W. reviews trickle down
- J. Hoberman, Village Voice: “A painful movie to endure.”
- Alonso Duralde, MSNBC: “Whatever your preconceived notions, W. manages to be both exactly what you thought it would be and something else entirely.”
- Stephanie Zacharek, Salon: “I know it’s probably taking the artistic high road to view George W. Bush compassionately. But I’m just not ready for it right now.”
- Richard Corliss, Time: “The result is that rare Oliver Stone film that is not exhilarating, or enraging, but boring.”
- Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times: “One might feel sorry for George W. at the end of this film, were it not for his legacy of a fraudulent war and a collapsed economy.”
- Joe Neumaier, New York Daily News: “Dreyfuss perfectly captures “Vice’s” lumpen Mephistophelian stillness.”
- Lisa Schwarzbaum, Entertainment Weekly: “The moments Stone and Weiser select to sketch Bush’s character are more of a jumble than a natural progression.”
- Christy Lemire, Associated Press: “Brolin’s so good, he almost makes us feel sorry for Bush. Almost.”
- David Ansen, Newsweek: “It’s not boring, and Brolin is often remarkable.”
- Josh Rosenblatt, Austin Chronicle: “This rehashing of current events doesn’t just come off familiar but completely unnecessary.”
- Lawrence Toppman, Charlotte Observer: “You’ll be disappointed if you expect famed leftist Oliver Stone to apply a coup de grace to this man.”
Bingo.
Other posts you might like
41 Comments
One Trackback
-
[...] Veja todos os comentários sobre W., aqui. [...]
RichardA says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 1:37pm
I think Hollywood likes Josh Brolin enough to give him a nod for W.
The movie might not get a stellar review (feels more like a HBO miniseries from the previews) but it’s still Oliver Stone. Which, I funny enough, I was just thinking about how good JFK was. And how good Kevin Costner is.
Ryan Adams says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 1:53pm
Senator, I knew JFK, and W is no JFK.
What sucks is that I’m only right once a year, and I had to use up my coupon on this.
friedl says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 1:53pm
a Golden Globe nod. Brolin is up against… RDJ?
I’m looking forward to W for the performances and as a curiosity.
It will probably seem like a whole different movie to those of us who live abroad…
Free says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 1:57pm
I wouldn’t dream of seeing W. come anywhere near touching the greatness of JFK, so BP/Oscar talk was never on my radar. All I hope for is the consistently good ink for Brolin turns into a nomination. The man deserves some love for the lack of any from the previous year.
Ryan Adams says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 2:03pm
oh yeah, no doubt, Friedl. Tagged as Golden Globe bait months ago. Only remains to be seen if the nominations will fall in the Comedy/Musical categories or not. Like they did with Charlie Wilson’s War: Russian/Afghan slaughter and the genesis of a USA-trained Taliban? heeelarious!
The Golden Globes will eat this up with a spork.
HFPA loves them some simplistic self-inflicted American goofball spoofing. Global Politics for Dummies. Perfect for the Globes.
RichardA says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 2:08pm
“What sucks is that I’m only right once a year, and I had to use up my coupon on this.”
Indeed. Doesn’t bid well for TDK. Does it?
I’m all up for change. This could be your year.
friedl says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 2:14pm
Well the Globes thought The Squid and the Whale (amazing, but hardly a light night out) was a comedy, so…
Yeah this seems very much in the vein of the CWW nomination. Also not much competition. I never have any idea how the HFPA votes. They’re crap, but I love watching…
friedl says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 2:16pm
RichardA – don’t even say that! We must not waver in our TDK support.
Ryan – you did call W way back when from the very beginning.
I believe you can be right twice this year..!
VCB says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 2:17pm
ebert called it “fascinating” and gave it 4 stars…
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081015/REVIEWS/810150285
Ryan Adams says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 2:18pm
I love them too. I was left bereft when the writer’s strike canceled the show this year. And then to rub salt in the wound they inflicted Billy Bush on us.
jjj says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 2:21pm
Hopefully Stone’s career-risking film will be nominated with some oscars, after he was unfairly trashed for Alexander and played it safe with WTC, the press trashed him from the start for W, but it looks like he pulled it off. It is a shoe-in for golden globes now, does it have legs for oscar?
