Death Of A President Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Do not rush to judge.
Years after the assassination of President George W. Bush in Chicago, an investigative documentary examines that as-yet-unsolved crime.
| Hend Ayoub | Zahra Abi Zikri |
| Brian Boland | Larry Stafford |
| Becky Ann Baker | Eleanor Drake |
| Robert Mangiardi | Greg Turner |
| Jay Patterson | Sam McCarthy |
| Jay Whittaker | Frank Molini |
| Michael Reilly Burke | Robert H. Maguire |
| James Urbaniak | Dr. James Pearn |
| Neko Parham | Casey Claybon |
| Seena Jon | Samir Masri |
| Christian Stolte | John Rucinski |
| Chavez Ravine | Marianne Claybon |
| Patricia Buckley | Dawn Newton |
| Patrick Clear | Adam Brock |
| Malik Bader | Jamal Abu Zikri |
| Gabriel Range |
6.30 out of 10 (2247 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Peter Watkins would have done better.
posted on 14 Aug 2009One of the hot ticket screenings at this year's fest, DEATH OF A PRESIDENT (commonly abbreviated as D.O.A.P. as if to be politically correct) is a recollection of the assassination of George W. Bush on October 19, 2007 and the subsequent manhunt for his killer. Constructed from archive footage of Bush's fateful trip to Chicago and countless talking head interviews, this tale of Bush's demise (and the wrongful conviction of Syrian-American Jamal Abu Zikri) doesn't shed any light on Zikri's kangaroo trial and the real guilt of Al Claybon. This material was handled better in Michael Moore's UNDISCLOSED PRESIDENT about President Cheney's rise to power and the passing of "Patriot 3." Thankfully, filmmaker Gabriel Range leaves out Jeane Dixon's daughter who seems to be making a living recalling her dubious prediction of President Bush's death.In all seriousness, Gabriel Range's mockumentary was produced for the BBC but feels much more like an A&E special. All of the conventions of a television documentary are followed to the letter. Range does a skillful job using pre-existing footage as "archive." The line between fact and fiction are blurred rather well though some flaws risk jettisoning viewers from the conceit. These include some poor computer-generated additions of Bush's faux speech writer into background shots and a horrible audio/visual edit of Dick Cheney eulogizing George W. Bush rather than Ronald Reagan. If there was ever a moment perfect for a cutaway to hide an awkward mouth match, that was it.Utilizing a cast that could very well have been on any one of tonight's ten repeats of the various "Law & Order" franchise shows, Range does a fair job using "generic" actors though forensic expert James Pearn did too good of a job as I recognized him immediately. Missing from the proceedings (along with the aforementioned requisite psychic scene) are the shots celebrating Bush's death in whatever axis of evil country needs demonizing the most at the moment. Even more than convicting Zikri, we also should have had an immediate response that the shooter was a suspected Al Quaeda terrorist even before anyone was in custody (recalling the Oklahoma City bomber reported to be an Arab well before Timothy McVeigh was apprehended). There are other shadings that could have boosted the film's verisimilitude to make DEATH OF A PRESIDENT a more polished film. As it is, the film works as a cinematic experiment and an act of wish fulfillment, though is a President Cheney and better than a President Bush?
A Very Good Movie - And It Is Not Anti-Bush or Anti-American
posted on 06 Aug 2009Death 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.
Irritating Conclusion
posted on 25 Jul 2009This is tendentious film making by someone who clearly has an agenda, and that agenda is unmistakably anti-Bush. The opening hour is well made, and despite the title and one knowing the outcome, still builds a certain amount of tension. The immediate aftermath with the authorities looking for a suspect is quite well done but stretches credibility in that in reality the whole area would have been closed down. The identification of the main suspect seems to be heading in the right direction before making a left turn and ludicrously, and unbelievably, finding a patriotic scapegoat for the whole thing.This left a sense of being cheated.
US Constitution, anyone?
posted on 19 Jul 2009The ease which with "Patriot Act III" becomes law in this believable fiction is frightening, and ought to serve as a reasonable warning to us all. "Death of a President" is a compelling cautionary tale.The US Constitution is the thing that's threatened so readily in this scenario. This is a good movie with a believable script. File footage is used seamlessly where it's needed. It's excellent technically,unencumbered by the use of movie stars (instead, terrific unknown actors delivering great performances) and well worth a viewing. I found it online at http://www.teambio.org/2006/11/death-of-a-president-full-film/.
