DC 9/11: Time of Crisis (2003 TV Movie) User Reviews

Propaganda at its finest

[caspian1978 · 3/10 · 5 July 2004]

I would like to make a prediction that this movie will be the subject of debate by both film and political science majors in years to come. I good attempt to depict the horror of the worst event to be-fold America, I only wish they waited more than 2 years to do it. As speculation changes with the passing of the years, the reviews for this movie has changed as well. From a terrific historical perspective, to a joke of a story and good propaganda by the Bush coalition, DC 9/11 is worth watching just so you can add your opinion to the pile. For a made for cable movie, Showtime has out done itself. For a movie that can stand the test of time, and for good reason, is yet to be said. Overall, I'm glad I video taped a copy. I hope it is worth money after Bush is impeached.

The Characters

[ogtorrez · 3/10 · 17 March 2015]

Most of the characters were spot on. However, i don't know what footage Tim Bottoms used when he researched his Character. He had none of the inflections or mannerism of GW Bush. The way a person carries themselves is very telling of who that person is and I did not believe he was W. Bush. I liked the Condi character. i thought it was really her. The story line was about what you would expect for a movie to be heroic instead of being truthful. There seemed to be an opinion in the movie and that is not the purpose of good film. For true film lovers this falls flat. Of course, the story is powerful and we all know what happens. It was a sad day for the world and we can only hope that it will never happen again.

Well, as far as propaganda goes, it's not the worst...

[abel29a · 3/10 · 31 May 2004]

It seems to me to be a film with a message. And that message is clearly very pro-Bush. As I watched the film I sat there shaking my head from time to time - especially during the scenes where prez. Bush gives his noble speeches to his cabinet. I mean come on! He is being portrayed as the greatest gift to crisis management and warfare there ever was. And he most definitely is not. But still, if you look beyond the fact that this is a propaganda film it is also a reasonable retelling of the events of 9/11 and as such is a completely unnecessary film at this point in time - who needs reminding of the events on that day?

The film has been written by Lionel Chetwynd - a man who has a tendency to write "american hero" stories, who seem to be nationalistic to the extreme and who recently wrote the screenplay for IKE: Countdown to D-Day, another movie with the same kind of theme - great Americans. In that movie, according to a New York Times review, Ike actually has to give Winston Churchill a talking to since Churchill apparently is not ready to invade on D-Day. Churchill was the most eager man in Europe to get the invasion going! This goes to show the failures of Lionel Chetwynd as a historical writer.

I rated this movie a 3, given that it is not a bad movie as such. It's just reeking with politics. The wrong kind of politics.

OK film

[phuture-1 · 13 September 2004]

An attempt at a fairly accurate portrayal of the President and his stadd in the days following the 9-11 attack.

I was impressed with the characterisations, and found some sections to be quite moving.

This is a much more accurate portrayal than Farenheit 9-11, which I'm told, contains many factual errors and more artistic license ( its crap in other words)

It's easy to see why certain people are blasting this film , but those people with so much unreasonable dislike for Bush will never be convinced , i prefer to be more objective and cannot see anything i really dislike about him

My condolences to all those who lost their lives that terrible day

Propagandistic Drivel

[filminyc · 1/10 · 16 September 2003]

This sort of propagandistic drivel makes Leni Riefenstahl's work look objective. The actors are not at fault, but the writer and the producers of this kind of lowly work should be more honest when they are making 'campaign commercials.'

Thankfully this sort of shlock will end up in the dustbins of history.

Man or Superman?