Ryan Adams says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 2:24pm
VCB, Ebert hands out stars like they’re Lehman Brothers loans lately. Lest we forget, this time last year Ebert was bestowing 4-star reviews on The Great Debaters and The Kite Runner.
Of course, last year he was trying to pad out his new book, coincidentally titled, “4-Star Reviews.” Who knows what the fuck his excuse is this year. He’s gone benevolent after his brush with mortality, bless him.
Ryan Adams says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 2:28pm
(thanks Friedl, I’ll have to check the statute of limitations on my contract with Satan. Maybe I predicted this long ago enough that I’ll be due another good guess by the end of the year.
The other option is that I’m still wrong about W, and it wins Best Picture, and Christopher Nolan then wins Best Director.)
Sam Juliano says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 2:28pm
Ebert is a very good human being, in the same sense that Joel Siegel was, but lamentably he’s not a very good critic. He does hand out four-star reviews like hotcakes, and some for very bad films.
As far as “W” is concerned, well I expected as much.
We need to add one more name to the distinguished line-up above:
Pierre de Plume
jennybee says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 2:40pm
Hey, Ryan, have you (or will you?) seen W yet? Or was the screenplay enough?
Ryan Adams says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 2:50pm
Ebert’s first few lines (in the interest of equal time):
That sums up perfectly why this concept sticks in my craw. So Bush is the tragic victim? Not the thousands of soldiers who had their arms and legs blown off while Bush was working through the growing pains of his “tortuous adulthood”?
Stone’s biographical fawning and dime-store psychoanalysis is sickening. No other word for it.
Ryan Adams says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 2:51pm
(I’ll see it, jennybee. I’m not in any hurry, but I’ll see it.)
Trevor Keilholtz says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 3:36pm
Ebert’s Reasons for giving out too many stars:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/09/you_give_out_too_many_stars.html#more
Damn good read
Free says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 3:59pm
“Hopefully Stone’s career-risking film will be nominated with some oscars, after he was unfairly trashed for Alexander and played it safe with WTC. . .”
I’m sorry, I don’t think ALEXANDER was unfairly trashed. Despite all the horrid word-of-mouth and odd Colin Farrell hairpieces, I gave this movie the benefit of the doubt all the way through to the end, and while I felt it was not the worst movie of the year, it was pretty damn bad. Even Stone admitted sometime later that he screwed it up.
And WORLD TRADE CENTER was a made for television Lifetime movie at best. Save for Nic Cage, everything and everyone involved seemed artificial, fake and desperate for people to feel sad. UNITED 93 this movie was not indeed.
filmboymichael says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 4:02pm
Ryan….
Bingo? Bingo what? You have no claim on Bingo….you decried this to be a horrible flop amongst the worst in history….what we’re getting is a mixed bag of reviews on both sides of the fence….I think what we have, if anything is a….wait for it….meh….but no bingo….
Ryan says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 4:16pm
Okay, how about all of you see the damn movie before you start crapping on it? I mean, with a movie this controversial and with this much baggage, of course it’s going to get mixed reviews…critics don’t want to be accused of giving every film with a liberal viewpoint a rave, and right now it’s not “safe” to give it anything more than a mixed review.
While critics are very necessary and provide great insight into film as an art form, there is no doubt that hype and controversy can cloud a critic’s judgement from time to time (see “Heaven’s Gate”, which was critically reviled when it came out; it looks better every year, imho). Bottom line: if you want to check the film out, check it out, don’t let mixed reviews scare you.
The Natural says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 4:45pm
Ryan, “The Great Debaters” was actually a really good movie though.
Stephen Holt says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 4:54pm
The left-leaning academy is not nominating ANYone for playing George bush, the person who more than any other single figure, is wiping out their 401 Ks.
The elderly Academy. Well, no matter how good Josh Brolin is will not rush to put this one in their DVD players….A happy up-beat film like “Happy-Go-Lucky” and even the upbeat-ended “Rachel Getting Married” are gonna get watched first.
And I’ve heard the Hollywood Foreign Press is putting “Rachel” in the Comedy/Musical category, surprisingly. This so Anne Hathaway could win Best Actress in a Comedy?
