![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Rant...in a way
Oct. 27th, 2006 03:31 amI'm not really sure how I feel about this.
My theater got "Death of a President" this weekend. Mainly because our chain owners are a bunch of money grubbers who grabed it when everyone else in our area refused to show it. I'm not sure if this is to be admired or not.
Frankly, I'm not sure how I feel about the film myself. On one hand, I'm morbidly curious. On the other, I think it earns the Low Taste Award of the year. I really wouldn't have a problem with it if they'd "fictionalized" it. I mean, I'm not saying you have to make the whole story up, but just start changing the names around. "Al W. Baker", for example. A thin veil, but I think one that would have made the movie a little easier to swallow.
And before anybody squawks at me because of my party affiliation, I'd feel the same way if we were talking about Bill Clinton. I just think it's really low taste to do this with a sitting president.
A counter factual piece on what might have happened if John Hinkley suceeded...I could stomach that. Reagan's not in office anymore.
And why not relase after Nov. 7th? I ask you. I know the makers claim the movie isn't politically motivated, or skewed, but I'm a little suspicious on the timing.
And of course, I've heard from our share of local nutjobs who can't wait to see the movie. One guy this week said, "I want to see it three and four times."
To which I went, "Huh?" Because, correct me if I'm wrong, friends of the left leaning persuasion...wouldn't you rather have Bush than Cheney? Even I'm iffy on Cheney.
Anyway, off to bed. Night all.
My theater got "Death of a President" this weekend. Mainly because our chain owners are a bunch of money grubbers who grabed it when everyone else in our area refused to show it. I'm not sure if this is to be admired or not.
Frankly, I'm not sure how I feel about the film myself. On one hand, I'm morbidly curious. On the other, I think it earns the Low Taste Award of the year. I really wouldn't have a problem with it if they'd "fictionalized" it. I mean, I'm not saying you have to make the whole story up, but just start changing the names around. "Al W. Baker", for example. A thin veil, but I think one that would have made the movie a little easier to swallow.
And before anybody squawks at me because of my party affiliation, I'd feel the same way if we were talking about Bill Clinton. I just think it's really low taste to do this with a sitting president.
A counter factual piece on what might have happened if John Hinkley suceeded...I could stomach that. Reagan's not in office anymore.
And why not relase after Nov. 7th? I ask you. I know the makers claim the movie isn't politically motivated, or skewed, but I'm a little suspicious on the timing.
And of course, I've heard from our share of local nutjobs who can't wait to see the movie. One guy this week said, "I want to see it three and four times."
To which I went, "Huh?" Because, correct me if I'm wrong, friends of the left leaning persuasion...wouldn't you rather have Bush than Cheney? Even I'm iffy on Cheney.
Anyway, off to bed. Night all.