[jfox-4 · 1/10 · 7 September 2005]

Anyone who has had the opportunity to watch Bushes' seven minutes with the kindergarten class, (the real version), might have a problem swallowing this "epic". If you can watch this films' version of that event and believe anything that follows, you're probably so far to the right that you think McCarthy was a misunderstood patriot. In the real world, George sat there in wide eyed fear waiting for someone to put some newspaper under his chair or at least tell him what to do. This brand of distorted history chills me to the bone and reminds me of German marching tunes. The country is totally polarized and if you're not ready to compliment the emperor about his wonderful new clothes, you must be a left wing radical. I can hardly wait for the sequel, "Katrina: President Bush Walks On Water"

If people do not roll in the aisles laughing, our country is in BIG trouble

[ungeziefer · 1/10 · 12 April 2005]

This might be the funniest movie I've ever seen. I'm not talking "Red Dawn" funny, I'm talking "Atomic Cafe" funny.

It's that breed of propagandistic funny that is ripe for a Mystery Science Theater viewing experience, but just disturbing enough to make you ashamed of your country a little bit-- and ashamed that you actually paid to rent it, and thus contributed something to the producers.

Still, overall a real hoot. Not even the Kremlin could beat it.

But when I read the favorable (even gushing) reviews some people have written of this "film," the humor starts to evaporate, and horror sets in. As with "Atomic Cafe," more important than the absurdity is the fact that some (many?) people did not see the absurdity, but rather actually bought in to this sort of mindless propaganda.

In that sense, this could be considered a true "horror" film.

More horrifying still because apparently enough people are drinking the Kool-Aid to make the present a very dangerous time indeed.

the Leni Riefenstahl school of cinema...

[Temsi · 1/10 · 7 September 2003]

What a worthless piece of crap.

This film is fundamentally and fatally flawed - it's relentlessly and shamelessly one-sided.

The picture left out numerous historical facts, and embellished and fabricated others, trying to make President Bush look like a hero (you know, in that silly cowboy kind of way).

It is poorly written, with clichéd dialogue and strained situations, spewing right wing spin and propaganda all over every scene. Even "scenes" we saw live on television on September 11th, 2001.

This self proclaimed patriot - writer/producer Lionel Chetwynd - shot this project in Canada, taking jobs away from American film makers. Now that's true patriotism, isn't it? On the other hand, I guess those film makers can take solace in the fact that they don't have to see their names on this mongrel of a movie.

Personally, I think the producers should be ashamed of themselves. Not just for distorting facts this way, but also for shamelessly taking advantage of a national tragedy for their own personal gain.

However, they have every right to express their views, just as I have the right to say they're dead wrong.

They are not, however, entitled to my money. Showtime just lost my subscription.

Politics Aside, this is a good historical drama

[LARSONRD · 8/10 · 4 July 2005]

Reading the other reviews of this film are telling - and I think the posting by dromasca told it all - most viewers are unable to shed their political leanings concerning films like this, and most reviews (positive and negative) seem to be borne from one's personal leanings in that regard. It would be interested to note if this film had been released before the end of 2001, would it have garnered more positive reviews? But now in the wake of FAHRENHEIT 9/11 (and by the way if you have seen that film you owe it to yourself to also see FAHREN-HYPE 9/11 just to get a balanced report - before making up your mind), this film seems to add more fuel to the Bushfires. I found it to be a compelling Showtime TV movie, focusing on the perspective of President George W. Bush in the week following the Sept 11th attacks on the USA. While the focus and timing (released on DVD just in time for the 2004 presidential election; although the film itself debuted on TV on Sep 7 2003) may suggest propaganda (and there may be just a bit of heavy handed pro-Bush emphasis; but then, the film is told from his perspective); however the film is excellently put together and was written by respected historical writer Lionel Chetwynd (who wrote the terrific IKE: COUNTDOWN TO D-DAY, and who reportedly had unprecedented access to the key White House personnel, including GW, to ensure the comprehensiveness and relative accuracy of his script). As a result, the film seems reasonably credible. It's fascinating to discover some of the innerworkings of our government on that dark day, and to depict the human side of GW, even while resurrecting strong emotions over the events of that day – events which many Americans seem to have forgotten in their rush to criticize foreign policy… Timothy Bottoms is outstanding in his portrayal of GW, resembling him as he does physically (ironically, he played GW on TV's irreverent THERE'S MY BUSH) many of the other cast members bear a striking resemblance to the people they play also (Ashcroft, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney).

