I am not a fan of Bush. But this film is done is very poor taste.
How can you be so certain of that? Have you seen it?
So far by all accounts, this film depicts a fictional future society; a cautionary tale showing us the path a country takes, ...after the death of a president. My understanding is this movie neither calls for, nor supports a hit, but rather depicts in a chillingly realistic fashion, the face of a society after the fact.
How is it in any more poor taste than Harrison Ford's 'Airforce One', where they depict the hijacking of the presidential plane? Or 'Wag the Dog' which depicts a presidential paedo, or 'American Dreamz' which shows a bi-polar depressed moron in the white house? Nobody screamed about those.
I say first see the movie, then critique it.
If accounts by those who actually
HAVE seen it are to be believed, this films triumph is in it's ability to masterfully draw upon SFX to seamlessly weave together a captivating work of fiction, and to provoke thought about the use and/or possible abuse of sophisticated methods of manipulation by the media.
Bush's only relevance to the piece is the fact he currently
is the president. Had the technology been available to accomplish this technological feat during Clinton's watch it probably would have been made then using Clinton as the trigger point. Consider it a dramatic thought provoking current affairs piece along the same vein as the comedy "A Day without Mexicans", only using cutting edge film techniques, SFX and contemporary themes
PS: - There's another film in the festival called 'How I planned to Kill Tony Blair', but no one's talking about that.
