Oliver Stone's biographical take on the life of George W. Bush, one of the most controversial presidents in USA history, chronicling from his wild and carefree days in college, to his military service, to his governorship of Texas and role in the oil business, his 2000 candidacy for president, his first turbulent four years, and his 2004 re-election campaign.Written by
Anonymous
When W. tells his father about the Yale football game over the phone, he mentions "Hill" and "Dowling." These are Yale football running back Calvin Hill and quarterback Brian Dowling, who were the stars of the undefeated 1968 Yale team. Hill, a fraternity brother of Bush's, went on to a career in professional football and now consults with several NFL teams; he married Janet Hill, who had been Hillary Clinton's college roommate. Their son, Grant Hill, is an NBA player. Dowling also had a stint in the NFL, albeit a briefer one than Hill's. Dowling is now best known as the inspiration for the "Doonesbury" comic strip character B.D., which cartoonist Garry Trudeau started while he, Dowling, and Bush were all Yale students. See more »
Goofs
In the scene where George W. Bush and his father are walking on the Texas Rangers baseball field in 1990, W. mentions that it was a mistake to have traded Sammy Sosa. However, by the end of the 1990 season Sammy Sosa had hit only 23 career home runs and no one could have known at that point that he would go on to hit over 600 in his lifetime. See more »
Quotes
Gen. Colin Powell:
Funny Dick, I remember you once agreeing that going all the way in Baghdad would be a mistake.
Dick Cheney:
Well, I think you made a bigger boo-boo Colin. You could have been president.
Gen. Colin Powell:
Fuck you.
See more »
Crazy Credits
At the very end of the credits, you see a Christian cross with a period. It morphs into the W-period logo of the movie. See more »
The Yellow Rose of Texas
Arranged by Don George
Performed by Mitch Miller
Courtesy of Columbia Records
By Arrangement with Sony BMG Music Entertainment See more »
Saw W in a preview last night and overall found it engaging, provocative and, frankly, a bit eerie. Of course, because Mr. Bush is still in office, watching re-enactments of critical moments in his administration, still fresh in our memory, has a quality of watching an SNL spoof; one is always aware one is watching actors, and very good ones at that, play the parts of principal figures on the Bush team, leaving a viewer continually comparing the actors' portrayals, make-up, etc, with the real life figures we know from the news. In other words, the film never completely transcends the spectacle of its simulation to feel seamlessly naturalistic. This is hardly a fault of the film necessarily, only the curious timing of its making and release here in the waning months of the Bush administration. (Had the film been made several years from now, no doubt audiences would bring a different. more relaxed, attentiveness to it.) I won't spell out my conclusions on Stone's version of Bush - that for you to discover - however, I will say it is fully appropriate we allow our private and public preconceptions of Bush the man to be challenged and examined. There is more to be said about the man than merely we like or dislike him. After all, we put him in office for eight years, and that says a great deal about us as a nation.
124 of 229 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this
Saw W in a preview last night and overall found it engaging, provocative and, frankly, a bit eerie. Of course, because Mr. Bush is still in office, watching re-enactments of critical moments in his administration, still fresh in our memory, has a quality of watching an SNL spoof; one is always aware one is watching actors, and very good ones at that, play the parts of principal figures on the Bush team, leaving a viewer continually comparing the actors' portrayals, make-up, etc, with the real life figures we know from the news. In other words, the film never completely transcends the spectacle of its simulation to feel seamlessly naturalistic. This is hardly a fault of the film necessarily, only the curious timing of its making and release here in the waning months of the Bush administration. (Had the film been made several years from now, no doubt audiences would bring a different. more relaxed, attentiveness to it.) I won't spell out my conclusions on Stone's version of Bush - that for you to discover - however, I will say it is fully appropriate we allow our private and public preconceptions of Bush the man to be challenged and examined. There is more to be said about the man than merely we like or dislike him. After all, we put him in office for eight years, and that says a great deal about us as a nation.