Thanks mavrach you are correct, I wasn't very clear. I didn't mean to deride his writing ability, just question the veracity of his writing.
You articulated better then I Judge Douglas' bias, 'exaggerated suspicions of Obama' is a perfect example, misleads completely. The movie looks at the President's ideologic, geographic, biologic, and biographic roots along with his pre-presidential writings/speeches and extrapolates. Dinesh aims to consider where such inclinations would direct his presidency and how said presidency would affect the nation come 2016. Its not suspicious, its speculation and entertaining speculation at that. Douglas admits this and uses it to denigrate the film for ''depending on speculation'. D'souza never claims it to be anything else, it doesn't depend on speculation,it is speculation (but the background history of the President is fact, it was unknown to me prior to his election and it was fascinating stuff whether you like the man or not, the speculation is limited to looking into O's mind and future direction. There is nothing preachy or patronizing here and thus doesn't even compare to Religulous, who by the way he calls polished, because of Larry Charles direction yet 2016 was produced by the Gerald Molen, he is not polished?? The film is not polished because of shaky hand helds in Africa, well then Battlestar Galactica is 'unpolished'.
As to self important wrong headed fear mongering - pure animosity on the reviewer's part who ignores the sheer entertainment value of the film. It was riveting. To me I can see no other explanation then the review is so besotted with the President he will tolerate any form of critique, clearly his sensibilities are hurt with any portrayal short of hagiography.
OK that's bias on my part, I do not know that but I know he persuaded you to not see this film and I think that is a small injustice for the movie merits watching unless you share similar sensibilities, then I guess there is no point. But the reviewer didn't tell you to avoid the film because of sensibilities, he told you to avoid the film because it is simply bad which is a complete falsehood. Again he rated the movie a 30 on the DVD scale an unheard of score for even the truly worse movies of all time.
(I'll admit my bias, I thought this was a good movie and surprised it didn't receive an academy nomination. If Columbine got Moore an academy award for filming entertaining insults to conservative sensibilities, why not this entertaining film? Clearly the Academy bias would never tolerate any insult or even perceived insult to Liberalism, thus their bias forces me to not trust their opinions as well. I'll readily admit many will consider Judge D in good company for aligning with the Academy, but obviously I am not one of them).
Anyway I'll conclude with, Religulous got a 94. The 30 rating for 2016 quite frankly is a calumny and if you saw the movie, I think you'd agree.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive...those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
- C. S. Lewis