"Death of a President" was billed understandably as a controversial film upon its release. In fact, for a while, it was deemed so controversial that it almost wasn't released in the United States. Naturally, Bush supporters spoke out against the movie, as did opponents to the Bush Administration including Hillary Clinton. Then the movie came out, people saw it . . . and the controversy completely disappeared after a week.
What happened? Controversial films such as "Fahrenheit 9/11" still resonated heated discussion months, even years, after its auspicious and greatly hyped release. But therein lies a difference between Michael Moore's film and this one. Moore's was factual (depending on whom you ask), and this one was definitely fiction. There's another crucial difference, though. Moore's movie was . . . well made. This one wasn't.
The movie had a great premise, but that's only when you look at the film as a hypothetical lesson: For some people (probably really extreme and equally disillusioned liberals), killing President Bush may seem like a good idea given his presidency is officially the most controversial in U.S. History. However, it is in no way a means to an end. In fact, killing Bush would just make the world, and the U.S., worse off than it actually is.
The movie communicated that message, but it did so in a very questionable way. The movie seemed to imply that should President Bush be killed by an assassin's bullet, no one except Dick Cheney and other Republicans would care about his death. Then Cheney would become President, pretty much throw away the Constitution by passing Patriot Act III (was there ever a II? Not that I can remember), and the entire nation would just stand aside and let him do it. In my opinion, that's not very likely.
Plus, the whole scenario on the search for Bush's killer was way too over the top. The movie again implied that the country would jump right to conclusions and assume that a Muslim did it, while the movie assumes the audience thinks that Muslims in general are the only group of people who hate the Bush Administration. That scenario is way too far fetched, and wasn't very well thought out by the filmmakers. Throughout history, the Secret Service has succeeded in both a.) preventing a President from being fatally wounded by an assassin since 1963, and b.) quickly finding the assassin every time, usually within a few blocks of the killing. This whole scenario which comprised the second half of the movie was where the entire film lost all credibility.
The best thing about the film was the editing, and the computer generated scenarios that made it look as though all this really had happened in real time. However, the acting from the people being interviewed in this documentary was shoddy at best, and the novelty of these interviewees really wore off the more unrealistic the movie became.
Having said all that, I should note that I am a moderate liberal. In fact, I am a Democrat, and I think the Bush Administration has been the worst and the most corrupt of any administration in U.S. History. Do I hate President Bush? No. Do I hate what he has done to this country? Yes. Do I want him dead? Absolutely not! I'm not saying that because it's a federal offense to say it, either. I'm saying it because it's foolish, ignorant, and unpatriotic to the fullest extent to wish any person, let alone any member of government, to die.
I credit this movie for not preaching that message that killing the President would be good for this country. Considering this movie was made by someone outside the U.S., they could have made that message easily while pulling a Roman Polanski and staying out of the country. But this movie was just so full of extreme cases that it was hard to take it seriously. If the film being so crappy saved the life of our President, then I say that's good. But overall, the movie became so forgettable that's it's not even worth recommending.
What happened? Controversial films such as "Fahrenheit 9/11" still resonated heated discussion months, even years, after its auspicious and greatly hyped release. But therein lies a difference between Michael Moore's film and this one. Moore's was factual (depending on whom you ask), and this one was definitely fiction. There's another crucial difference, though. Moore's movie was . . . well made. This one wasn't.
The movie had a great premise, but that's only when you look at the film as a hypothetical lesson: For some people (probably really extreme and equally disillusioned liberals), killing President Bush may seem like a good idea given his presidency is officially the most controversial in U.S. History. However, it is in no way a means to an end. In fact, killing Bush would just make the world, and the U.S., worse off than it actually is.
The movie communicated that message, but it did so in a very questionable way. The movie seemed to imply that should President Bush be killed by an assassin's bullet, no one except Dick Cheney and other Republicans would care about his death. Then Cheney would become President, pretty much throw away the Constitution by passing Patriot Act III (was there ever a II? Not that I can remember), and the entire nation would just stand aside and let him do it. In my opinion, that's not very likely.
Plus, the whole scenario on the search for Bush's killer was way too over the top. The movie again implied that the country would jump right to conclusions and assume that a Muslim did it, while the movie assumes the audience thinks that Muslims in general are the only group of people who hate the Bush Administration. That scenario is way too far fetched, and wasn't very well thought out by the filmmakers. Throughout history, the Secret Service has succeeded in both a.) preventing a President from being fatally wounded by an assassin since 1963, and b.) quickly finding the assassin every time, usually within a few blocks of the killing. This whole scenario which comprised the second half of the movie was where the entire film lost all credibility.
The best thing about the film was the editing, and the computer generated scenarios that made it look as though all this really had happened in real time. However, the acting from the people being interviewed in this documentary was shoddy at best, and the novelty of these interviewees really wore off the more unrealistic the movie became.
Having said all that, I should note that I am a moderate liberal. In fact, I am a Democrat, and I think the Bush Administration has been the worst and the most corrupt of any administration in U.S. History. Do I hate President Bush? No. Do I hate what he has done to this country? Yes. Do I want him dead? Absolutely not! I'm not saying that because it's a federal offense to say it, either. I'm saying it because it's foolish, ignorant, and unpatriotic to the fullest extent to wish any person, let alone any member of government, to die.
I credit this movie for not preaching that message that killing the President would be good for this country. Considering this movie was made by someone outside the U.S., they could have made that message easily while pulling a Roman Polanski and staying out of the country. But this movie was just so full of extreme cases that it was hard to take it seriously. If the film being so crappy saved the life of our President, then I say that's good. But overall, the movie became so forgettable that's it's not even worth recommending.