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.

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.

Normally I would not review the reviewers, but in this case I believe it is appropriate. First, a quick review of the movie: it was well done in most respects. It gives a feeling of being there, the acting was credible, and the movie blended the actual footage with the filmed footage well. My only complaint was that it was a little long and tended to drag in places. Without being "politically motivated," I can say that the movie was informative about what may have taken place in the meeting rooms behind the scenes.

This movie might be trying to be propaganda, but it is also telling a story, one that the public was not aware of. The critics of this movie on IMDb appear to have all this inside information. Were they there? How do they know how the President acted, or anyone else for that matter?? I follow the news enough to believe that these people could actually have made those statements and acted in those manners.

So what if the actor who portrayed the President was the same one that made fun of him on the cable TV show. He was the perfect choice in his physical resemblance, voice, and mannerisms. He obviously felt strongly enough in his convictions to play this part (either that or he really wanted the meager salary of this big budget movie). Certainly it was not an embarrassment to play this part in this movie.

A movie needs to be judged on it's own merit as a movie. This one needs to be looked at as if the story didn't happen. Then the movie can be judged as a movie. In the meantime, many people that have reviewed it have not been able to step back far away enough to do that. It is all too obvious.