How does a liberal, America-hating movie director follow-up a hit-piece on a sitting United States president?
With an adoring documentary about one of our nation's greatest enemies of course.
I mean, what else should Oliver Stone create as an encore for his box office failure "W" but a love letter to America-hating tyrant Hugo Chavez (as reported by Variety, h/t NBer Wilbur747, picture courtesy Variety):
It looks like Oliver Stone enjoys being in the company of presidents. The helmer is following up his Bush biopic "W." with a documentary about Venezuela's controversial President Hugo Chavez.
Stone has been working on the untitled doc for six months and is hoping to have it ready for next year.
"It's about Chavez and the South American revolution," Stone told Daily Variety in a reference to the wave of leftist pols elected to office in Latin America in recent years.
Stone was with Chavez in February during the dramatic rescue of hostages that Chavez helped to broker from the militant Columbian FARC group. The doc will not focus on the rescue but rather the opposition Chavez has faced at home and abroad, especially from the Bush administration, which has been vocal in its distaste for the populist socialism espoused by Venezuela's president.
I don't know about you, but I can't wait.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Why doesn't Oliverstone just go live in Venezuela?
December 11, 2008 - 10:21 ET by Dee BunkI'm so sick of these Hollywood stars and other celebrities who think every other country is so great. They have the financial means to live where ever they want. Go get out of here - leave our Country alone!
Oliver Stone is one of the biggest Propagandists making JFK
December 11, 2008 - 10:30 ET by PopularTechHis one film JFK has created more propaganda conspiracy nuts then any film in history, and it is all lies:
The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy (Video) (1hr 28min)
I am not surprised he would make another propaganda film endorsing a socialist dictator.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
All he makes
December 11, 2008 - 12:14 ET by ahusserIs propaganda films. That POS movie platoon is always rated 4 stars which portrays the typical Vietnam soldier (now vets) as murdering dopers.
Change: When the winds of change blow hard enough, the most trivial of things can become deadly projectiles. From a Poster
Vietnam Vets still outraged over Platoon
December 11, 2008 - 22:36 ET by PopularTechI know plenty of Vets who find it uncomprehensible to have their service portrayed like this. Stone choose to take hearsay accounts from draft units, a handful of negative events and created a fabricated faily tale of how all our soldiers served in nam. It is a disgrace to the military and veterans.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
It so happens PT
December 11, 2008 - 23:30 ET by ahusserThat I am one of those vets and have been a recipient of VVDS (Vietnam Veteran Derangement Syndrome) as we were made to slink back into relative obscurity. Stone is a traitor to his fellow vets similar to Kerry.
Change: When the winds of change blow hard enough, the most trivial of things can become deadly projectiles. From a Poster
I saw him interviewed
December 11, 2008 - 13:20 ET by lotrI saw him interviewed lately (I forget where and in what context) and would you believe that he was still standing by his "inside job" mythology? That simply leads me to believe that he is not acting in good faith with this stuff -- he has an "anti-establishment" agenda, and to him (as with most new-liberals) the ends justifies the means.
Great video, BTW.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
He maintains the story line
December 11, 2008 - 16:36 ET by BDHe maintains the story line of the inside job conspiracy, because the power of make believe is addictive to many people.
Even if we prodiced a movie showing LH Oswald shooting and hearing him narrate the shot. The power of make believe would force Stone to claim the CIA did it. It is a reflex.
The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy - Debunks JFK
December 11, 2008 - 22:46 ET by PopularTechAnytime anyone brings up Stone's JFK, I ask them to watch this movie. It never ceases to amaze me that their sole source of information on JFK is Stone's movie.
This movie lays out the case that liberals do not want to accept that a nobody communist could be responsible for killing their imaginary king so therefore there must be more to it.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
"This movie lays out the
December 12, 2008 - 14:00 ET by lotr"This movie lays out the case that liberals do not want to accept that a nobody communist could be responsible"
I would not even call it a movie -- it's a condensed, albeit well organized and dense, documentary summarizing all the evidence surrounding the case, including the physical evidence as well as the main players. And as difficult as it is to swallow, fate handed a delusional, unconscionable nobody communist a once-in-a-lifetime "opportunity" too juicy and tempting for him to pass up.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
Stone, you need to stay in
December 11, 2008 - 10:35 ET by ForeverOnTheRightStone, you need to stay in Venezuela and become Chavez's minister of propaganda. And bring Sean Penn et al with you, we don't need you in this country. Subversives like you are unwanted here.
So Nice to Lose Other People's Money
December 11, 2008 - 10:46 ET by allanfOliver had better get a check up front from Hugo. The movie "W" was a money loser.