A well made docu-drama
posted on 19 Jul 2009I would agree with the previous comment except that I would have added that the film works because there are no recognizable actors or actresses. It could have been on Discovery or National Geographic and would have worked as the retelling of a piece of (manufactured) history. I thoroughly recommend it to anyone interested in contemporary American culture and its excesses. As to the hysteria of critics and the hyperbole that has been written concerning this film, TOTALLY ignore all of it. This is a bit of cinema that must be seen for oneself and judged on its own merits. It is well-edited and has excellent pacing for the most part. The actual scene of the sniper attack is very minor and handled in very good tast.
great movie
posted on 25 Jun 2009This is a great movie. I went in thinking this movie was just about Bush being assassinated, but was proved way wrong. Stated in an earlier comment, the director moves very smoothly throughout the entire movie. The movie does not focus too much on the assassination, but gives us details all about the events leading up to the murder and then after the assassination, it moves seamlessly to a somewhat twist in the ending. This movie is just not about an assassination on George W. Bush. It's about how we profiled Arabs after the terrible events of 9/11. This movie is a must see if you love movies or love watching political movies not completely focused on politics.
An alternative State of the Union Address
posted on 13 Jun 2009This movie above all is a sad commentaryon the state of our constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human rights and on our justice system. Imagine Patriot 3? Though entertaining by marvellous parody, Itis a wake up call since it is not even up to 100 years that we experienced the horrors of the 20th century yet we have started driving the Beast to Bethlehem. Terrorism is no less going to destroy us than our response to it. We may feel safe to say it is some marginal groups that are being profiled not us. But if we don't do anything it would soon come to us all. The piece of act by Casey Claybon and Hend Ayoub were just spectacular.
Well acted, feasible look at the aftermath of a presidential assassination
posted on 05 Jun 2009It,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.
Bush SUCKS. DICK cheney ... more
posted on 24 Apr 2009Yes, my title is the essence of the film: Please don't kill Bush, because then we'd have cheney for president and then we'd really see how America would be run as a corporation. And completely without democratic rights or civil liberties.Aside from war, this would be the most interesting political event that could happen on this planet.That's why it's a good subject for a film. And this film IS good, with good acting unknown actors.The repercussions of a presidential would be devastating: The economy would plummet, but most likely and more importantly, the Americans wouldn't hold back (or rather: hold back even less) and might go nuclear after this one. And I think they wouldn't nuke China or Russia or some other country that would benefit from political chaos in the USA, nor would the Middle East be the target, since Iran would use dirty bombs, but most likely a nation in Africa, which cannot defend it self with some form of WMD, and has no resources.For that matter, if you have a business that would thrive on chaos, killing Bush would be a smart business move.
Admirable but a tad on the dull side
posted on 22 Apr 2009The 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.
Predictable at best.
posted on 14 Apr 2009In what seems to be a dimly conceived fantasy of a disgruntled voter, Death of a President relies on the idea of an assassination of a unpopular president being a good film. I thought the concept was in poor taste, and the plot was predictable. Although the actors deserve some credit for playing their parts well, I didn't feel it was enough. It felt so canned, that I could almost recite the lines before they were said. When compared to films like JFK by Oliver Stone, Death of a President seems almost juvenile and amateurish. This is one of the few films that I can remember feeling almost insulted by its content. Unless you are extremely open to political speculation, and are into assassination films, I would stay away from this one.
An interesting idea
posted on 10 Apr 2009STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning As anti-war protest rages, President Bush prepares to give a speech at a convention in Washington. But the mob of angry protesters outside are growing more out of control, and by the end of the convention, President Bush has been shot. He later dies. Years later, a documentary crew interview those in the know about that fateful day and try to root out who the real assassin was.Most rulers have had their fair share of controversy but George Bush is one who's probably choked up more hate from certain people than any before him. So some people could see this as more of a science fiction film than a docu-drama. Whether you think the protesters are fighting a just cause or they're all a bunch of students with misplaced ideals and no idea of the real world who should get a job shouldn't have too much bearing on your enjoyment of this, as it doesn't go into politics of the Iraq war too much and concentrates more on telling the story and hearing POV from various talking heads, leading onto revealing the mystery of the president's killer.It's certainly a very interesting idea, and as a film, it will keep you hooked. ***
A cautionary tale
posted on 04 Apr 2009This is a cautionary tale about the curtailment of our civil liberties and what that can lead to. What makes it gripping and somewhat eerie is the subject matter - the assassination of a current president - and the emotional distance that the director creates through the use of a documentary style. The viewer is looking back matter of factly at a future event from a vantage point even further in the future. The first half of the movie is told entirely (except for the opening interview, which foreshadows the later turn that the film will take) from the points of view of those close to President George W. Bush and from bodyguards and law enforcement people responsible for protecting him during a speech that he is delivering in Chicago. Anti-Bush and anti-war activists have attained a permit to demonstrate along his route from the airport. As people are interviewed about their recollections of the assassination day, the film cuts from them to newsreel and other footage of the events they are describing. What makes this film particularly uncanny is the verisimilitude of the scenes - especially of the demonstrations, of Bush's activities and speech, and of Cheney's memorial speech during Bush's funeral. The filmmakers have apparently used actual footage from antiwar demonstrations and have cleverly interwoven real speeches by Bush and Cheney.The interviewees exhibit a great respect and often a deep caring for President Bush. The first half of the film gives little indication of where it is heading, which helps mount the suspense.The second half of the film gradually and subtly turns to its chilling point of view - first by interjecting interviews with some of those rounded up and held suspect after the assassination. The ending is even more scary because it seems such a dead-on logical progression of what has already occurred since 9/11.