Ryan Adams says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 5:49pm
filmboymichael,
My “Bingo” references the blurb that immediately precedes it:
Bingo. I wanted to see a kick in the nuts, not a shallow psychological apology. So I’m disappointed. Just I expected.
Mixed bag of reviews? If not for Ebert’s lone outlier score of 100, the average ranking on Metacritic would be in the 50s.
Matthew Lucas says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 6:11pm
I was at the press screening with Toppman and I have to agree with his assessment…this is NOT an anti-Bush polemic. Yes he comes off like a doofus more often than not (seriously…how could he not? He does that in real life.), but Stone finds a humanity behind his bumbling exterior that actually made me feel sorry for him. I actually cried when Bush Sr. lost the election. CRIED. And I am a diehard liberal who is SO glad that Clinton won. It’s an amazing feat.
The movie isn’t a great film, but it flirts with greatness several times. However for all the press surrounding Brolin’s performance, I think the real standout here is James Cromwell as Bush Sr. I’m no fan of the man in real life, but Cromwell’s embodiment of him is downright heartbreaking.
alynch says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 7:00pm
Mixed bag of reviews? If not for Ebert’s lone outlier score of 100, the average ranking on Metacritic would be in the 50s.
Isn’t an average in the 50s pretty much the definition of mixed reviews?
Ryan Adams says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 7:37pm
“Isn’t an average in the 50s pretty much the definition of mixed reviews?”
I don’t know where you went to school, alynch, but in most classes, scoring 50 on an exam is a FAIL.
The House Bunny has a score of 55 on metacritic.
But it’s all relative, right? I know not all the reviews have been tabulated, and maybe somebody else beside Ebert will think W deserves more than an 88. But currently on Rotten Tomatoes W stands at 38% with the “Top Critics.”
So, it’s only a dozen points behind Beverly Hills Chihuahua (50%), and almost as good as Zombie Strippers (40%)
Any wagers on what fraction of Beverly Hills Chihuahua’s box office W will earn? ($57 mil, so far)
I collected the most balanced bag of blurbs I could scrape together, and this is the thanks I get?
AJ says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 7:57pm
Someone mentioned wayyyyyyy up there about Golden Globes. RDJ for best supporting actor for Tropic Thunder? Or best actor comedy for Tropic Thunder? Or Best actor comedy for Iron Man, hm…
Ben M. says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 8:53pm
So it is neither the great Stone film I was hoping it would be nor the razzie front-runner I feared from a quick look at the script (albeit an early draft). It’s awards chances look pretty much dead outside of maybe a globe actor nod if it goes comedy/musical, but I still think I would like to see it.
person123 says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 9:40pm
A score of 50 on an exam in school is a failing grade, that is true. However, that is not how Metacritic’s system is set up. A 50 on Metacritic is the equivlent of a C letter grade (from a publication like EW) or a 2 Star review (from someone like Ebert). Both of those stand for “average.” A film with a score of 45-70 on Metacritic usually gets mixed reviews; it isn’t panned, so it doesn’t get a “failing grade.”
The true “failing grade” on metacritic is if the the film’s average drops into the red (I think that’s if it’s below 40?).
Ryan Adams says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 11:10pm
A movie with a score of 50 is a failure inasmuch as it usually fails to guarantee I’ll ever pay to see it.
A movie with a score of 50 from a filmmaker of Oliver Stone’s stature signals a disappointment, though might be worth a look.
I paid to see Body of Lies (score: 58) but Ridley Scott is to Oliver Stone as Orson Welles is to Stanley Kramer.
alynch says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 11:47pm
I paid to see Body of Lies (score: 58) but Ridley Scott is to Oliver Stone as Orson Welles is to Stanley Kramer.
That’s a stretch. Ridley’s resume is just as spotty and inconsistent as Stone’s (Legend, Someone to Watch Over Me, Black Rain, 1492, White Squall, G.I. Jane, Hannibal, A Good Year). Orson Welles never directed a single lousy film in his whole career.
ryan says:
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 11:54pm
I guess I should finally jump in, since I’ve jumped in a lot in the past to defend Oliver Stone and his films in the past. But I want to start by saying that comparing Ridley Scott to Oliver Stone is like apples and oranges. They’re completely different filmmakers with completely different styles. I’m a Ridley Scott fan as well (love Gladiator, Black Hawk Down… even Hannibal) but let’s not pretend that he isn’t without his flops either.
