Richard Dreyfuss Slams "W" Movie, Calls Oliver Stone A Fascist (VIDEO)

Richard Dreyfuss appeared on "The View" to publicize "W.," in which he plays Dick Cheney, but ended up criticizing the film and director Oliver Stone instead.

When asked why he made the film, he said he did it for "money." Dreyfuss also said, "I think it's 6/8ths of a great film."

Asked how it was to work with Oliver Stone, he said "imagine working for Sean Hannity... you can be a fascist, even when you're on the left."

He also said he isn't sure the film "will have any historical legs."

That and more pointed criticism in the clip below, with a bonus awkward moment at the end.

WATCH:

Comments

[majorteddy]

But What about BOB?

[Michale32086]

Now THAT was funny!!!!!

Kudos..... :D

Michale...­..

[happytrails]

As someone who does not watch this program, I was amazed at the lack of intelligence displayed by the blond on the right. Who IS she and why is she on TV?

[billreef]

She is going to be Sarah Palin's running mate for the 2012 Presidential election. Her name is Elerizabeth Hasselback and she got this "job" because she finished 3rd on "Survivor". Now she is an expert political commentator. OMG.

[WFV]

I don't like Richard Dreyfus, I never liked him. I have always thought he was self-serving and creepy, and I see things haven't cehanged. When I heard he was cast as Cheyney, I thought it was perfect.

Oliver Stone should ask for the money back.

[Fremon]

I recently saw W and thought it very interesting as a psychological profile of Bush. Dreyfus has a right to complain about Stone and his directing style. However, he complained about how the movie ended and would have liked a more conclusive ending. The ending does take some thinking, and I have my own opinion as to what Stone was trying to convey. I concluded that Bush could not figure metephorically where the "ball went". How did he lose it (the ball) in the way he chose to run his presidency. He ran it, I think, by putting those who ideologically agreed with him. Note the character of Rice who only was there to agree with him with constant head noddding agreement whenever Bush made a comment. The balance of all the other characters of his administration filled in behind him like a Greek chorus. Bush also thought he had God on his side to guide him with his "freedom" quest as exemplified with his religous ("religulous") mentor. At the end it was all falling apart and he could not seem to understand why, which is the reason he could not see where "the ball went". One man's opinion. Now let's hear yours.

[hogoza]

Nice critics. You sure can make someone want to watch it. Thank you, I will.

[SUIGENEROUSLA]

You're a smart guy.......­It's hard to make a film (or tell a story), that is not overtly a farce from a literary POV, that makes fun of the protagonist.

[Dee321]

I think Richard Dreyfuss was being honest.
I saw "W."
The characterization of W was too sympathetic. I love Josh Brolin and Brolin played him with a heart. Does W have a heart? I dont think so.

What Dreyfuss was saying was that this movie will not have a place in history and will not be of any significance because we did not have an opportunity to view into the motives of W during his presidency. Most of us want to know why he made the decisions he did. The movie left the answer empty. Nothing. Nada. We saw a glimpse into Cheney´s soul when he displayed his purpose for war/"Oil & World Domination" powerpoint.

All we saw of "W"´s motives were his closing his meetings with a prayer. Come on. He is neither a saint nor an idiot. We needed Stone to give us more! A Motive! A Reason!

[Michale32086]

So, you don't like the fact that the movie played Bush as a human being..

What should that tell you about your own beliefs??

Michale...­..

[brantl]

You're very good at erecting a straw man Michale...­... Are you good at anything else?

[jjoshaugh]

If you want a look into Bush's Motives read the excellent "Worse than Watergate" By John Dean.

Bush knew what he was doing. He was not the clueless idiot that he liked everyone else to think. It suited him and Rove to play that act. However he was extremely intellectually lazy, and demanded simple solutions so he didn't have to think too much. He was basicly a non recovered drug and alcohol addict.

This is why I don't think the portrayal in the film will be really accurate at all. He was the center of the web, adept at finding people that would not feed him accurate or bad news, because he didn't want to hear it. And his record as governor shows what kind of man he was. The fact that Texas broke all records for executions under his rule, and he worked to seal the records of his Governorship even before he was looking to run for president should tell you something.

No the secrecy was not just a Cheney thing. it came from the top.

[willamf]

Dreyfuss is right. The movie meanders around the edge of relevance. It paints only a piece of the "big picture" and is really just about the personal psychology of George W Bush. - Which has some value.

