User reviews

"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.

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 lucky enough to receive a ticket while waiting in the front of the rush line to view the world premiere of one of the TIFF's most controversial and talked-about films this year. With bag checks and guys with night vision scanning the audience for the entire screening looking for pirates (argh!), it felt like I was seeing the Prez himself.

Gabriel Range's mockumentary that is set 3 years after the assassination of President George Bush. This television-style mockumentary delves into interviews with suspects and those whom were responsible with protecting and then those who were in charge of finding the assassin and anyone else who was responsible. The way the film was laid out was that the identity of the assassin is unknown until everything else suspect was eliminated. All in all, a "who dunnit?" tale told by those involved in it.

Controversy and hype aside, as a mockumentary from the future it was very well done and convincing with great use of archival footage and staged scenes. However, if this were an actual documentary, my interest in the topic would've been different and more interested because I would've had a good 3 years of non-stop media coverage and countless discussions and opinions about the event, not to mention how such a thing not only affects everyone around the globe, but personally as well. For example, if I were to watch a fictional film about 9/11 before that horrid and devastating event, I wouldn't have the same reaction or emotional responses as if it were a documentary after that event.

Range's approach to fictional storytelling is fascinating indeed but lacks that personal touch to myself as a viewer. All in all, if released world-wide this film will probably garner much hype but it'll end up having no real bite to it.

The theme is overburdeningly political , no point denying that there is a political agenda . Donot go for the ethical and moral questions about portraying real living individuals as assassin victims or elevated presidents . Subtle attempts at being politically correct , to have a social message of not to label any faith or religious denomination on mere assumptions might be there ,attempts to go on record about the simmering discontent of Iraq war veterans and their families upon the loss of life or limb also may be underlying . The social message is well conceived and put forth . All these apart this is a very powerful sobering fictional documentary ( if that is the right word ). It is the story telling and the wave of credible emotions that struck me . A must see for any serious contemporary movie watcher . A wonderful film !!!

There is nothing more predictable than first response to this sentence: "Gabriel Range's new film, 'Death of a President,' is about the assassination of George W. Bush on Oct. 19, 2007."

Here's the sequence of your thoughts:

1. Eeeeew! 2. Can they make a film like that?! 3. That's one movie I'll never see.

Beyond all the obvious up to this point, nothing is to be taken for granted otherwise about "Death." It is a stunning work, literally. It will leave you dazed, floored, stupefied. (That is, if you see it... but you won't.)

To begin with it's neither a mockumentary, nor a fictional documentary, nor documented fiction... I just don't know what to call it. But is is GOOD; if you drag yourself into the theater, you will be grabbed, buffeted, your anticipation and second-guessing will turn out to be all wrong.

The opening narrative, right off the bat, seems obvious, but will gain a totally different meaning when it's repeated at the end. Exciting as the "recreation" of the foul deed may be, "Death" is really more about the capturing, trial, and conviction of the suspected assassin, who may or may not be the killer. Not that the 44th President, Dick Cheney, cares about that. But you may. (While, incredible as it may seem, you being to feel somewhat nostalgic about No. 43.)

British journalist and film-maker ("The Menendez Murders," "The Day Britain Stopped") Range is brilliant. Overlapping documentary and fictional footage blend flawlessly. Bush, Cheney, many others "play" themselves, are themselves. The interviews with actors playing Secret Service agents, government officials, etc. are totally believable - in fact, they may fool you for a while, even a long while.

Range's work has little to do with what may appear to be an obvious twin, Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," except for dealing with the same national shame of fear and fear-mongering. Moore tried to fill in the gaps left in what is known and what is claimed. "Death of the President" projects our sorry time into the world of Patriot Act III.

Range is clear about the certainty of being denounced, sight unseen: "I have always known that I would be condemned for the very idea of this film," he has said, "but I believe that sometimes it is not only acceptable for art to be outrageous - it is necessary.

"We live in a time of incredible fear... The advance condemnation of this film by politicians and pundits who have not seen - and may never see - this film reflects the landscape of fear in which we live today, and which my film attempts to address."