Also, as for the critical score… sure, that’s a nice guideline. It makes for interesting conversation, but it really shouldn’t determine whether we like a movie or not.
My name is ryan… and I like Lady in the Water.
Whew, felt good to get that off my chest.
Anyhoo, let’s not forget that Natural Born Killers has a 52% on rottentomatoes… does that make it a failure?
alynch says:
Friday, October 17, 2008 at 12:09am
Anyhoo, let’s not forget that Natural Born Killers has a 52% on rottentomatoes… does that make it a failure?
Some would say yes; some would say no. It all probably depends on whether or not they, themselves, like the actual movie, which of course means that all of this haggling over the implications of artificial score averages is pretty pointless, and now I feel stupid for even engaging in it.
Ryan Adams says:
Friday, October 17, 2008 at 12:12am
Hello. Ryan! Thanks for sharing
I only reference RT if somebody drags it up first. Those RT guys sometimes can’t tell a good review from a sarcastic one.
(perfect handy example: RT says the Hollywood Reporter review for W. is a bright red fresh tomato. Metacritic assigns it a yellow cautionary 50. Read the review and see if you think it smells Fresh or has the odor of a 50.)
RT’s system of black-white, good-evil, fresh-rotten is simplistic and crude. Dozens of shady characters with scant credentials get thrown in the mix with reputable critics.
Natural Born Killers has a score of 74 on metacritic.
9 reviews with scores over 80 and only 6 below 60.
W has only 5 reviews above 80 and 14 below 60.
By another metric, Natural Born Killers has a solid IMDb score of 7.0.
I’ll predict an IMDb score of 5.8 – 6.0 for W. (That’s being generous. And it’s a total blind guess.)
Chris S. says:
Friday, October 17, 2008 at 3:23am
I’ve read critics complaining about how it doesn’t have an ending…
FREAKIN’ DUH!
Last I checked, W. is still President. The story is not over in real life, so without concocting something fictional to end the movie with, the movie cannot have an ending.
On Rottentomatoes it still has a 63% rating, which is still Fresh. I’m expecting good things from this film, especially from Josh Brolin.
Ryan Adams says:
Friday, October 17, 2008 at 8:37am
On Rotten Tomatoes the “Top Critics” rating is 36%.
But if someone wants to weigh the opinion of Josh Larsen, LarsenOnFilm or Cole Smithey, ColeSmithey.com with the same value as David Ansen, Newsweek and Todd McCarthy, Variety, then that’s their prerogative. I’ll concede the 36% rating seems out of line with the metacritic score (supposedly compiled exclusively from “Top Critics”).
(Nothing against Josh Larsen or Cole Smithey. Just that I never heard of them until 5 minutes ago.)
J. Ess says:
Friday, October 17, 2008 at 10:07am
H
Pierre de Plume says:
Friday, October 17, 2008 at 11:53am
Thanks for the compliment, Sam.
I’ve seen “W.” Going in with low expectations, I have to say it was among the longest 2 hours I’ve spent. Overall, the film is neither good nor bad.
My guess is that Stone is going through a crisis of identity. Perhaps bowing to past criticism, he has lost his punch — and along with it, his artistry.
And it doesn’t help that this production was rushed into release.
As to whether it will receive Oscar attention, I doubt it. Although Brolin does a good job, the “W” character doesn’t seem Oscarable to me.
Regarding the Golden Globes, my guess is that “W” will be viewed as dramatic material. I think the world sees Bush and his administration as anything but comedic. Non-Americans out there, what do you think?
George W. RRA says:
Friday, October 17, 2008 at 8:40pm
I’m still intrigued enough by W to check it out.
At least it wont be ALEXANDER 2.
Right?
alc says:
Friday, October 17, 2008 at 11:45pm
“I’ve read critics complaining about how it doesn’t have an ending…
“FREAKIN’ DUH!
“Last I checked, W. is still President. The story is not over in real life, so without concocting something fictional to end the movie with, the movie cannot have an ending.”
Um… that’s why they’re complaining. Freakin’ duh.
I mean, you seriously didn’t get the point of that?