Too early for 9/11 films

[dromasca · 6/10 · 24 January 2004]

IMDB viewer votes statistics are sometimes as fascinating as the information about the films or the user comments. In this case, roughly 25% of the viewers rated this film at 10, while almost 50% gave it a 1. This tells that we - IMDB viewers - are judging this film according to our political beliefs and not as cinema. Maybe it is too early to make films about 9/11, the emotions are still here, the pain is still intense, the same US president is in office, and we all live daily the fall-outs of 9/11. If we avoid the political judgment, what can we say about the film? Not too much I am afraid. It is not too good as political drama, it does not say too much about the real people behind their masks, well known from the TV screens. Too much film propaganda, too many lines from political speeches and too little human emotion. The film gets a 6 out of 10 on my personal scale.

This propaganda piece made me want to puke

[daimonmagus · 1/10 · 13 September 2003]

It's a pity that the rating scale for IMDB only goes as low as 1. This piece of garbage could have been funded and put out by Dubya himself, for all the "truth" it allegedly gives us about the President's reaction and agenda. In the first 5 minutes there are at least two distortions of the events of 9/11, and the hours that follow in this "docu"drama are no better. One wonders if the directors and producers of this film are part of the campaign to re-elect Bush. I can't express strongly enough how horrible this film is. If you want the truth, you'll need to find in on the web, because you won't find it in this film or anywhere else in the mainstream media.

Perhaps a bit of propaganda, but a good depiction of events

[ibscas · 10/10 · 13 January 2004]

First off, Timothy Bottoms does a great job as Dubya. In fact, all of the actors, except for the guy who play Colin Powell, looks very much and acts very much like their real counterparts.

While this film was very Bush-friendly, I think it was accurate. Bush is a caring man, you can tell by his whole emotion during 9/11 (not the movie, but in real life). Everyone wants to think he's this dopey guy who doesn't do anything at all and lets others make his choices. Dopey or not, he made it to Governor and President, he's not too dopey if he did that. Think its luck? Could you do it? Nope and neither could I.

That being said, this was a decent film for the fact that it was rushed out and not very high budget. It really stirred up some memories for me and brought me to tears a few times. The whole Iraq and WMD issues were there and were not painted as a conservative or liberal slant, I would say that it both supported and damned the Bush administration just as much as it supported and damned the liberal viewpoint on the Iraq war.

I never thought of Bush as a great president, but if the movie is really true to life, then I am wrong, he is a great president. He was portrayed as a president that takes action and has the country's best at heart. Did he pawn off some business rebuilding Iraq to some buddies of his, but what politician hasn't or wouldn't do that? If you think Clinton didn't profit or his buddies didn't profit during his administration then you are living in a dream world.

Anyway, I think it's worth watching this movie. In fact I would like to buy it. I'll admit that I'm a Bush supporter, but I'm also fair enough to recognize propaganda even if it supports my candidate. This is a bit of that, but since there were consultants for this film from both sides I believe that it's just like every other movie made, a bit of Hollywood, a bit of the producers politics and a bit of fact. Although I think it's mostly fact.

This Movie Was a (well-made) Wild Bug-Eyed Joke

[magicshooz · 6/10 · 15 May 2006]

I dare you to watch it without giggling at the way Bush is portrayed as Star Trek's Captain Pickard. Timothy Bottoms takes a wild departure from his dimwitted portrayal of President Bush and plays a whip-smart, courageous president Bush. Maybe he's stealing cues from Captain Janeway? You decide.

The pacing of the film is exciting enough, and there's no problem at all with the story development. Because this film is well executed and relevant, Bush's detractors will inevitably experience great inner conflict as they realize halfway through that they are enjoying the film.

