I recently saw “Death of a President” at the local Landmark theater (still an oasis in the movie-going desert) and had to try very hard to stay awake until the end (my companion didn’t make it).
The independent film had received some bit of notoriety because the lead character, George W. Bush, is assassinated in Chicago after a speech. The film takes the form of a documentary, using real footage a Bush speech and real protesters in Chicago intercut with staged action scenes and interviews. Most of the acting was credible, the action was pretty believable (except for the cheesy Photoshop layering to put the fictional character in pictures with the real ones), and the story… well, that’s when things began to fall apart.
Going in, I figured I could pretty much guess what the politics would be. Anti-Bush administration and especially anti-war, the filmmakers managed to get the message across without the usual “beat ‘em over the head” or “ram it down your throat” viciousness that other films can’t seem to avoid. But it might have been their attempt to be subtle that made the pace of the film painfully slow, and most of the characters and their interviews too droll and basically uninteresting (the characters, not the actors).
The anticipation of how the President gets it kept me interested (and awake) in the first third of the film, but the investigation and the politics of the story after that was both predictable and dull. Mostly talking heads only work well if the interest level is high and the subject real.
I wish I could be more enthusiastic about the venture, basically because I like to encourage independent film, but even with an open mind and the willingness to suspend disbelief in hopes of seeing an interesting movie, I’m afraid I can’t recommend it. Conservatives would never even want to see the film because of the subject matter, but even independents and liberals who might agree with the film’s point of view would not find it an interesting cinema experience. Save your cash.