A lot of these reviews seem to be by either US Americans who have yet to see this film, and are so insecure about their patriotism they have to come on to IMDb and slate it, or seemingly by people who made up their mind before watching it and refuse to change their stance after doing so.

The point of the film is NOT some perverse fantasy about killing the current President of the United States of America, George Walker Bush Jr. People who say otherwise either haven't seen it or are wanting to purposely misguide you.

It is a drama in the style of a documentary (one that would air on television rather then a cinema screen) that looks at a possible run up to an assassination of the president, as well as how the investigation might be handled afterwards with the involvement of Dick Cheney (who would take over the Presidency if George Bush was assassinated).

The drama does not dwell or linger on the death of the president at all, in fact apart from Bush being crammed into his presidential car by secret service and whizzed away at high speed, that is all the viewer sees. You then find out about his death from mock news reports. Hardly a sordid gratification from a 'perverse' director.

The drama is convincing as a documentary by realistic interviews with decent unknown actors playing their roles just right without hyperbole as could quite easily be the case.

Without spoiling exact plot points, the drama makes a point in how the government may be more interested in finding a suspect and making the evidence fit the profile because it is more politically advantageous then actually running an investigation to find out exactly what happened, and draw suspects that way. Considering the current climate where seemingly the Geneva Convention is open to interpretation, and restrictions on Habeus Corpus, this suggestion is not far fetched in the slightest.

It aired on 'More 4' in the UK, a channel from Channel 4 television, and I'd imagine it would air on an American network at some point, or maybe a limited screening at cinemas if the US networks lose their bottle.

So for my US brothers and sisters, consider what I've written, and go SEE it and decide for yourself. That's what the freedom as a US Citizen entitles you to do.

I was not really sure what this film was trying to say. I did think that the script was rather predictable and unoriginal. The music was awful Hollywood nonsense.

A much better film that explores the purpose and consequences of violent political action in a human way is the The Weather Underground, and that documentary is real.

Last year in Chicago a man burned himself in view of one of the freeways during the day as political protest. On his website, he wrote that he had once walked past Donald Rumsfeld clutching a knife in his pocket and had done nothing but now wished he had. While the man's action was very disturbing, when reading his website, I found that he was very eloquent and seemed to feel a deep sense of humanity, thus casting his story in ambiguity. I think art should explore these ambiguities. Death of a President does not explore anything. It's like a Christopher guest film that isn't funny and had no interesting characters.

This film is a documentary on a fictional event of the American president assassinated in Chicago.

I am impressed by the film's presentation of events. It cleverly mixes fictional footage with news footage, mixing interview with "facts" and the re-enactment of events are so real that it seems like a real documentary. The film allows the different sides to speak, which makes it more all rounded. Not only government officials, but the suspected assassin's wife get to be "interviewed" as well touches me. Many a times, these voices are silenced or suppressed. In this way, the various views and feelings get balanced.

It also approaches what truth really is. Is truth really the truth? Is it what people want to believe? Or is it what the authorities want you to believe? The twist ending reminds me of another powerful film, "The Life of David Gale".

This film is very powerful. It is deep and thought provoking. i truly recommend it.

DEATH OF A PRESIDENT 2006 DIRECTED BY: GABRIEL RANGE ~ THE RUNDOWN: Wow - as the saying goes - only in America. Watch the current president of the U.S. get assassinated in October of 2007 in one of the boldest projects in cinematic history! ~ If you haven't seen it - hurry up and check it out, if not for any other reason besides pure entertainment value. It's the Blair Witch Project of politics; a consistently entertaining mockumentary that warrants much intrigue and delivers some genuine suspense. And, check this out for size - imagine a world where Bush is praised and regarded as a great American leader...you don't believe me?? well, it's been accomplished here. You may be the biggest Bush-hater in the world, but if there's one lone molecule in your body that doesn't absolutely want to strangle him, you may just be caught off guard as he is convincingly shown at times as a down-to-earth man of perseverance amid his many flaws. In further support of the movie, the acting was good for the most part, and the real footage meshes perfectly with a simple yet engaging story that just seems to work. ~ Now, on to what bothered me. Firstly, I thought it started to lose its intensity about fifty minutes into it and really just turned into an episode of Unsolved Mysteries...definitely a good one though. Secondly, it didn't present one clear-cut, unified message by the end. And even if it did, it spread itself too thin in being unbiased and the events following the assassination were just predictable and were nothing more than childish statements on what's wrong with the country: racial profiling, the "Big Brother" concept/Patriot Act, and Iraq. But, to reiterate, the concept is very intriguing, even brilliant, and I think it's fair to say it was executed pretty well.

