Directed by Oliver Stone
A skin-deep biopic of our sitting president.
The title of Oliver Stone’s biopic about President George W. Bush invokes the nickname used by fans and detractors alike, said Manohla Dargis in The New York Times. But it equally could have stood for: “Why?” While W. can be “queasily enjoyable,” it offers “nothing new or insightful” about the president. Stone rushed to release the film before the election, and “it can’t help feeling like a prologue to a more involved story.” Stone stuffs his film with facts as he hopscotches back and forth between Bush’s younger years and his first term, said Richard Corliss in Time. But the film lacks a point of view and a narrative arc. W. “isn’t tragedy or farce; it’s illustrated journalism.” Stone’s other examinations of the American psyche and presidency, JFK and Nixon, weren’t just painstaking portraits but “ferocious retakes” of the nation’s history. W. could’ve been a “historically useful satire,” said Ann Hornaday in The Washington Post. That would require more perspective than Stone can currently provide. The American people are still in the midst of this movie.
THE WEEK'S AUDIOPHILE PODCASTS: LISTEN SMARTER
- Bush vs. Clinton in 2016 is the perfect way to make millennials hate politics even more
- The latent sexism of the male marriage proposal
- 43 TV shows to watch in 2014
- This judge is the reason we're still fighting over net neutrality
- 10 things you need to know today: November 28, 2014
- After Ferguson: Stop deferring to the cops
- How to be the most productive person in your office — and still get home by 5:30 p.m.
- The hilarious hypocrisy of Republicans complaining about the imperial presidency
- Diagnosing the Home Alone burglars' injuries: A professional weighs in
- Why the poor can't catch a break on Thanksgiving
Subscribe to the Week