The Movie: 2016

[Foxfyre]

After reports of it grossing the most of any documentary of its type in its first days in the theaters, Mr. Foxfyre and I went to see the movie yesterday. After reading a lot of Dinesh D'Souza in recent years, it was pretty much what I expected. It was not at all what Mr. Foxfyre was expecting.

The amazing thing is we went to an eight-theater complex at 2:25 in the afternoon. The 2016 theater was completely full--sold out--and packed. The others, several showing pretty decent movies, not so much.

So has anybody else seen the movie? Any comments on what you think about it? The themes and conclusions built into it?

 

[Foxfyre]

After further research, I may have to amend the opening post to say that so far, "2016" is the second highest grossing film of its type.

Some early reviews:

Slate's David Weigel reviewed it as "mostly solid," highlighting how D'Souza does not drown in conservative conspiracy theories. "The movie is really too good to get pedantic about," he wrote. "There are no conspiracy theories about Obama’s birth, religion, Social Security number, passport, or college transcript. Instead, there is a deep dive into Barack Obama’s known Communist associates, his late father’s avowed socialism, and his mother’s radicalism."

Variety's Joe Leydon critiqued the opposite, writing that "for the bulk of its running time, the pic comes off as a cavalcade of conspiracy theories, psycho-politico conjectures and incendiary labeling." Leydon did admit, however, that it is "attention-grabbing."
Anti-Obama Film, '2016: Obama's America,' Expanding Release After Notable Success (VIDEO)

 

[Polk]

I love how he defends the movie by saying it focuses on some conspiracy theories to the exclusion of others.

 

[Foxfyre]

I love how he defends the movie by saying it focuses on some conspiracy theories to the exclusion of others.

No, he really didn't even mention all the conspiracy theories in the movie. What he did report in the movie is all verifiable and well documented except for his conclusion which is of course left up to the audience to decide if it is credible or not.

 

[NonCorporeal]

I hope to see it this Friday at the theatre by my house, but I'm going to have to wait until tomorrow to see the showtimes at said theater.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well report back after you see it NC. Would be interested in your impression of it.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I have watched several trailers for this...and have no idea what it is about.
The trailers are vary vague.

 

[Foxfyre]

I haven't seen any of the trailers, but it really is necessary to see the movie to understand what it is about or to make sense of the conclusion D'Souza presents at the end.

The movie itself is Obama's life that we all know, the facts surrounding that which are available to know for those who want to know, and the forces that are included in D'Souza's conclusion based on the facts presented in the documentary.

 

[American Horse]

Foxfyre; I'm going tomorrow afternoon and I'm asking my son (a Ron Paul supporter) to join me, but what did you mean that, "It was not at all what Mr. Foxfyre was expecting?"

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre; I'm going tomorrow afternoon and I'm asking my son (a Ron Paul supporter) to join me, but what did you mean that, "It was not at all what Mr. Foxfyre was expecting?"

He mentioned that he thought it would show America in decay, Wrigly Field grown up in weeds, and stuff like that.

It doesn't. But I will be interested in you and your son's opinion about the conclusion D'Souza offered in the closing minutes of the documentary. Please report back.

 

[kwc57]

After reports of it grossing the most of any documentary of its type in its first days in the theaters, Mr. Foxfyre and I went to see the movie yesterday. After reading a lot of Dinesh D'Souza in recent years, it was pretty much what I expected. It was not at all what Mr. Foxfyre was expecting.

The amazing thing is we went to an eight-theater complex at 2:25 in the afternoon. The 2016 theater was completely full--sold out--and packed. The others, several showing pretty decent movies, not so much.

So has anybody else seen the movie? Any comments on what you think about it? The themes and conclusions built into it?

Sad that one has to go see a documentary to learn what the press should have covered 4 years ago, isn't it.

 

[L.K.Eder]

why is a theater packed on a weekday afternoon?

don't they have jobs?

 

[Foxfyre]

why is a theater packed on a weekday afternoon?

don't they have jobs?

I would guess the large majority of the folks in the theater where we were are retired people. And there was a lot of applause at the end of the movie.

 

[Foxfyre]

After reports of it grossing the most of any documentary of its type in its first days in the theaters, Mr. Foxfyre and I went to see the movie yesterday. After reading a lot of Dinesh D'Souza in recent years, it was pretty much what I expected. It was not at all what Mr. Foxfyre was expecting.

The amazing thing is we went to an eight-theater complex at 2:25 in the afternoon. The 2016 theater was completely full--sold out--and packed. The others, several showing pretty decent movies, not so much.

So has anybody else seen the movie? Any comments on what you think about it? The themes and conclusions built into it?

Sad that one has to go see a documentary to learn what the press should have covered 4 years ago, isn't it.

Yes, and the documentary commented on that. We didn't know four years ago. Now we do.

 

[Wolfsister77]

They did a fact check on this movie which I looked at before deciding whether to see it.

FACT CHECK: Anti-Obama film muddy on facts - Yahoo! News

 

[Foxfyre]

They did a fact check on this movie which I looked at before deciding whether to see it.

FACT CHECK: Anti-Obama film muddy on facts - Yahoo! News

So who is 'they' doing the fact check? I was at the movie.

Here is from your fact check article

— D'Souza rightly argues that the national debt has risen to $16 trillion under Obama. But he never mentions the explosion of debt that occurred under Obama's predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, nor the 2008 global financial crisis that provoked a shock to the U.S. economy.

In the movie D'Souza clearly included the Bush AND Obama administrations in that meteroic rise of the national debt. If the fact checker isnt any more honest than to note that, then I think the rest of his unsubstantiated critique is suspect.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Yes__ 2016 largely avoided conjecture and I think it was designed to appeal to a large base. For those of us that think Obama is just total swine and is as corrupt as the day is long__ I'd be fine with seeing a more righteously speculative version. But as it is__ the movie did a great job of slamming Obama soley based on his record.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

They did a fact check on this movie which I looked at before deciding whether to see it.

FACT CHECK: Anti-Obama film muddy on facts - Yahoo! News

I stopped reading at the third paragraph:

The assertion that Obama's presidency is an expression of his father's political beliefs, which D'Souza first made in 2010 in his book "The Roots of Obama's Rage," is almost entirely subjective and a logical stretch at best.

Any article that is titled FACT CHECK should stay away from its own wildly subjective (and imo subversive) opinions.

 

[Polk]

After reports of it grossing the most of any documentary of its type in its first days in the theaters, Mr. Foxfyre and I went to see the movie yesterday. After reading a lot of Dinesh D'Souza in recent years, it was pretty much what I expected. It was not at all what Mr. Foxfyre was expecting.

The amazing thing is we went to an eight-theater complex at 2:25 in the afternoon. The 2016 theater was completely full--sold out--and packed. The others, several showing pretty decent movies, not so much.

So has anybody else seen the movie? Any comments on what you think about it? The themes and conclusions built into it?

Sad that one has to go see a documentary to learn what the press should have covered 4 years ago, isn't it.

The press only covers actual stories, not kooky conspiracy theories.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes__ 2016 largely avoided conjecture and I think it was designed to appeal to a large base. For those of us that think Obama is just total swine and is as corrupt as the day is long__ I'd be fine with seeing a more righteously speculative version. But as it is__ the movie did a great job of slamming Obama soley based on his record.

That's what impressed me by it. Almost no opinion, speculation, and certainly no conspiracy theories of any kind were included in the entire documentary. . . .at least until the conclusion. The conclusion is really the only thing that could be challenged and that would depend entirely on whether the collection of facts D'Souza compiled brings one to the same conclusion.