Death of a President

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 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.

This film, Death of a President had been labeled "controversial" long before the product hit U.S. shores. British director and co-writer, Gabriel Range first introduced his film on U.K. television, and later at the Toronto International Film Festival where it won the International Critic's prize. This film has been given limited release in U.S.

This docudrama opens with preparation for a presidential visit and speech at a Chicago hotel. You get a glimpse of the president's speech writer and an individual heading the Secret Service as they position themselves and prepare to protect the Commander in Chief. You get brief looks at large groups of protesters waiting in the streets to welcome the President.

And just like the title says - the President dies. All that happens in the first 20-minutes. The remaining 70-minutes of this film carefully details the hunt and investigation to find the killer. The impact on two minority families who may or may not be associated with the event. You see how an ethnic group becomes suspect and how hundreds are picked up for questioning. You get a peek at how the world receives the event and how the current phrases "terror attack" and "Al-Quida" are tossed into the mix.

The film is frightening because each and every scene is plausible. It's tightly written, directed and edited. The actors, who range from a close assistant to the President and First Lady to a spouse who may never see their innocent partner again, are all excellently cast.

Contrary to popular belief, Death of a President does not advocate the killing of a leader; instead it takes a credible look at America and the possible events following such an occurrence.

Trust me - this one you don't want to miss.

"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.