User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 67 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 45 out of 67
  2. Negative: 20 out of 67

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Nov 28, 2012
    Less documentary than rhetoric. If it truly wanted to be a ducumentary of the President's life, it wouldn't have been made in this term of his Presidency or even this early in his life suggesting that it's purpose ( if not evident by its title) was to gain support for the opposition. Because of this, it's difficult to take seriously due to the inherent bias. As a dramatic propaganda piece, it does serve to bolster supporters of an anti-Obama second term. For undecided voters, it may induce further research or scare a slide to the right. And of course the left will be outraged. From an entertainment standpoint (which is the only tacit I grade on), it's sub-par to most serious documentaries. The attempts to innervate me with fear or rage fell flat. Expand
  2. Sep 25, 2012
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I pay a lot of attention to public policy questions, so I will explain why I consider this movie to be the exact opposite of fair-minded or independent. The first hour is a moving narrative of Obama's life story, It avoids the birther perspective entirely, but it does present Dinesh D'Souza as sympathetic to Obama. This is a misimpression, as D'Souza is mostly recycling themes that were used to attempt to "disqualify" Obama in 2008, when Obama first ran. D'Souza accuately indicated he is a conservative, but leaves the impression that he once had personal respect for Obama. This is difficult to reconcile with his personal writing on anything political. Toward the end of the movie, D'Souza starts throwing facts around without context to help paint his narrative. Since D'Souza is a college president, and a well published political author, it is difficult to conclude that the misrepresentations are anything but fully intentional. For example, D'Souza suggests the nuclear reductions from about 5000 warheads when Obama took office to under 2000 now should be viewed as an attempt to intentionally weaken America. There are disputes about the utility of spending money to maintain nuclear weapons stockpiles, but these cuts were negotiated by President Bush early in his 1st term, but the treaty had a final implementation date of 2012. Such facts, as well as the fact that the US committed to long term nuclear disarmament with the NPT (under Nixon) seriously undermine his narrative, and their deletion is at best reckless and at worst intentionally deceitful. Similarly, the D'Souza's statement that Obama has done NOTHING to contain Iranian proliferation is false. In addition to restating his opposition and maintaining the implicit threat of direct US attack, he had been more effectively than Bush was in rallying allies toward more comprehensive sanctions. There are legitimate differences of the best way to discourage Iranian proliferation, and preferring immediate use of force would be a fair reason to vote against Obama. Saying he has done nothing, however, is easy to refute. Even the Churchill bust story is a hoax. There is a Churchill bust in the White House right now, but the specific one that was removed was not US property, but was understood to be on loan through the Bush presidency. It was returned, properly, and replaced with a similar bust from the same artist. If you do see this movie, out of curiousity as I did, then I would STRONGLY recommend doing a bit of independent research on any specific thing that grabs your attention. Hopefully, my examples are sufficient to illustrate that trusting D'Souza to do the research for you is placing trust that has not been earned. If you see the movie to reinforce your prior hatred of Obama and reward a filmaker for being willing to twist the truth to reinforce your decision, then grab some popcorn because you might have a fun time - probably more fun that you will have on election night. Expand
  3. Sep 1, 2012
    Definitely do not read the book before seeing the movie first.....and definitely do not see the movie.................................................
  4. Sep 1, 2012
    I have been a registered Republican since June 12, 1968. And, I was totally unimpressed with the movie. Especially from someone who is an "Indian immigrant" to this country, and had the good fortune of attending Dartmouth College. Totally slanted, and devoid of objectivity. The use of the word "collective" early in the movie told me that the influences of Ayn Rand are motivating this individual. He talks about racism in the U.S., and does not compare it to the caste system in India. The dishonesty in terms of "returning Churchill's bust" proves the movie is another attempt to "Swiftboat" someone. Churchill's bust was on loan and scheduled for return. Another bust has replaced it.

    If Obama entered office with a rich economy, full employment, and a robust annual increase in the GDP I could easily understand criticism of a failed presidency that "spends money like crazy", and introduced bills that enhanced our economic melt-down. The writer fails to discuss how much money Reagan spent, and how much he increased the national debt. The writer fails to disclose "how the American economy was on the verge of a major depression in 2009". He fails to disclose that some of the remedies employed by Obama were supported by Bush, and many Republicans. He failed to disclose the fact that Bush did not increase American forces in Afghanistan. He failed to discusss how Bush failed to use drone technology, or how Bush failed to chase bin Laden. He failed to discuss how the Iraq war was based on bogus intelligence.

    The writer distorts the discussion of the Falkland Islands issue. The writer falsely asserts Obama wants to return control of the Falkland Islands to Argentina. In fact, "the U.S. refused in April to endorse a final declaration on Argentina's claim to the islands at the Summit of the Americas, provoking criticism from other Latin American nations".