Total Gross - Domestic and Foreign: 28,833,582
Production Budget: 25,100,000 - 30,000,00
Movie closed Decmber 4th 2008.
Marketing and distribution fees will be another 25 million.
wrong
December 11, 2008 - 20:52 ET by respectfulconservativeYou are forgetting about rentals, dvd sales and cable revenue which will probably be another 25 million. The film was not a hit, or a great movie but it is not a bomb,
Nonsense. The people who
December 12, 2008 - 10:15 ET by BDNonsense. The people who lend money for movie production do not like to wait for their payback all the way to eventual cable rentals. THey also have marketing costs to get to that point.
Any way you look at it, his recent flicks are money wasters and time users that only those who seek the Hollywood Cocktail circuit could endorse.
Domestic Gross
December 12, 2008 - 19:22 ET by allanfDon't assume that the Gross revenue for a movie goes directly to the movie maker. Theater operators get their cut and so do distributors.
It is not looking good for the movie to turn a profit.
carlos mencia
December 11, 2008 - 11:07 ET by Hanoverfistwould make a great Hugo!
De de de!
;-)
→ Hanover
December 11, 2008 - 11:11 ET by Cool ArrowI'd pay to see that.
Entertainment over-rated
December 11, 2008 - 11:16 ET by Overtly AmericanHey Stone how do you think Mr Chavez treats movie producers in his country. There are probably two kinds of movie producers in Venezuela. Those who have been shot and those who will be shot. You can't expect to find intelligence in an industry decended from jesters and clowns. The photo speaks volumes. Mugging for the camera while shamelessly commiting treason.
Oliver Stone
December 11, 2008 - 14:19 ET by GeneralAlWhere is Joe McCarthy when you need him? This is what perpetrated the black lists of the fifties! This guy is consorting with a Communist dictator! If it weren't for the Democrat/Communist party of America, guys like this would be in a homeless shelter somewhere! What really ticks me off is these traitors get rich off the very country they hate. Comrade Stone, why don't you move to Venezuela so you can kiss this fat Commie's behind on a daily basis!
Chavez looks like the guy
December 11, 2008 - 12:20 ET by celatorChavez looks like the guy who sells hot dogs at a local park in the summer in my town. Dresses like him, too. Beret, fatigues and all.
Stone looks like one of the guys I've noticed who buys the hot dogs--four at a time.
The "free press"
December 11, 2008 - 12:27 ET by iveseenitallThe "free press" poltroons in America will not condemn this movie or these men, Oliver or Hugo. Neither willl Barry or his mob condemn this nonsense. They will all hide bhind Stone's "right" to do it. Which is not the point, of course. We are in deep soup.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
what does stone benefit from this?
December 11, 2008 - 12:51 ET by pmohbuck"platoon" was a decent movie ... then he started to delve into fantasy flicks that are nothing more than his revisionist views of history (jfk, nixon, W, etc) and they all pretty much suck ... and they're getting consecutively worse. i expect the chavez film to tank as well.
at one point stone could have been considered a talented filmmaker ... not any more. you know its bad when you can't convince a significant number of "bush-haters" to see a film mocking bush ... during election season.
just another crappy movie
December 11, 2008 - 12:59 ET by katainkentin the crap movie wasteland that is the american film industry.
"part of what I'm hoping to introduce as the next president is a new ethic of [government enforced] responsibility" - B. Obama
hey, garbage in.....
December 11, 2008 - 22:24 ET by clinging to my guns and my religion... garbage out!
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." Edmund Burke
In the last 10 years Stone
December 11, 2008 - 14:21 ET by UtherpendIn the last 10 years Stone has not made one movie that made money at the box office. How does he continue to get funding?
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you"
He makes money by the
December 11, 2008 - 16:39 ET by BDHe makes money by the peculiar approach that is the Hollywood elite cocktail club.
He could make a film of a dog defecating, but as long as he can pitch it to the Hollywood leftist insiders who wish to continue to attend cocktail parties in the right circles - he can get the financing.
So, I Guess We Can Sweep "World Trade Center" Under The Rug?
December 11, 2008 - 23:24 ET by The7SticksI just pulled it up from Wikipedia, and World Trade Center was a big hit for Stone.
"Box office and critical reception:
On opening weekend it gained approximately $18,730,762 in the U.S. and Canada. As of October 25, 2006 the film has made $70,278,893 at the North American Box-Office. Worldwide the film has taken in over $162,000,000.[1]
The film garnered moderate critical acclaim, with a 70% "Fresh" approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes[2] and a 66% metascore at Metacritic[3]. "
Suffice it to say, Oliver Stone did make a $100 million movie worldwide, so I think it's safe to say it was profitable. I kind have wished that he had made more of an effort to fully confront the Islamo-Nazi terrorists in that movie, but he does portray Americans as heroes, I can safely say for sure.
