Death of a President (2006)

It,s not perfect, but then this genre of movie is very difficult to perfect.

The documentary style was very well done, and very convincing. I would even say that the acting looked so real, it would not surprise me if there was indeed no script, but just general guidelines on what each character would/should say. obviously i knew that this was not a real documentary, but it did have me wonder if each of the "experts" called forward to give their side of the story had in fact worked in their characters capacity at some point in the past as the parts were done so well.

I was less impressed with the final 20 minutes or so, and found the eventual conclusion to be flimsy, and overtly thought provoking... as if they decided to try and give a twist that was unexpected just for the sake of it.

Apart from a few minor plot issues like this, i really did think that this was a very convincing look at how a post assassination investigation and aftermath may look like. It is neither negative towards Bush or his standpoints. It in fact shows him to be in a very positive light whilst showing the anger and frustration of others at his actions towards Iraq and conflict in general.

In all, Death of a President was a very entertaining mockumentary and deserves to be seen. It does not incite violence, nor does it glorify war or Bush, it is more or less just a simple look at what would happen IF this were to really happen.

Fmovies: I felt this film fell short of achieving anything truly monumental- aside, of course, from a controversial title and subject matter. A piece of cinematic history it is not, and my opinion is that once the hype dies down and this film slips into 6.2/10 mediocrity people will soon forget all about it.

The 'whodunit' feel to this film, using documentary-style interviews with the people involved with the investigation to unfold the story, kept this film interesting. This technique aided in preventing it from being "just another documentary" because the outcome of this fictional future-event is unknown to the viewer, unlike most historical documentaries.

DOAP fails to talk about the worldwide and/or nationwide repercussions of such a devastating event as DOAP attempts to examine, which was disappointing and clearly beyond the intended scope of the film.

In my opinion, I'm glad I had a chance to attend the world premiere and it's definitely a film worth checking out when it comes to your video store, but DOAP is no more of a "must-see" than any other enjoyable, but ultimately forgettable, piece of fiction.

I was very skeptical before seeing this movie. Title and premise of "Death of a President" led me, and probably others, to expect either a shallow Bush-bashing hack-job or some sort of bizarre, "24"-like "we against the evildoers" hero-epic in a cheap documentary costume.

I'm happy to report: I was wrong. "Death of a President" is a very well written, performed and directed drama in the style of a modern (and hardly opinionated) documentary. And most surprisingly, it isn't really a movie about George W Bush.

It was a very smart move to make it a "mock" documentary, since it keeps the viewer on a skeptical distance to all the protagonists, so the movie doesn't push the audience into immediately placing the characters into the "good" and "bad" categories like it would be the case with a drama done in a conventional narrative. That gives room to examine the characters different motives and actions without having to rely on pressing the emotion-buttons too much. Of course this approach relies on convincing performances from all actors involved (mabybe even more so than with a conventional drama) to keep the illusion alive of actually watching a documentary.... over-acting could have been a disaster for this movie, and i'm very glad cast and director avoided that pitfall. Fine performances all around.

Now, to the obvious elephant in the room (and the reason why this movie is so controversial): Why did the makers of the movie not just have a fictional president killed? Shock value? Some kind of perverse joy in getting rid of the real President? I don't think so.

First of all, having the real President Bush in the movie obviously makes this theoretical exercise just more authentic and convincing. And more importantly, the viewer is forced to place himself somewhere among the characters, to place his sympathy and antipathy bets just based on preconceived notions, so to speak. I doubt there are many people who don't have a clear opinion about George W Bush and his administration (I certainly have mine. And in the interest of full disclosure, I'm no fan, to say the least). But that opinion (whatever it is) is important for the movie to get it's point across: it's the setup to play effectively with the viewers prejudices.

"Death of a President" manages to make you look beyond the stereotypes and makes a solid point about the misleading force of preconceived notions (for the viewer as well as the characters in the movie). The tag line "Do not rush to judge" is well chosen. The movie in particular makes a valid point about the worrying tendency in the US (and the world in general, I cant think of any society that's not to some degree affected by this "disease") of more and more dumbing everything down to "us versus them".

Be it the inflation of the word "Terrorist" as a magic opinion maker, (and drifting away from the movie for a second) be it Republicans versus Democrats, be it the insane shouting matches that pass as talk shows these days or be it the bizarre notion of an inevitable "clash of the civilizations".

The movie isn't perfect though. For example, the character of Bushs speech writer was a bit over the top in her praise for the man, while the protesting crowds remained rather stereotypical. Also, some doctored shots didn't quite live up to the otherwise impressive technical level of this production

Death of a President fmovies. There hasn't been a movie like this before and many will build their disapproval of the film around this fact. How can it be anything but controversial when it concerns a speculation about a future crime - and the crime concerns the person who is likely to be one of most controversial US presidents this century.

But given the administration and its leader have been quite overt in courting controversy and have often appeared to care little for opinion outside their electoral and other power bases in the USA it can count for little that suddenly some creative team somewhere outside the USA provokes discomfort in the heartland of that political grouping.

This film can be regarded as both as a straight ahead thriller but also as a device to explore your own attitudes and those of others to certain key political issues. Its rather like the BBC1 TV series 'Spooks' which uses some very current-affairs-rich plot lines with potential to alarm some sensitive groupings and manages to craft mass entertainment with the power to stimulate and provoke. If stakeholders in a publicly funded TV channel have the maturity to cope with Spooks, I don't see why this attitude shouldn't be adopted more widely in the free world.

"Death of a President" was screened last night (20 October 2006) on Britain's CHANNEL 4, which is seen widely in Ireland also. It is really quite strange, being entirely like a real documentary but with acted interviews. The integration of real archive footage of Bush and Cheney with digitally manipulated images of the pair, to create various moments in a false present, is eerie. Cheney even gives a funeral oration for Bush at one point. Overall, the film seemed a bit too long but, if nothing else, makes one worry about Cheney as president! It also serves to make one realise how much is possible with digital manipulation of images. It is realistic. Not a great movie but an interesting one.

For this particular European, who has visited most of the US States at one time or another and who has many American friends, the film was another reminder of how worrying the United States has become. Still a great nation but hard to think of it as "Leader of the Free World" now that it allows cruel and degrading treatment of enemy suspects and indefinite imprisonment without a fair trial. Perhaps US viewers will find this movie in bad taste, but they should find some of the policies and actions of their current government a lot more distasteful.

That Bush was assassinated in this film isn't really the issue. The real issue in this film is the sequence of events that the assassination set in motion. It's about how the current state of national fear and paranoia could produce the results that the film depicts in the AFTERMATH of the fictional assassination. It's about how contradictory evidence is suppressed or ignored, stereotypes are reinforced, rights are willingly surrendered by a frightened public, and hatred is stoked. It's about how a mere tidbit of dubious information (the questionable smudged fingerprint) can be hyped by politicians with an agenda into international confrontation. The film was an excellent and insightful commentary on the current state of political affairs in the United States, and I recommend it highly.