Many of the posts so far regarding this film have been from Europeans (well, Britons really) who seem to be vociferously defending this British-made film. They are quick to defend a film that "predicts" the assassination of another country's leader. They seem to regard any Americans' feelings of discomfort or distaste at this movie as sheer "blind American patriotism" and the like. Yes, yes, we know, Americans are dumb, and are the cause of all the world's problems, and are the root of all evil...yes, I've heard the pitch before; it gets tiring. Not all Americans are blind followers of Bush; in fact, at this point, most are not. An overwhelming majority of Americans are fed up with the war, among other things, and are not fans of the Bush administration. But, that does not prevent us from having sentimental feelings toward our President. Nor does it nullify our feelings about a foreign film team "creating" the assassination of our leader. Let's not forget how emotional the ever rational and stoic Britons got over the death of their beloved Diana. And let's not forget the blind emotion that Britons possess over a royal family that is, in all seriousness, laughable. The point here is not competition over which country's leaders are more pathetic, nor which country's fallen leaders may deserve more of our sympathy. No, my point here is more focused. Any person, in my opinion, reserves the right for a little sympathy regarding their country's leader(s). No, we don't like Bush, but seeing his assassination foreshadowed in a movie is eerie, uncomfortable, and disconcerting, and I believe we reserve the right to express that without being labeled as blind, patriotic, "typical Americans". No, our excrement does not stink; does yours?

That being said (that was my little disclaimer), allow me to share with you my thoughts on the movie itself. Americans do, and should feel uncomfortable watching this movie. And you know what, that discomfort is a good thing. Seriously. This movie, like all good films, is a work of art, and all art should elicit some sort of emotion. Often times, the uncomfortable emotion is the most meaningful. This film is not trashy, nor is it exploitative, nor is it perverse. It forces us (yes, we Americans) to look at a completely realistic situation, and its possible effects. The outcome from the plot of the film itself is completely believable, and anyone, yes anyone who considers themselves a patriot, or not, should sit through this film and think on it. The artist is the canary in the coal mine, so to speak, and I believe this film gives the canary justice, as it were. It is testing the waters, for an event that I hope never comes. But, if it does come, the filmmakers here seem to have some real foresight into the American political scene, as to what may happen.

This "mocumentary" runs like an episode of NYPD Blue, watches like an episode of 24, and has the insight of a political science professor from Harvard. Not to be overlooked, it carries with it a great deal of tongue and cheek humor...hopefully not to be lost in the confusion that is the film itself. The characters are brilliantly casted and acted, and I mean that in earnest. They are unknown, as is only necessary for a film like this, and some of them really do classify as satirical caricatures (the speech writer who idolizes the President, the high and mighty FBI investigator, the tough guy Chicago police chief, to name a few). This film is provocative, yes, but it is not sensationalist. It is political satire, really, in its highest form, and it manages to pull this off without actually being too political in itself. Yes, the message is perhaps political, but the message is more human and downright philosophical than anything. I won't elaborate here, but the viewer should trust me on that. Bush, if anything is portrayed positively, and his death is certainly seen as a tragedy. Even for the average Bush-hater, his death in this movie must surely be viewed with a great deal of sympathy. The villain is not Bush, and not America, but rather the circumstances that allow America to freak out on itself, and rush to desperate measures. I think the filmmakers have a point here.

So, Americans, go see this film. It is entertaining, and eerily foreshadowing. Don't take it too sensitively, and don't take it too seriously; I really don't think it is meant to be taken "seriously", per say. And Non-Americans, respect our right to show a little emotion for our leader. He may not be the best leader, but he is our leader, and OUR emotion over his fantastical death is what the filmmakers want and need for this movie to work.