Yes, it's true that the film's creators were shamelessly humping an emotionally sensitive theme on behalf of Bush and company, and it's sickeningly preachy. Given what we know only three years later, there's also a dark comedy about its obsolescence...

Here's a spoiler for ya - bin Laden is played by the Loche Ness Monster, no weapons of mass destruction ever get found, and the masturbatory tearjerker ending of the film is open for sequels.

A slanted propagandist view of reality

[scott_urner · 1/10 · 7 September 2005]

If you are on the left or the right in America, there is no possible way that you can watch this film and think that this is how things went down. So calm, so rational, Bush as an amazingly calm and intelligent politician and leader, with contrived situations based on selected facts that the writer sought to use - what about Bush's demands to attack Iraq before there was ANY evidence to support it, just days after - numerous government officials have been documented during the 9/11 hearings with the commission... "We start with Bin Laden, that's what the American people expect," Bush says, COUNTERING his cabinet - I think it was the other way around... at the VERY LEAST, this movie is so soft and polite that any rational person can't think that all these government officials were so... rational. Ugh.

Powerful, moving.

[royh-2 · 4 September 2004]

This movie does its best to be accurate, and it does a pretty good job. If you're looking for fuel for a conspiracy theory, it isn't here. The film captures the essence of the man who now sits in the Oval Office, and how he and his team worked to deal with the tragedies of the WTC, the plane hijackings, and the Pentagon.

It is a powerful film. Be prepared to be moved.

The film serves to remind the viewers of the combined tragedies, and the impact on our national psyche. If you have somehow dozed off to the implications of 9/11, this film might serve to wake you up.

By the end of the film, if you don't feel the surge of love for your country and the compassion and pride that goes with it, perhaps you need to check your partisanship at the door. When we were attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, the terrorists didn't target just Democrats, or just Republicans. They weren't even targeting just Americans. The World Trade Center was a financial icon for the world, and was as multi-ethnic and multi-national as any single building besides the U.N. headquarters can be. No, the WTC attack on 9/11 was an indication that the attacks previously focused on the United States had just been expanded against all Western nations, and by extension - on Christians, Jews, Muslims who do business with them, and on all non-Muslims. It was a renewed declaration of war, and this film portrays the leaders who helped us through the tragedy as a nation, and as a result - it focuses around the one man who did the most to comfort a grieving nation.

Crap, Crappity, Crap, Crap, Crap

[hillbilly1980 · 1/10 · 26 August 2004]

It's as if Bush wrote up a list of every hurtful thing the media, the politicians, and the public have ever said, thought or protested since 9/11. Then took that list gave it to a producer with a bag of money and mission to refute each one, TADDA "DC 9/11: Time of Crisis".

"Now come the tears and pain, of an ordinary man, and this is man who feels very deeply, this is a man full of emotion." - aids discussing bushes upcoming appearance at ground zero. Scenes like this are every 2 minutes, for 2 hours. Even Bush's mother would be rolling her eyes at this one.

p.s. I think bush wrote the title himself.

GARBAGE, with a capital GAR

[bones272 · 1/10 · 29 June 2006]

This movie was a joke - I laughed out loud during one of the war room scenes where the CIA director stands up and offers some kind of soliloquy (because in real life the dude could only talk to himself in such a manner) about how best to go into Afghanistan. Or the scene towards the beginning where the First Lady laments about how Ted Kennedy knows all about "national tragedy" as looks out the window with a forlorn expression. WTF? I suppose this is to be a dramatization, but instead this ended up cr@pitzation.

I have issues with our actions in Iraq, but I feel sorry for Bush if this is the best effort out there to put him in a good light.

which is the worse disaster?

[StationAgent · 1/10 · 11 September 2003]

My jaw dropped when I came home from work and watched this movie, it is 'Bush porn' or something like that, propaganda on a scale up there with Al Jazeera and Triumph of the Will - easily as bad, as it is presented as a mock documentary. It reminded me of the Left Behind movie in its surreal soft focus admiration of its lead, in this case the President. I was kind of looking forward to this, as I thought the background story would be quite interesting, but I'm sure the reality was far far from what we saw in this movie. I guess you'd ave to say based on a true story... where's the purple kool aid?

