Such a frustrating disappointment

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Gabriel Range's Death of a President is one of the most interesting "what if" films I have seen in a great while. I imagine Range and co-writer Simon Finch sitting up one night talking about, at that time, the current US President George W. Bush, his policies, the controversial Iraq War, and the economy which, at that time, was starting to show signs of wear. In the midst of discussing all the controversy and the divisiveness surrounding Bush and his policies, perhaps Range asked Finch, "what if someone attempted to assassinate Bush and succeeded?" The question presumably wasn't asked out of smite but out of realism, in that Bush's approval ratings were dropping and opinions on the president were stronger than they had ever been before. Maybe after the presumed question was asked, Range and Finch discussed how news outlets would report it, how certain hot button issues, like civil liberties and racial profiling, would be affected, and how life as we know it in the United States of America would change.Death of a President is an intriguing motion picture, and if you get caught up or offended by the assassination of George W. Bush (which is shown in the film) and dismiss the film based on that, congratulations, your ignorance is showing. The film isn't a hate-filled critique of the president, nor is it an encouragement of such violence; it's a realistic mockumentary pragmatically dealing with the scenario of President Bush being assassinated and the repercussions that would arise.The film conducts itself like a documentary on the assassination, with numerous interviews from executives of the FBI, witness accounts, and the families of those who were charged for the assassination or believed to be involved in some way. The scenario concocted is that George W. Bush was in Chicago, Illinois on October 19, 2007, addressing economic forum at the Chicago Sheraton Hotel when Bush was shot by a sniper following his address. We are shown anti-war protests taking place in Chicago on a grandscale, often trying to assault the president while he is riding in his bulletproof vehicle in the events leading up to his speech. Following the assassination, Jamal Abu Zikri (Malik Bader), an Syrian man who works as an IT professional, becomes the prime suspect in a costly and widespread investigation as to the motives and the events leading up to the assassination.Range expertly paces the film from the get-go, establishing the "who, what, where, when, and how's" of the environment Bush was in and takes its time to build up suspense, despite this being a documentary. The intriguing part about this mockumentary is that, obviously, if this happened, many would know the story and know the details surrounding the assassination; however, being that this is fictional, we are essentially watching a monumental event unfold a year after it has happened, which makes us feel like we were frozen in time and are being told how all this occurred and how we are now effected by such a ghastly event.Range and Finch then use news clips to address how the nation reacts to the death of George W. Bush before going on to detail the investigation into the crime, showing Middle Eastern racial profiling run amok, and the disintegration of civil liberties for the American people. Following the assassination, the US Patriot Act III is signed into law, a continuation of the controversial US Patriot Act, which permitted the wiretapping of US citizens' phone calls, which heightened such wiretapping practices and grants the United States Government national detention of its citizens in an effort to control the population.Such events portrayed in Death of a President are that of incredibly taunt and frightening science-fiction, and only more frightening is the fact they are executed in such a believable manner. Death of a President is a terrific mockumentary, thoughtful and engaging, as it details a fictional event in a way that almost makes you believe something like this happened or could very well occur. It also gets one to contemplate how malleable things we take for granted are, and if catastrophic event like the assassination of a president could cost all citizens their cherished liberties. Brilliantly paced in many regards and believably conducted, Death of a President, to some people, may be seen as a foreshadowing of such an event and a playbook to look back on to see how we did in response.Directed by: Gabriel Range.

I started watching Death of A President with the expectation that it would show how George W. Bush would get what he deserves and to be honest that was what I was hoping for. But I did not get the satisfaction of the notion of being rid of Bush that I thought I'd feel. In reality, I felt appalled, sick to my stomach and a variety of different sickening feelings. Not of the hypothetical assassination, but it's aftermath. The films message is basically that the horrible things that have happened under Bush would be made far worse if Dick Cheney became President - especially if Bush fell to an assassin's bullet (That very notion of "President Cheney" made me want to puke). Many people have criticised the film because they feel it glorifies, or even encourages, the killing of George W. Bush. Anyone who has seen the film, however, would know that it does the exact opposite. However, I can't say how, in case I give to much away. The actors in the film are all unknown, which I believe was a very wise decision because if you saw someone like Morgan Freeman - as terrific an actor he is - it would have made the film much less believable. By having unknowns, who were terrific actors to say the least, I never stopped and realised that it was all fiction. In fact, I was so drawn in by the performances, it wasn't until the note at the end that said the events and characters in the film were fictitious that I remembered none of it was real.

STAR 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. ***

Firstly I should state that I am no fan of George W. Bush and in fact think he is probably the worst president of the past 30 years. I also do not find the film's subject matter "disgusting." People in the U.S. and elsewhere are free to make a movie exploring the effects of an assassination on George W. Bush or any other public figure. And Americans shouldn't be so hasty to lambaste something since they only bring more attention to it by doing so. With that said: this movie is terrible. It does not belong in a theater; it is a film that screams loudly it was made to be viewed on the internet, or at best as a made-for-TV movie. It is not only poorly made but also unprofessional. It is a fictional movie presented in a realistic manner, yet it comes nowhere near convincing the viewer to take it seriously. The story is poorly told: the movie attempts to lay itself out as a documentary, yet all the while knows itself to be a work of fiction. There are plot twists and severe dramatic elements, neither of which belong in a documentary, which presents solely the facts. The style of the film is terrible; from obviously photo shopped images of interviewed actors appearing with the President, to lame mock-ups of anti-Bush protests, the movie consistently comes across as childish and amateur. The worst part of the film is probably the actors who are interviewed, each one is terrible in their own unique way. And then of course the movie's liberal slant is presented about as subtly as a Dick Cheney gunshot to the face.The movie is not worth seeing, but not because of its controversial subject matter. It is simply a poorly made film that hinges its entire presentation on its controversial statement. It will disappear, as well as it should, from memory and fade into notoriety.