I agree with some of each of the above posts.  The movie also portrayed him as personable, resolute and part of a political dynasty that in no small part, helped him to get elected.  I don't think much of Oliver Stone as a historian, as he plays fast and loose with the facts, and people are too lazy to investigate things for themselves.  All told, however, I think it was a fairly accurate portrayal of the President that should have been made after he was out of office if it was to be taken seriously.

I would not consider "W" to simply be a "chronicle of the life of George Bush."  The movie was decidedly biased and portrayed President Bush in a mostly negative light.  Whether I agree or disagree with Bush's presidency and the choices he made (both in life and in his career), I found the movie to be distasteful and irreverent to the office of the president, a position in America that citizens should respect.

"W" portrayed Bush as a "dumb southerner," a "good ol' country boy," and generally an idiot.  However, to become elected to the highest governmental office in the arguably the most successful country in the world, these qualities could certainly not be as predominant as this movie portrayed them in Bush.

Only parts of the movie surprised me, since I consider the second President George Bush one of the most devious and dishonest American leaders ever. His personal faults and intellectual deficiencies are brought to the forefront, and it still makes me wonder how he could have fooled the tens of millions of citizens who voted for him (as well as for his equally power-hungry and duplicitous father). Republican diehards will merely discard the film as liberal propaganda, and I am sure that many of the scenes are fictionalized, but W still makes a strong statement about just how low the U. S. President can go.