Super Bush??? No way...

[topdany · 1/10 · 5 September 2008]

First, let me tell you I'm not Republican nor Democrat. And also let me just say that this movie treats the facts incredulously loosely. Why paint Mr. Bush like a hero?

And what about the "defiant" phrases like "No tin-horn terrorist is going to keep me out of Washington!" ?! We, as thinking human beings prefer our history unfiltered. Because if you know your history about 911 (like almost of you do) you will spend big time weeding out the truth from the lies.

However the appreciation of the content will depend on your political inclinations, because if you are a Republican, you will appreciate the patriotism of this movie ("Super Bush"), but if you are a Democrat, this idea about "Super Bush" will have you either laughing and frustrated (or both!!!). And I agree with another user who says that this film may ignite certain furies in attempting to justify the war in Iraq.

Finally, and the reason why I gave just one star to this movie is because this film is so Republican propaganda from start to finish, that if you can swallow it... bon appetit... If not, please avoid this trash...

Greatly appreciated the White House's perspective.

[dalejones7 · 10/10 · 9 September 2006]

I felt that potential viewers might want to read a comment from someone who enjoyed the film. I rented this recently and was taken aback by how good it was. It says clearly on the package that it is from the White House's perspective and that is was based upon interviews with them, so I don't see why people are so insulted it paints a favorable light on the President. It dramatizes what happened the first 9 days after 9/11. It shows the emotions they went through as well as being able to see the beginnings of many decisions that effect us today. The reenactments of scenes I saw live on TV when they happened have helped me to better understand some of the things that have resulted. I don't have reason to doubt much of it's credibility unless you just don't like Bush and hate to see anything positive said about him. As far as quality of acting and cinematography, I'm not much good at discerning those things, but I do know when a movie impacts me......this one has.

A Right Wing Anthem that has little to do with reality--run away!

[RocketB52 · 1/10 · 23 September 2005]

What a ridiculous piece of right wing propaganda. There is really nothing more to say. If you are a member of the hard right, this laughable, throw away, made for cable fluff piece will go over quite well. If you are at all grounded in reality, prepare yourself for a truly breathtaking circle jerk of epic proportions. It is even more laughable now than it was two years ago, in light of the 9/11 commission and recent events which I'm sure I don't have to go into. If what you want is an honest look at the workings of the administration right after the disaster of 9/11, look elsewhere. However, if you're looking for a huge laugh--albeit a very galling laugh--or, if you're a Bush supporter, I highly recommend it.

The only thing to be said about the cast is that they are adequate, and in most instances, they managed to cast actors with an uncanny resemblance to their real life counterparts. Performances? Portraying living public figures is always a problem. You need extremely skilled actors AND a good script to really pull it off. These people were not only saddled with having to realistically portray people EVERYBODY is familiar with, but the script is lame brained as well, nothing more than a right wing mouth piece. What were they supposed to do? I thought it was delicious that Timothy Bottoms was cast as Bush, since he played the president in the comedy series, "That's My Bush." Alas. This time, they WEREN'T kidding.

A Very Pleasant Surprise

[chaffs · 10/10 · 10 September 2003]

When I first saw the promo for this movie, I didn't think it would be worth watching; first, because cable (even premium channel) original movies are seldom good, and second, because I assumed a movie about 9/11 would be filled with anti-Bush sentiment (Hollywood being overrun with crazy leftists and all.)

I began watching, expecting to turn it off in ten minutes. However, the movie turned out to be a diamond in the rough, a very pleasant surprise.

