Director Stone is too hard. It discredited Bush. In the whole film, W didn't have a few shots that were not eating. Few words were complete. He even joined the old Bush and the little Bush boxing inexplicably, reprimanding the little Bush The plot that ruined the 200-year reputation of the Bush family. In my opinion, Stone's smearing of Bush is close to shrews.
In fact, if Director Stone does more homework, he can be more objective and persuasive. His previous Nixon film also featured Nixon as useless and extremely gloomy. Will a president who has won almost all states (just two short of it) when he is re-elected, would be like this? In contrast, Richard Reeves The writing of Nixon is more objective. The author really read a lot of materials (I think he read most of the written records left by Nixon during his tenure) day by day, one meeting one meeting, one note It’s a note to restore Nixon’s tenure. Such works are convincing. You don’t need to say what Nixon is like, readers will naturally make their own judgments.
It’s not fair to compare books with movies. Speaking of movies. , I think the documentary Bush's War is also much better than this film. In other words, the director Stone wants to scold Bush from college to leave office within two hours, and even pull in the old Bush to scold him. The director's skill is not enough. It's better to attack one place and scold him a little.
View more about W. reviews
