elshikh4
At the second half of the 1990s, the white house residents were suddenly a goal of cinematic bombing. That lived a climax in 1997 in specific, with sex scandals, corruption, planning fake wars, being obsessed with wars, attempting murder, and murders all taking place in a dark white house through a row of movies like (Murder at 1600), (Absolute Power), (Shadow Conspiracy), (Wag the Dog), (The Second Civil War) and (Executive Power).Apparently, something was wrong. Originally, the presidential foundation was downed to earth, suspected, and sneered at in the 1970s with the presidency of Richard Nixon (1969 – 1974) after Vietnam and Watergate. The second wave was in the 1990s with the presidency of Bill Clinton (1993 – 2001) after investigating him on the Whitewater scandal, the White House FBI files controversy, and the White House travel office controversy, then the most famous at all Monica-gate. Simply after the president lied about spying in the 1970s, now he lied about sex in the 1990s. That led to a twister of doubt in the president's idealism, where he became not a human with mistakes, but drowned in sins.Movies exploited that cinematically well. Serious or not, all of them referred to some kind of degeneration halted at the president, the president's men, and women as well. From cheater, to sadist, to killer, the white house became more morally blotted than a mafia family, and the man in the chair turned into no noble godfather ! Strangely that some of 1997's movies predicted, so rightly, of many events that happened short time after. Clinton-Monica's sex scandal of 1998 you can see shadows of it in (Absolute Power), (Wag the Dog), and (Executive Power). Attacking Africa then Iraq in 1998 for the sake of a fabricated war that may cover up the president's sex scandals you can see it in (Wag the Dog). As you see that sudden cinematic bombing didn't come from nothing, and wasn't all blank either !This round, in (Executive Power), the list includes many many crimes, and that was the problem with it. The limit of the corruption along with the imagination was extended to loud extent. Here, the president hires a whore to make love to in the oval office, and because of her sickness she dies right in it. When the first lady knows, she pragmatically bargains to silence in exchange for having the local policy agenda. The first lady cheats on her husband with high exec of the white house who happens to have videotapes for that. The first lady recruits the police to cut the loose ends, and when it's complicated she resorts to a drug lord (??) to finish the job in return for canceling the DA accusations !! Unless it takes place in a black comedy or crime fantasy, then this is too much to believe. Or maybe it's so fit for just another V thriller, with – naturally – the bad meaning of the term !Aside from the exaggerations, the lead actor is sure one of the weakest leads for an action thriller. The beard of him seemed as something was cut off a goat. The music wasn't any close to fine. But overall, the movie runs thoroughly. I loved the way that script keeps its conflict hot. The direction was beautiful. It managed somehow to make the unbelievable believable in some points, providing some entertainment that for an hour and a half V movie was very good. When I read the director's name (David L. Corley), I remembered that I watched 2 memorably good movies for him before. One as a writer, named (Solo –1996), and one as a writer / director named (Angel's Dance – 1999). If you have watched these movies, you have to long for his next must-be-interesting movie, as I do. True (Executive Power) didn't fulfill that hankering fully, but maybe the next time.Still, the most important point this movie comes up with is its look to the first lady. She's portrayed as none other than the bossy, so politically ambitious, Hilary Clinton at the time. However, showing her as the movie's incurable, super destructive, villain refers openly to the movie's maker's fear out of Mrs. Clinton's strong character over her husband, or her being on the chair someday, especially with the scene near the end in which she's filmed while sitting smiling on her husband's chair after eliminating all of her enemies, including the idealist lead himself. That feel of "I'm nasty, and in control" mirrored rare worry over Mrs. Clinton or maybe any woman would take over the chair for that matter ! OK, this is fiction, but amusing and executed very well. And with its paranoia, even if loudly made, it is still interesting than movies where the president is the man's man flawless hero like (Air Force One), produced in the same year by the way.
johnscook
While I watched this movie, I tried to figure out why they bothered making it. Though the main plot of the movie is potentially good, there are all sorts of unrelated/unnecessary subplots. The marketing people in Hollywood must have dictated the multiple bad guys, perpetual double-crosses and the man and woman who get too close and have sex. It's odd that we see more of them having sex than we did of the President and his mistress. The many plots and subplots make the film too broad and none of the characters are properly developed - I really didn't feel like I knew any character, except that everyone is corrupt and evil. The ending is totally incomplete - it left me more than just wanting what might have been, but what was supposed to be. In the end, there is really no explanation of why anyone does what they do, except to serve as additional corrupt characters who commit a double-cross. I'm surprised that so many established (and good) actors agreed to make such a hollow movie. This seemed like a movie made by college students who are working on their 2nd or 3rd project.Don't waste your time unless you are in a film class and want an example of what not to do when making a movie.