I have just watched this film after getting the DVD a month ago. The premise did not really intrigue me. Since it's raining outside I thought I would sit down and watch it. I must admit that I was waiting for another Moore/ Trey Parker and Matt Stone anti-Bush assault. Pleasantly I didn't get that. The current President is presented as a decent man doing what the believe is the best for America. All the participants are - including the assassin.

The movie uses a tragic event like the President as a way to demonstrate how polarized and biased in objective investigation and reporting would be. The most amusing line for me was President Cheney asking if there was a direct link to Osama or Alkeda right off the bat. A fair question? Yes. But the interpretation by subordinates might have been, "make it link".

Questions to ask: What happens when fear dictates our laws? Who decides what is unpatriotic? Will we have an open mind or mind guided by profiling, polarized over-simplification news reporting?

A documentary style approach to the assassination of George W. Bush is attempted via interviews with security staff, a bit of editing and then some. In the end the movie just unwittingly comes across as a spoof and a bad one at that. Perhaps with better actors and a less obvious script the film could have worked. As it stands the film progressively irritates due to the stale acting and the lack of a believable set up. TV anchors don't display the tension the gravitas of the situation surely would bring and when an attempt is made at that while interviewing the staff on call that fatal night, the performances are simply too far removed from being believable.

The idea of merging fact and fiction this way certainly is fresh and interesting, but executed with way too little oomph to be convincing, rendering the film little else than a cinematic sleeping pill.

"Death of a President" is a truly original and intriguing 'future documentary' about an event that hasn't happened yet. It is a reflection on the events surrounding the October 2007 assassination of George W. Bush in a Chicago hotel.

That future time is portrayed with an escalation of the anti-war fervor and a growing concern over the dangers posed by North Korea.

The film flips between staged scenes, real footage & documentary style interviews. It does a fine job of seamlessly blending those pieces to create a very plausible "precreation".

It is interesting watching this film on October 9th, 2006... a day which began with news of North Korea's first nuclear test. The first twenty minutes of the film are dotted with mentions of that scenario.

There are some chilling scenes in this film... especially early on, when you get a real sense of the protesters being contained and beaten down by Chicago police in full riot gear.

After a political speech in the hotel, the President is ushered down a standard meet-and-greet rope-line. It is at this point that the film lives up to its name. Shots are fired and one of the most frenzied scenes of any film this year ensues. Bush is thrown into a waiting limo, which speeds off to the nearest hospital. The crowd at the rope line is panicked beyond recognition. The FBI launches into gear. The media machine revs its engines. And the Chicago skyline lights the night air as an eerie sense of history-in-the-making takes hold.

Later that night, newscasters announce the death of George W. Bush and the film transposes into an FBI procedural... A virtual whodunit for us viewers. It feels very much like a David Mamet plot crossed with an Oliver Stone concept. It truly is a wonderfully imaginative idea played out with great skill and cinematic artistry.

***

OK - The secondary question in reviewing this film is this... Is it wrong? Is it morally questionable to have such a premise be the focal point of a film? Is it in bad taste?

Well, I have always been one to follow Roger Ebert's mandate that, "It is not always what a film is about, but how it is about it." I try not to pass judgment on the subject, but on the skill of the film itself.

However, this is a very brazen subject. Even for a Bush-hating liberal like me, this approaches the line, if indeed it doesn't cross it. It comes dangerously close to going too far.

That being said, I think it stops short of that line and delivers a legitimate scenario that merits people's attention. I believe this film earns the right to touch on this subject. It is a quality film and should not be thought of as a sensationalistic attempt to shock audiences.

***

Back to the plot... The film analyzes the hunt for suspects and forensic evidence. It follows the investigation all the way to a murder trial. I will not detail the story any further.

What this film does brilliantly is to shade the discussion toward issues like the Patriot Act, Homeland Security futility, the right to privacy, the right to a fair trial, and the apathy of the American public to seek truth and justice. It hints at Governmental manipulation, a wag the dog mentality. It tells personal stories of civilians and soldiers and suspects and Presidential aides. This film has a tremendously broad scope considering the budget.