Justin Frank's 2004 book 'Bush on the Couch' is a more focused (and more entertaining) delving into Bush's psyche, though.

[Passenger57]

I wonder if he told Stone that to his face...boy­,money really does make you think twice about your principles,don't it?

[Maskatron]

I think Richard's Dick Cheney impersonation didn't go away after shooting of W stopped. He's turning into a creepy old dude.

Oh, and I'm shocked that the guy who was in Krippendorf's Tribe would do a movie only for the money.

[JayDDrew]

I guess Mr. Dreyfuss doesn't believe the old saying, "If you can't say anything nice...." He's an actor, not a critic. He can be self-critical, but he shouldn't slam the people he works with publically like that. He could have pointed out things he would have done differently without calling Mr. Stone "fascist".
I agree wit the other writers, Dreyfuss crossed the line, and apparently, he's done this many times before.
If would be a cold, rainy day in Hell before I would hire him if I were in Hollywood.

[HoneyLouise]

I think he was starting a conversation that required more time in order to fully explain his point. He needed more time. IMO, this film probably should not have been rushed into production (as it was) as it is "too soon" for this story to be told as a major motion pic. We're still in the middle of it!

[ParanoidPollyanna]

The time to tell the story of George Dubya Bush was before he was ever elected President. If someone had made a TV Movie or Documentary based on Texas Newspaper reporter, Molly Ivin's revealing book about W., and enough people had seen it, Bush would never have become President, and his horrid political career hopefully would have died the quick death it deserved, in the Texas dirt of his dumb Crawford stage-set of a so-called "RANCH".

Molly Ivins is no longer with us, but we have her wonderful newspaper columns and books, they're well worth reading if you've never had the chance! Like Helen Thomas, a one-of-a-kind "diamond"!

[Buddy McCue]

6/8ths? Doesn't he remember basic math? He should have reduced the fraction to 3/4.

[Mabo]

Elizabeth did. She said, "...so, the 1/4 of the film you would want to change..."

[susin]

Yes, and she's still replaying it for family and friends...­.along with her McCain inspired fashion line...

[wltdnfaded]

Richard Dreyfuss has always talked out of his ass, ever since I was a kid. He made a complete fool of himself in the 70's over and over again because he couldn't stop flappin' his gums. He stabbed everyone he ever worked with in the back, including Spielberg several times.

And here Stone gave him a career comeback. Nice.

[denise911]

I was thinking the same thing...I remember the way he dogged the movie JAWS...(wh­ich is a classic, my favorite movie), but he dogged the movie, even though he was in the movie...ho­w it was a joke and he dogged Steven Spielberg for making such a movie..it wasn't going to make any money....I guess Steven Spielberg got the last laugh....I think Dreyfuss suffers from little man syndrome..­.or something.­..

[strandwolf]

Right! A veritable cinematic classic worthy of Antonioni!

[Michale32086]

@RallyGrrrl

}}}}}}
You don't have to be so condescending when you disagree with someone, Michale. Especially when they go to the effort of making a relatively obscure movie reference like that.

~it isn't "obvious" that Bettysday does or does not read much of the trinity
~it isn't a fact - it is your opinion. Even if you're right, which i think you are, it's still not a fact.

(kudos, btw, Bettysdad)
{{{{{

Touche'

And you are correct on both points..

My apologies to bettysdad.

Michale...­...

[Michale32086]

And, as I posted, I LOVED the movie reference! :D

Michale...­..

[bubbles3660]

Who cares what that closet Canuck thinks! :)

[Punkynsnow]

What a jerk. He had no problem taking what I am sure was a very healthy paycheck to be in this film. He presumably read the script before agreeing to take part in the project. Now he's whining after the film is out? What a hypocrite. Let him return his salary if he's that outraged.

[giraf]

Nonsense, he is right, it is a terrible movie, it is like one of those presidential cardboard cut outs next to which one can have a picture taken. It is shallow an silly and has nothing to do with what actually happened to this country as a result of the Bush presidency. I whole heartedly agree with Dreyfus and applaud that despite the pay check and his reputation he speaks out against yet another example of dumbing down and oversimplification of important matters. I look forward to the "real" W movie, which I am sure will be made when the winds of intelligence change and Obama is president.

[HoneyLouise]

The film was actually being re-written constantly during shooting. Again, I still don't think he was slamming the film at all, but discussing it in a "real world" way, as opposed to being a PR junket actor interview.