Oh, and may I also pull up the column by L. Brent Bozell III where he's basically saying "God Bless Oliver Stone?"
I'm not saying it's a good move to make a love letter movie towards a corrupt socialist president like Hugo Chavez, but I hardly believe that Oliver Stone hates America. Charlton Heston was proven wrong by that when Stone cast him in Any Given Sunday. Oh, and unlike George Clooney, he actually attended Heston's funeral, so I would say that there really is more to a character like Oliver Stone than meets the eye.
I nominate Joe Pesci to
December 12, 2008 - 05:00 ET by RR GOPI nominate Joe Pesci to play Hugo Chavez.
I like Platoon and JFK though with those (like any movie, come on now) you have to take with a grain of salt. Platoon had a lot of great scenes, interesting characters, and sound bites, etc. How true were these? Dunno, wasn't there. But I like The Green Berets and The Alamo, too, and, again, wasn't there so I don't know how true they are.
Face it, the bulk of the average American's knowledge of history comes from Hollywood, everything from the Holocaust, to slavery, to the wars we fought, to apartheid in South Africa, to social problems, to what we think we know about Native Americans and African Americans and on and on. Even documentaries and history books are suspect. What makes anyone think that these are written by the unbiased or the conservative types? Wake up.
But, of course, I have no interest in Hugo Chavez. Why not do one about Pol Pot or Robert Mugabe?
As for JFK, it wasn't Stone who first postulated those theories, he just popularized them through his film.
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
To be completely fair..
December 15, 2008 - 13:16 ET by AshleeTo be fair as stated above, to call 'W' a 'hit piece' is not only a mislead view, but for anyone to walk away from seeing it from an attempted objective point of view, I find it impossible for anyone to see it as a hit piece.
Did it show GW in an overall positive light? Nope. Let's face it though, GW isn't God and he, like *every* president before and after him, has and will make mistakes. Highlighting some of the bigger gaffes where hindsight is now 20/20 is hardly to be considered a hit on someone's character.
Admittedly, I went to see it merely on a whim as I tend to like Oliver Stone from a film standpoint, not so much from a subject matter, but I keep my politics as far away as possible when it comes to any issue but, well, politics. That said, there are many who decried the movie as 'too lenient' or 'too praising of GW.' Given, most of these people with this sentiment that I interviewed after the movie were either ill educated youths or bitter adults who seemed to be in the final, terminal stages of BDS. I, however, *liked* the film.
'Why in GOD'S NAME could you, a *CONSERVATIVE,* have enjoyed this movie?!' you may ask. I'll tell you. Because unlike the liberals who prayed at the altar of the infallible Clintons all through the 90's (and now in process of building the Obama shrine for future worship) I am someone who can appreciate human character, which in turn, involves their strengths but also their flaws. I was aware Bush was not perfect, and in the past 4 years, I've questioned more of his moves than I have supported as I did in his first term. That said I still think he was one hell of a president who is sadly chided by an arrogant and uninformed America who seems to believe if any republican is anything but God-like in their infallibility, then they are trash to be swept out ASAP.
The film itself though, went through the very interesting path that lead George Bush to where he is today and, minus the evil overtones that loomed over the Cheney and Rove characters, I didn't find all that much that was that horrible or misleading in the film. Even so, in many cases, especially his early run in Texas against the liberal who slandered him as being outside of the ascribed religion of his potential constituents, but also that same old clap trap that all conservatives are greedy men who want you to stay poor. In this part of the film, Stone is *actually sympathizing* with GW. I couldn't believe it! Then, also the scene in which GW Sr. loses the general election, Stone presents a case that GW Sr. perhaps, under the correct circumstances, SHOULD have won the election.
In closing, Stone is one of the most crazy people out there when his mouth opens on the subject of politic, and I would also like to see this upcoming film to see if he is as objective as he was with W. Time will tell I suppose.
That said, if anyone here has *not* seen W, I'd suggest renting it. Its only a few dollars to rent it and I feel more people need to actually see it themselves to make a judgement, rather than assume that since many conservatives panned it, it must be horrible. We must be careful and aware that while the liberals are often the sorest of losers, poo pooing anything that isn't lock stock in line with their agenda, that there are also those types on our side as well.
The people should not fear their Government,
The Government should fear the people.