Who I Am

Hello, I am Steven Wauford. I started this blog so I can show people a different side of life. That the world isn't everything you read in the mainstream. What I post here, I want it to be dynamic. Yes, you'll see movie reviews and CD reviews and the like. But at the same time, you'll see something that, hopefully, will show a different light on humanity.

Monday, March 7, 2011

Random Review of the Week: Death of a President

Back in 2006, there was a decent amount of controversy surrounding a movie called "Death of a President'.  The movie was written as a documentary that is being broadcast in 2008, showing the 2007 assassination of President George W. Bush after an economic conference in Chicago.  The movie is classified as a British 'high-concept' motion picture, designed to show us a 'what if?' scenario.



Some of the opening scenes were filmed in Downtown Chicago, a major one being the motorcade scene, in which protestors of the War in Iraq break the barricade line and sit down in front of the motorcade, preventing it from getting to its destination.  Other scenes were filmed on stage, such as the talking head interviews that documentaries usually have.

The major controversy of the picture, is that instead of just referring to the assassination of President Bush, the movie actually shows it.  Using footage of the President and use of CGI, the filmmakers actually were able to create the assassination of President Bush for the film.  The scene is somewhat disturbing and chaotic, but the imagery works well for the overall tone of the film.

One of the film's strengths is that even though it uses the documentary format, the movie still tells a story.  It has one major plot that branches into two, using the assassination as that fork that splits the stories into two.  However, even with the split, most of the characters who are narrating events for the view talk about both plots in conjunction with one another, both the investigation into the assassination, as well as President Cheney's wanting to head into Syria in response to the assassination.

Most of the actors have been rarely seen, having very few roles over the years, or having numerous roles as minor characters in television.  This allows the viewer to get more absorbed into the movie as they don't recognize major name actors in the parts of agents, lawyers, or wives that were affected tremendously by that day.  The acting is alright, each actor making their parts their own.

The film is decent, showing us what could've potentially happened.  The fallout of an event like this, especially in today's society, would be unlike any other.  Presidents have been assassinated in the past, usually by someone homegrown, and in recent history, their motives have become unclear.  However, this movie used the events at the current time.  The war in Iraq and the war on terror, the scandals in the prisons overseas, our standing with the world at the time, to orchestrate a simple film about what if something as massive as killing our president actually happened?'

The only problem that I have with the movie is that it is a little short.  The filmmakers could've used a little more time to elaborate on things.  Another small complaint is with the filmmaker's style.  Within the documentary style, they tried using come conventional techniques in order to ramp up tension.  When the story progresses to a potential war, speaking and editing speeds up, trying to put the viewer more on the edge of our seat.  Other than this, the movie is something that everyone should see at least once.

Review:
3.5/5 Stars

No comments:

Post a Comment