I was fuming on the boards here when I learned that the paranoid-delusional egomaniac was going to make a film about Bush, and I knew he would soft-soap the subject, as he naturally did.  Initial reviews celebrated Stone's sophomoric white wash; the light touch was "refreshing," that kind of crap.  Slate has since fellated Stone by running crackpot fora on how deeply meaningful the film might be, even dragging highly credible people like Bob Woodward and Michael Isikoff into the embarassing affair. http://www.slate.com/id/2202667/

Best way I know to get the real rap on a movie: (1) wait till most reviews are in, (2) look it up on Rotten Tomatoes, and (3) click the "Top Critics" tab to see what that sub-group says.  If fewer than 60% of the Top Critics reviews are positive, it's "rotten." 

If you do that, you get to this link here, http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/w_2008/?critic=creamcrop which gives W. a wretched 36%. 

"Was such drivel really worth taking *Bob Woodward's* time up for?," it would be nice to ask Slate.