Of course, the cast is certainly not A-list (they seem to have been cast mainly for their resemblances to administration members--John Cunningham in particular being Rummy's doppelganger). However, I can't think of one person in the cast who didn't turn a passionate, stirring, and accurate performance; from David Fonteno's tentative Colin Powell to Allen Coates's condescending Senator Byrd. These actors have certainly done their homework.

Given that this movie, in premium channel style, will probably be played ad nauseam over the next few months, everyone will have plenty of chance to see it, and see it they should. Though it's rather weak praise, it's probably the best cable-tv original movie I've ever seen.

Could work as a musical comedy - if they added some music.

[esoder · 1/10 · 19 September 2005]

This movie was so bad I couldn't turn it off. It's rare for a "historical" movie like this to be released so soon after the events transpired. What's great is that seeing it now, we are able to see it for the propaganda that it is. Take a movie like JFK that tries to rewrite history. While a lot of JFK is presented as speculation, the notion that Kennedy was trying to get the U.S. out of Vietnam has been debunked by documents released over the years. Still, it is somewhat difficult to research the facts because they happened so long ago. What's really funny about this 9/11 movie is that it presents so many lies and inaccuracies as facts while the news is still fresh. I'd like to watch it again with my 9/11 Commission Report at hand to count how many things are just plain wrong. All that aside, it's just impossible for me to accept the scenes of W "helping" his speech writers and referring to Cheney as "consigliere." This could work as a musical comedy if they just added some music.

Finally, A Movie About 9/11 That Tells The Truth!

[Eric-62-2 · 24 September 2004]

Thank God for Lionel Chetwynd, because it means there is at least one filmmaker in Hollywood with enough sanity to deviate from the radical garbage of Michael Moore and his documented lies to just tell the truth about what happened on 9/11, which shows the courageous and effective response of our national leaders to the greatest tragedy in American history.

Liberals who want to carp about a film that dares to show a positive depiction of President Bush have been pampered for years with fawning (and often not always accurate) portrayals of Democrat presidents in action (see the well-done "Missiles Of October" and the awful "Thirteen Days" for instance) that it speaks volumes to their general sense of intolerance to throw fits over a film that dares to show a positive depiction of a Republican president in action.

But unlike liberal movies with their indulgence for hate-filled conspiracy rhetoric about conservatives and Republicans, there are no cheap shots thrown at Democrat politicians in this film. Sure, we hear talk about "changes in policy" but there are no direct digs at Bill Clinton which Chetwynd easily could have done. The intent, like "The Missiles Of October", is to recreate how our leaders acted in a time of crisis, and in that respect he succeeds brilliantly just like "The Missiles Of October" did for the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The performances are outstanding. Timothy Bottoms nails W. down perfectly as do the rest of the cast (although I didn't think Lawrence Pressman quite got Dick Cheney). It's enough to make you at times think you're listening in on the real events as they unfolded.

Bravo Lionel Chetwynd for providing people who understand the facts about 9/11 and President Bush for giving us a welcome antidote to the mountains of filth from the likes of Michael Moore and other self-hating Americans.

Plain, boring

[evilevildoer · 1/10 · 17 September 2003]

This movie is a deliberate attempt to capitalize on the events that followed it: a nationally televised speech and the anniversary of the attacks on September 11, 2001.

Sadly, the movie is just plain.

The "acting" is drab, and lifeless, the writing is pedestrian.

Not one of the characters was interesting. No one grew, no one was moved, or even moving. The set-up for this movie was dependent on what viewers already knew, no set-up was included in the movie itself. Viewers were assumed to already know what was going on. None of the supporting characters did anything more than read plot points.

This movie could never have been released in the theaters, as it would have gone the way of the other 2 failures of 2003: "Gigli" and "From Justin to Kelly"

In spite of its mediocrity, I did not give it a "5" on the IMDb scale. Instead, I gave it a "1" for pure blandness and unoriginality. The title claimed a "Time of Crisis" but unless one was already knowledgeable of the events of that day, the movie included no drama, much less any "crisis."