Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 2016 - Obama's America (2012)

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews » 2016 - Obama's America (2012) (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: 2016 - Obama's America (2012)

Tony Gallimore
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 108
From: Willis, Virginia, USA
Registered: Jul 2009

posted 08-26-2012 11:22 AM

Because of it's potential political downside, I won't comment here as to the pros and cons of "2016" except to say Dinesh D'Souza well researched his subject and developed a thought provoking and revealing documentary. Well worth the $7 admission.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 08-26-2012 10:15 PM

Agreed. Great movie. Very informative, and frankly, a little scary.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 08-26-2012 11:27 PM

Did it have scary music? I love it when documentaries do that. It's one of many clues that they're trying to manipulate you into whatever the moral of the show is.

| IP: Logged

Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008

posted 08-27-2012 02:23 PM

I've popped my head in to several of my screenings, and it had everything I would expect from the new Michael Moore playbook for a dramatic non-narrative movie, except for one thing: the humor born out of people saying and doing stupid things.

Yes, Joe, 2016 does that the manipulative dramatic music. It also has unsubstantiated interviews with several people to claim to have known Barack Obama Sr. and claim to know exactly what Obama Jr. is trying to do, even though they haven't had any contact with Jr. in decades, if they ever even did. (Of course, Obama Sr. has been conveniently dead for thirty years, so he can't speak for himself or defend his own positions.)

But the main question the film does not answer, from what I can tell, is why Obama would wait for a second term, one that was never guaranteed for him, to do all these horrible things the filmmakers claim he'll do if he gets re-elected? Why wouldn't Obama go for broke in his first two years in office, when he had a Democratic majority in the House and the Senate, and was able to replace two Republican-nominated Supreme Court justices with his own picks?

The film pretty much brings up the same old crap, from Ayers and Wright to, yes, the birther controversy, without really making any new points. It brings up zero positive points about Obama's presidency, and there have been many, and is very much designed to fan the flames of hate.

The movie will change nobody's mind about the man.

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 08-27-2012 02:56 PM

quote: Edward Havens
It brings up zero positive points about Obama's presidency

I haven't seen this film (don't know if I will) but how is this any different than Farenheit 911? It is advertised very obviously as an anti-Obama film just like Farenheit 911 was anti-Bush. In the pieces I saw of the latter, I don't remember it extolling the virtues of the economic recovery that followed the crash from 9/11.

| IP: Logged

Kurt Zupin
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 989
From: Maricopa, Arizona
Registered: Oct 2004

posted 08-28-2012 02:01 AM

I haven't seen it yet, probably won't see it but it seems to be doing well where it is playing in the area I live in. I however can't say what areas those would be because this thread as already hit its political thresh hold and will be closed if anyone else starts talking about politics.

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008

posted 08-28-2012 08:42 AM

sounds like a Romney approved feature length infomercial

no thanks.

| IP: Logged

James Westbrook
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1133
From: Lubbock, Texas, Usa
Registered: Mar 2006

posted 08-28-2012 12:40 PM

On the business side, I am glad my theater booked this movie as it kept us from being dead. The business from Premium Rush, Hit and Run and the second week of Expendables 2 was quite lacking.
Of course, depending on your location, your mileage will vary.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 08-29-2012 04:03 PM

quote: Edward Havens
But the main question the film does not answer, from what I can tell, is why Obama would wait for a second term, one that was never guaranteed for him, to do all these horrible things the filmmakers claim he'll do if he gets re-elected?

Well, first that's common for every president. But this may help.
Video

quote: Edward Havens
The film pretty much brings up the same old crap, from Ayers and Wright to, yes, the birther controversy, without really making any new points.

It doesn't bring up the birther controversy that I remember. It actually says he was born in Hawaii and moves on. Since it's a story about Mr. Obama and since Ayers and Wright are part of his past, of course they're mentioned. But it doesn't dwell on them either.

quote: Edward Havens
It brings up zero positive points about Obama's presidency, and there have been many, and is very much designed to fan the flames of hate.

I don't see it fanning flames of hate at all. It's meant to help you understand why he does things that he does that sometimes may not make sense. The Churchill bust is a great example. Winston Churchill means something to Americans. But to Mr. Obama, he means something totally different. After seeing the movie, you should understand why. I thought it was kind of a sad story actually.

quote: Edward Havens
The movie will change nobody's mind about the man.

That's not true either. I know someone who had their mind changed.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 08-29-2012 11:59 PM

It could have some bias overtones showing really what the director thinks and using Obama as a target.

It's not bad, some scary thoughts, but I'll leave it at that since it all about personal opinion, but outside of the content, it has been one of our better movies in our complex to gain an audience - which have been the senior citizen age group (which definitely kills the conc per cap since they don't want to eat much).

| IP: Logged

Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008

posted 08-30-2012 09:23 AM

Sorry, Mark, you should do some fact checking there...

From the New York Daily News, which did:

"D’Souza says Obama removed a bust of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill from the Oval Office because Churchill represented British colonialism. White House curator William Allman said the bust, which had been on loan, was already scheduled to be returned before Obama took office. Another bust of Churchill is on display in the president’s private residence, the White House says."

There's more items in the piece that show D'Souza's clear bias. The link above goes to the second page of the article, with some of D'Souza's more blatant attempts at distortion. Read it, if you dare.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 08-30-2012 10:27 AM

Ok, I read it. I'm not afraid of listening to both sides. Unfortunately we can't discuss the points it tries to make here.

I'm aware of the two busts and the confusion that came about because of it when one was sent back. I'm also aware that Churchill was a pretty prominent figure in Great Britain when Mr. Obama's Kenyan grandfather was imprisoned and tortured by Great Britain for information as part of the Kenyan uprising against Great Britain.

To me that makes it easy to see why Mr. Obama would hold a different point of view with regard to Churchill than most Americans do. There's no hate (or politics) in that.

| IP: Logged

Pravin Ratnam
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 844
From: Atlanta, GA,USA
Registered: Sep 2002

posted 08-30-2012 01:33 PM

Here is what nullifies many of D Souza's insinuations. The dude is fixated on a freaking Churchill statue. Can Dinesh explain what in Obama's past led him to hire a Wall Street crony like Geithner? D Souza focuses on so called weaknesses which I actually thought were Obama's achievements - not wasting more money and lives in countries like Libya, Syria, or even Iran. Yet, not much analysis on how an anti colonialist socialist like Obama signing on fully to the Bush-Paulson bailout by continuing it with the Obama-Geithner bailout. I will give him a minor point for not pandering to the birther crap.

| IP: Logged

Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008

posted 08-31-2012 12:40 AM

The Churchill bust is a smokescreen, intended to distract from real issues. A smokescreen that, sadly, is working, no matter how many times it's proven false.

And if the Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact.com says "Obama's policies may have expanded government, but they don't justify this ridiculous hyperbole" when Rick Perry kept calling Obama a socialist, I'd hope that would have killed that BS too.

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 08-31-2012 05:37 AM

quote: Edward Havens
And if the Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact.com says

All I will say is that "Pulitzer Prize-winning" and "non-partisan" do not mean unbiased.

I don't understand why you keep bringing up the bias of this movie. Of course it is biased. It is meant to be an anti-Obama documentary. It doesn't pretend to be neutral in advertising.

This review thread should focus on if the film is worth seeing or thought provoking not for debating things from the film and trying to stay just below the line of the rule against politcal discussion on the forum.

If I decide to see something like this, I would take in the biased points it brings up, do my own research and come to my own conclusions. If this film will motivate me to do that then I'd give it a good review.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.