Cautionary tale for all political viewpoints
posted on 27 Mar 2009It is disturbing to read some of the reviews posted here by people who refer to themselves as "Bush-haters," because it is that climate of hatred and the fear that it breeds that is precisely the target of this well-made if slightly clunky mockumentary. Hatred is not a becoming emotion, no matter what the target. Hatred destroys thought.I am not a supporter of George W. Bush or his administration. As I write this, a few days before the 2006 congressional elections, I am hoping for a Democratic takeover of Congress and some effective oversight and checks on the president's last two years in office. I am also hoping that the Democrats can put it together in 2008 and reoccupy the White House on Jan. 20, 2009. I am hoping even harder that the Democrats can come up with effective policies to right the wrongheadedness of the Bushies.The Bush administration and some of its policies rightly inspire anger, as did 9/11. But the anger portrayed in "Death of a President" plays right into the hands of the Roving Republicans. The street crazies screaming at Bush are rapidly extrapolated by the media and by the Bush administration into all opponents of the president's policies, and the violence they allegedly spawn -- i.e., the assassination -- justifies virtually any measure to quell it. Americans are supposed to fear fascism, but in reality most of us have far more fear of anarchy and will go along with repression in the name of law and order. That's been demonstrated just recently with the Military Commissions Act of 2006.But American democracy ain't dead yet, and political opposition must impose its own lawfulness and the effective, rational organization of its anger. (That applies to the Right as well as to the Left -- what conservative Republicans would want to be personified by Timothy McVeigh?). The anti-Bush viewers of this film -- and its reasonable to think that few pro-Bush people are going to bother to see it -- should consider whether they would want to be represented by screaming idiots in the streets or by people who patiently, doggedly, and persuasively work through the deliberate but orderly democratic process to unseat elected officials who have failed their constituents.This is not a film about Bush, or about the death of Bush. It is a film about the death of democratic government and individual freedoms -- and about how both sides of a political debate are contributing to that death. No, American democracy ain't dead yet, but "Death of a President" shows vividly that it can happen here.
Couldn't Believe it!
posted on 21 Mar 2009Okay so this is an indie film but it's a must see, especially before this October! Had I not know this was a film I might have mistaken it for CNN coverage of a live event. Hold on - CNN generally does a poor job of actually covering an event - they prefer to loop coverage so I suppose this isn't the best comparison. Let's just say that my husband had the film on when I walked into the room and I honestly thought that something had happened. The editor did a fabulous job of splicing old footage with newly shot scenes so that the viewer has to constantly remind themselves that they are actually watching a movie. Who ever came up with the premise has to be a genius. I thought it was so good that when my older kids came to visit I plunked the DVD on for them and they thought they were watching live footage. This either makes our entire family a group of morons or let's you know how well don't this film truly is. Go out and rent it now. I guarantee you you will not be disappointed. I'd just like to add that once you see this film you'll want to re-watch it to see if you can pick out the actual live footage from the newly shot scenes. This especially goes for film aficionados.
Good, although not quite what I expected
posted on 19 Feb 2009This movie handled the subject matter with dignity and balance. The archival footage, new scenes and hybrids were blended smoothly, and the use of different formats (film, TV cameras, video, hand-held, security cams) kept it visually interesting. The acting in the interviews was especially well done, based on excellent character design and scripting.I was somewhat disappointed that the aftermath dealt more with the whodunit aspect than the wider social implications of the assassination, although they were addressed by implication in various subtle ways if you were watching closely. The most effective message is how politics warps the American justice system.I recommend this film to anyone who likes political thrillers, speculative explorations, or movies dealing with the Presidency. I especially recommend it to all the knee-jerk nay-sayers, as it is in no way the distasteful anti-Bush film you imagine it to be, nor some kind of inspiration to terrorists. See a film before you judge it.
Not the future but the present
posted on 15 Feb 2009Not being American, and thus not being embedded within that cultural context, I found myself thinking, after seeing this movie, OK……so what…? As a do-cu-drama the movie is well done. It is a convincing piece of theater. But if the movie's aim was to show how the US exists in a world of suspicion and ever increasing fear, where it is prepared to imprison people on the basis of religion or ethnicity, and prepared also to short circuit the legal process to ensure these outcomes, and prepared also to diminish the rights of individuals and to enlarge the powers of the coercive state, well I must say that is to depict the obvious. In the early days of the so-called 'war on terror' there was much talk that the terrorists must not force us to change our way of life. Well this movie just gives added weight to the view that the terrorists have already done that. It seemed to me that the movie was not describing the future so much as documenting the present. I was a little chilled that the eulogy of Mr Bush was so obsequious. Here was a man who actions have cost the deaths of hundreds of thousands and he was being paraded as a gentle man of peace. Perhaps the movie was saying that we are so locked into our own vision of reality that we fail to look at ourselves rationally; that fear, hate and revenge are greater motivators of human action than rational thought, logical analysis and critical inquiry.
Excruciatingly dull leftist trash
posted on 13 Feb 2009I just suffered through 'Death of a President'. It consists of 100 minutes of fake interviews with the fake investigators of a fictional assassination of George W Bush. Even the killing itself was a bore...just the sound of a gunshot, and W bends over slightly before being shuffled into a waiting vehicle..just like the Reagan hit in the 80's. No, you don't get to see Chimpy's brains blown out. The rest of the film is just a sob story about how the poor Muslims are always getting blamed when anything bad happens to America. Sorry, I'm not buying it. Muslims WERE to blame for 9/11, and this piece of leftist garbage that vilifies the USA for acting against Muslim terrorists deserves the box office failure it received.
Controversial film, interesting idea, but poorly executed.
posted on 28 Jan 2009This is a controversial film about a fictional assassination of USA:s present president, Bush. Interesting idea, and the film has its moments, but overall, it is poorly executed and too long.Had it been made as a TV-film with a length of about 60 minutes and properly portrayed TV-companies (FOX News, CNN and other logotypes are not shown at all during the "TV-sequences") and so on, it had had more weight. As it is now, the film looks home-made and amateurish.The actors/actresses are all pretty good, but sometimes the dialog is too long and a bit silly. The coverage of North Korea in the beginning of the film is totally wasted in the rest of the "story", and instead we are just treated with things that just "happens".We are not presented with information about the flawed forensic evidence either, and the end simply feels like a glued-on anti-climax.The movie wants to be controversial, but the film makers doesn't dare to be REALLY controversial. So instead they choose this complicated idea to share a boring political stand point.The idea of making a film like this is interesting - but if you have such a powerful story, why waste it? 6/10
Dip into the archive's mystery pot.
posted on 30 Aug 2009Anyone who's not seen this, don't feel pressured by the supposed controversy. The whole thing is as entertaining as being steam-rolled into your armchair by a Lee Harvey Oswald documentary. Why the harebrained duo, Range and Finch, picked this subject is obvious when you scan the hair-triggered rags and the inflamed threads on this board.To explain my low rating. It earned the slothenly four during a long slip from a decent five when it failed to convince me that its creation was justified. Put simply, this was perhaps the most disrespectful tirade against a political figure I have ever seen; they flushed thousands of Franklins down the toilet and this bobbed up? There was no message beyond the flimsily appended, "Patriot ACT, wah wah wah... Patriot ACT, wail cry wail!"Pathetically shallow.Or was it? If you put on your special investigation specs and look closely there's a veiled finger pointing at Cheney. Could he have been the second gunman at the Sheraton? Was his motive for the assassination piggy-backing into office? He had demonstrated a keen ability for the murder method earlier in the year and numerous trips to the table would have furnished him with almost as much aortic experience as his crack team of cardiovascular surgeons. All that's left is opportunity. How convenient then that he doesn't show his face until the President is already critical, and then only to try to derail the investigation and cover up his misdeeds.Very suspicious. Thought provoking! One thumb and a pointer finger up!