"Death of a President" meanders patiently toward a conclusion you will probably not expect. This is a very thoughtful film that wants us to think carefully about the consequences of future terrorism. It asks us to contemplate the futility of such a crime and the repercussions it would have on future generations. In fact, it very much condemns this scenario as the worst thing that could happen.

I was riveted by this film. It is not just a scream for attention with a daring title. It has something very important to say and it says it very eloquently. That it dramatizes the assassination of a sitting President only adds to the palpable tension and urgency of its message. I think that "Death of a President" is one of the best and most important films of 2006. Go out of your way to see it as soon as you can!

© Written by TC Candler IndependentCritics.com

This is a strange and compelling movie. Mix of adrenaline filled excitement of a news flash and a touch of dryness that even the best of old-fashioned documentaries suffer from. The premise is very simple and straightforward. Somebody shoots president Bush and what happens after that fictional scenario. The movie makers are not being just anti-Bush in the most obvious way, they construct a very plausible outcome of such an act.The actors, mostly Americans are extremely believable and add an eerie touch of authenticity to this grim proceedings.This whole thing is probably in a very poor taste, but claiming to lead the Free world opens us up for all kinds of speculations. Nobody likes the self-proclaiming leader, even when he is occasionally right.

"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.

Death Of A President is an excellent film and is in no way anti-American or Anti-George Bush. It has great cinematography, an interesting and very plausible story line, and exceptional performances. Whether you're left, right, center, or none of the above, this is a a very good film for the thinking movie-goer.

The controversy, of course, stems from the use of the current U.S. President as the victim of an assassination. The assassination scene itself flies by and can't be more than 2-3 seconds long, so fast, in fact, you can be forgiven if you miss it altogether. It's what precedes and follows that scene that is the meat of the movie. Film footage of Bush and other real political figures is spliced seamlessly into this film, and includes footage of Vice-President Cheney and Mayor Daley of Chicago. None of these real persons are in any way abused or mis-characterized in the film. And the portrayal of fictional FBI agents, Chicago Police officers, and White House and Secret Service officials is, if anything, mostly very complimentary to them. This film does not do a hatchet job on anyone

What the use of real characters in a fictitious scenario allows the film-makers to do is to let the movie-goer realize that real actions have real consequences. And by putting real persons into a totally fictitious plot the film-makers can develop an accurate scenario - something that still can't be done with the Kennedy assassination of more that 40 years ago. We can't present an accurate portrayal of that real event even now because of the doubts cast on the whole event by the actions of our own government. The USG botched the assassination investigation so badly with its lies of omission and commission, that we will probably never know that whole truth about what happened that day in 1963. With the fictional scenario of Death of a President, though, we know exactly how things play out.

Whether you are a President, an assassin, an FBI agent, or just a movie-goer, realizing that actions have consequences - often unforeseen consequences, of course - is something we all need to be reminded of from time to time.

The problem with "Death of a President" is that, no matter how effectively it makes its case, there is really only one road it can go down. It may be deeply sincere but this is the same woolly-minded liberal thinking we have been accustomed to since, well, certainly the 1950's from a certain kind of film-maker. We can't argue over issues such as 'truth' since it deals in purely fictitious scenarios; in this case, the assassination of President Bush and its aftermath, or rather simply on who did it.

That it sides with a right-thinking, open-minded liberal 'Left' is admirable and that it is very well made of its kind is to be applauded, but as someone who sympathizes with its political point-of-view I was somewhat disappointed by the sheer bland matter-of-factness of its arguments. I agree with its sentiments; I just wish I had been forced to think more.

Production values throughout are first-rate particularly since it was obviously made on a limited budget and the performances, essentially 'talking heads' filmed in the style of a documentary, are superb. It never quite manages that leap whereby the line between fact and fiction is totally obliterated and by using the assassination of a currently serving President as its starting off point it demands a lot from us in terms of acceptance of the scenario that follows. Essentially what it is attempting to do is to give us a 'mockumentary' akin to those early films of Peter Watkins. That it only partly succeeds makes me wonder if something more totally fictitious, along the lines of, say, Tim Robbin's "Bob Roberts", would not have been preferable.