    The writer distorts our relationship with Israel. Carter, George Bush Sr., and Bill Clinton employed the same strategy that Obama has embarked on. The appointment of George Mitchell as special envy was not discussed at all. Nor did the writer talk about NATO and European support for intervention in Libya, and the lack of international support for the intervention in Syria. The writer fails to talk about our cooperation with Israel in terms of cyberattacks against Iran, and the sanctions placed against Iran that were not present under the former administration.

    Although it is true that Obama's father lived in Kenya, the writer provides no credible evidence that Obama's father influenced him in terms of "anti-colonialism".

    The reference to nuclear weapons fails to disclose that many Republicans joined their Democratic colleagues in calling for a reduction in the number of warheads.

    We've experienced a number of tax cuts, engaged in two wars that were not paid for, and added prescription drugs Part D without paying for it. And, the writer decries Obama's desire to let the tax cuts for the wealthy expire. The writer never talks about the fact that Obama advocates tax cuts for the middle class, and tax reform.

    The writer suggests that India and parts of Asia are embracing "America's dream" at a time when Obama is embracing "anti-colonialism". The writer fails to mention that the economic booms in India as well as China were partially due to outsourcing prior to Obama taking office, and that both countries have favored trade relations with the U.S.

    The writer talks about how Obama is in the White House solely due to race. False. Any Democrat would have won in 2008, just as any Democrat would have won in 1976. Just as any Republican would have won in 1980. The anti-Bush sentiment was very strong in 2008, and totally missing from the writer's analysis. The writer suggests that Davis, Ayers, Said, Unger, and Wright are trully "Obama's fathers". There is absolutely no connection, logical, evidentiary, or otherwise to make the leap.

    I do compliment the writer for admitting Obama was born in Hawaii. At least we don't see D'Sousa as a blatant birther as so many other people are.

    D'Sousa seems to be an intelligent individual. But, shame on him for the shoddy worksmanship. He is obviously a right wing conservative, and does not attack the project with any degree of objectivity. Sad.
  5. Aug 26, 2012
    This movie makes the same mistake every political doc makes, in that it forces you into one corner with a bias and/or propaganda message. Moore has done it and D'souza does it too; it is even evident in the trailer that depicts a dystopian nation of Africa with images of rioting and marching with strong overtones in the music. The indian-inspired music, for the average american, translates into images of terrorism and evil; That alone impacts how the viewer feels once the films starts. On the other hand, D'souza does try to meet someone in the middle with the occupy wallstreet, but it's no saving grace for how he constantly presents us with bits and pieces of audio clips. Once he gets the bit he wants to get his message across you can tell when he cuts it off. Stuff like that can easily be labeled as "taking out of context." To make matters worse, he does the same narcissistic move that Moore does, but talking about himself and his life about as much as he does his subject matter. This is a movie that does well with presenting a message, but does a horrible job by picking how you're suppose to exit the theater feeling the way you will for you. I have no respect for propaganda like that from neither the right or left because when you exit that theater, it will either solidify what the media is already telling you or reinforce what you already believe. Expand
  6. Aug 26, 2012
    A political ad disguised as a theater film does not warrant a place on metacritic's home page. Regardless of your political leanings, there is no reason that limited release propaganda should gain publicity from a site targeted to people looking for quality entertainment. Those already planning to see the film will not be encouraged or deterred because of metacritic. It just goes to show the discrepancy in campaign spending brought about as a result of the Citizens United decision. Expand
  7. Aug 25, 2012
    Rubbish propaganda. If you don't like Obama you will like this, because you like hearing random un-sourced facts spewed out loud. The whole story is about how conservatives did not get what they want so the black man is playing a race card.
  8. Aug 25, 2012
    This film was really not worth my time or worth the time of the filmmakers. It says nothing new and functions merely as a marketing device to encourage Obama's opponents to spend money at the box office.
  9. Aug 25, 2012
    There is a simple reason legitimate film critics refuse to review this conspiracy laden, poorly made tripe.

    Anyone with an interest in film and especially documentaries should avoid this nonsense unless they seek an object lesson in what NOT to do as a documentarian or are in it for the unintentional humor.

    A truly God awful mess regardless of your politics.

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 14 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 14
  2. Negative: 9 out of 14
  1. Reviewed by: Alan Scherstuhl
    Jun 30, 2014
    The only true surprise here is D'Souza's haplessness in constructing both film and argument.
  2. Reviewed by: Owen Gleiberman
    Jun 30, 2014
    Dinesh D'Souza's documentary is no mere screed: 2016: Obama's America is a nonsensically unsubstantiated act of character assassination.
  3. Reviewed by: Roger Moore
    Jun 30, 2014
    “Obama’s America” flutters to the ground like so much GOP convention confetti, all assertions, few facts and little substance other than the conspiratorial right wing talking points that are how D’Souza’s makes his living.