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.

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.

Well, I will say that "DC 9/11: Time of Crisis" wasn't exactly a bad movie, nor was it an overly impressive movie. I found it to be adequately entertaining, albeit a bit on the mundane side. Throughout the course of this two hour long movie I was thinking if a movie such as this was really appropriate to make, especially just two years after the incident that the movie is based on.

Now, I am by no account an expert on American politics, nor do I have any interest in such, but I think that "DC 9/11: Time of Crisis" from writer Lionel Chetwynd and director Brian Trenchard-Smith actually managed to paint an interesting portrayal of the American president in the immediate time following the tragic events. Whether how much it was accurate or true, I have no idea.

Timothy Bottoms, as George W. Bush, was actually rather nicely cast, as he did have some similarities to the president, and he definitely had many of the mannerisms down. Aside from George Takei, then I think this movie was actually with an all cast of unfamiliar talents to me.

One thing that struck me odd was why they opted to mix in real life footage here and there throughout the course of the movie. To me, it just brought down the overall effectiveness of the movie. Sure, I can appreciate those moments, but they didn't feel at home in a movie made about the events, they belong in a documentary or something like that.

I am rating "DC 9/11: Time of Crisis" a mediocre five out of ten stars, as the movie was adequately entertaining, but it wasn't an outstanding moment in cinematic history. Perhaps if you are an American you'd find more enjoyment in the movie, I don't know.