinion.

[Arkana]

36. It didn't make me feel like he was any more deserving of the Presidency.

He came off as a drunken, spoiled brat who did everything he did in politics to try and earn his father's respect--and never ended up getting it.

[concerned canadian]

11. i agree with you, a total waste of money

My son and I went to see it, and we both agreed that it was a lame attempt to make GB seem likable, if anything a
bumbler who just had a major daddy complex. It made him look smarter than he is, and the intimate scenes with Laura
were enough to make me want to gag. Oliver Stone said he 'emphasized' with Bush. So were was the empathy for the people
of Iraq whose entire country, economy and innocent citizens were devastated and destroyed? For the men still illegally
imprisoned in Guantanamo? A few minutes of the film touched on a couple of American soldiers hospitalized with massive
injuries being visited by GB and Laura.

A big letdown.

[Sewsojm]

15. Anything W Sucks!!

Oliver Stone Sucks too!!

[JustAnotherGen]

16. Aw - go see Religulous

I laughed my ass of at Bill Maher this afternoon! :rofl:

[Genevieve]

25. ........

:thumbsup:

[Zhade]

At, or with?

NT!

[JustAnotherGen]

35. At

:rofl: And it's so easy to see where he got his sense of humor from . . . his mother is a stitch and a half!

He's not laughing - he sees the seriousness of the great Con. He just dead pans - and the audience laughs.

Did you see it? I love when he points out to the 'little drive-in church' guys that actually STAYED for his questions that they were actually acting like Christians.

You gotta give Bill Credit. The fact that he was able to keep a straight face in response to some of the wingnut explanations . . . These folks obviously have NEVER seen his show or stand up or they would have realized he was making fun of them right to their faces! :rofl:

[davidpdx]

17. I'll wait until it is dvd ripped on the internet for free

From the reviews here, it sounds like it's not worth the money.

[jillan]

18. Thanks for saving me the money.

Was thinking about seeing it tomorrow.

[MoonRiver]

32. Definitely not worth the money.

Plus, I could have gotten so much productive stuff done during that hour and 40 minutes! :(

[anonymous171]

20. Oliver Stone did say that this wasn't a political film.

[Fleshdancer]

21. I think I'll be ready to laugh 20 years from now

but I'm not ready to watch this movie before then.

[stolivodka]

22. The movie was important not because..

..it portrayed George W. Bush as pure evil. That would be too easy. That's what the conservative movement WANTS. By portraying Bush as a dimwitted muppet being jerked around by permanent republican bureaucrats, this movie sends the message "MAKING AN IDIOT THE PRESIDENT IS A BAD IDEA".

If the only message America takes away from 8 years of Bush is "don't vote for Bush again", then we are screwed.

[libertad]

24. I agree with you. It did send that message loud and clear. Colin

Powell's character was the only level headed character in the movie, too.

[jrockford]

27. heh

never heard of it until now.

[nyc 4 Biden]

29. I Agree!!!

The film compels the viewer to pity *.

[peace frog]

31. I have no interest in seeing the film

Oliver Stone portrays GWB as a genial stumble-bum whose lovable flaws are due to daddy issues and therefore *forgivable*. WTF! As if that could begin to assuage the grievous sins inflicted on the world by criminal BushCo. Thanks but no thanks. I'll spend my money elsewhere.

[Occam Bandage]

37. It's art, not documentary. What, you thought you were going to be seeing a Moore flick?