As of last weekend, “2016” had grossed more than $30 million, making it the second-highest-grossing political documentary and fifth-highest documentary of all time. It appears poised to climb still higher, given that it continues to play on 1,876 screens after opening in wide release Aug. 24, according to Box Office Mojo.
That doesn’t mean that I thought the movie was accurate or profound. What I found remarkable, and still do, is the number of people seeing it. They are hungry for information about the president. They know they’ve been kept in the dark about his past. And that’s a good thing. D’Souza admits it:
There is a hunger for information about Obama. Americans feel that they don’t have the full story and the film supplies the missing pieces.
Well, not exactly. My editor at The New American has asked me to do a lengthy piece for the print magazine on “What Makes Obama Tick.” That’s a working title only. But what I’ve found is that D’Souza’s basic premise – that Obama is reflecting the ideology of his dead father – is wrong. Obama is no “anti-colonialist.” He is the worst type of “neo-colonialist” in that he wants to put everyone in the country back on the plantation.
But the movie does get a lot of things right, especially his “founding fathers” – communist revolutionaries and liberation theologians. Nothing was said about George Soros, unfortunately, or Saul Alinsky. So there are some gaping holes in understanding the real Obama.
But this misses the point. Millions of people are going to see this movie. And that is confirming their suspicion that something is amiss. What comes across is that he shouldn’t be reelected.
The reviewers don’t like it. (Big surprise.) But the viewers who paid money to see it, loved it:
Only three of 14 “major critics” listed on the Rotten Tomatoes website gave the film a positive review, with reviewers describing it as everything from “a vicious, larger-than-life racist lie” to “deeply boring.”
On the other hand, 77 percent of moviegoers gave it a positive rating.