2/10
Lukewarm movie, passes fiction for fact
11 September 2006
And I find it funny that someone posting to this site missed the point of the movie, according to a Republican representative on the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean, who says, "If people blame Bill Clinton after seeing this, then the miniseries has failed" (see CNN article in Entertainment section). And the statement that "I for one agree that there should be more truth?" Then you shouldn't be talking about this movie, which clearly states that it "contains fictionalized scenes," like the one in which a CIA team was all set to kill Bin Laden. From all official accounts, this never actually happened. And if we can't write letters to Disney about its airing a movie that tries to pass off fiction as fact, then whose free speech is being limited? And finally, Clinton's primary fault was a personal matter of fidelity to his wife, and because of the public spotlight that overshadows anything that might have been called his "legacy." Now our current president is apparently faithful to his wife. Does that make him a better president? You tell me.

As for the movie, I thought that parts of it were hard to follow. The scenes edited at the last moment were fairly obvious. IMHO, it's not worth the $30 million Disney (or whoever) spent on it. Definitely no blockbuster.

I'll probably watch the second half, but I think it's shameful how it tries to pass fiction for fact, even with the disclaimers. And with it being aired on Sunday without commercial interruption and then interrupted on Monday night only by Bush's address... seems like SOMEONE has an agenda. Even the lead actor, Harvey Keitel, apparently has issues with the movie.
21 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed