In a political climate where a 14-year-old girl gets a stern talking-to by the Secret Service for posting “Kill Bush” on her Myspace.com Web page, it would seem inconceivable that a movie showing the 42nd president getting blasted would see the light of day.

But as I sat munching Whoppers at an almost-empty Lumiere Theatre, there it was: President George W. Bush leaving the Sheraton Hotel and being hit by two sniper bullets.

The film, Gabriel Range’s “Death of a President,” is a British mockumentary about the fictional assassination of Bush in 2007 and the aftermath. After recently being released in America with a storm of controversy, I saw the film and wondered why were people getting so hot and bothered over a bad movie.

Bill O’Reilly nearly had a coronary questioning Range’s ethics and morals about making the film. According to The Journal News, a New York newspaper, Hilary Clinton called the movie “despicable,” and said, “that anyone would even attempt to profit on such a horrible scenario makes me sick.” Clinton later admitted she hadn’t actually, you know, seen the film.

Regal Entertainment Group, Cinemark USA and AMC Theatres refused to have the film desecrate their hallowed screens. Even CNN and NPR wouldn’t allow ads for it, citing moral and taste reasons.

These companies are well within their rights to not promote the film, just as Range is within his rights to make the film. My problem is that “Death of a President” had so much potential, and squanders it to become a tired and trite movie.

It starts off well, as Range is able to skillfully build tension until the event every filmgoer came to see. The assassination scene is the most powerful movie moment I’ve seen all year: no matter what your political beliefs are, in that moment you can’t help but be emotionally shaken.

But the film’s best moment is also its greatest weakness. This scene is so enormously powerful that you can’t help but think it should be the centerpiece of a film that is thought provoking and stirs up legitimate debate across the political aisles. Instead, the film devolves into a gimmicky, one-trick pony of a political “thriller” that sledgehammers a far-left message that has been delivered with more skill and thought countless times.

All the hubbub surrounding the film with real people or events is nothing new, according to SF State cinema professor Jameson Goldner. George Clooney was lambasted by some for the way he presented Joseph McCarthy in “Good Night and Good Luck,” Oliver Stone got a lot of flack for “JFK,” and even “Medium Cool,” a 1969 film about fictional events around the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, was seen in poor taste by some.

Goldner was quick to stress Range’s right to make this film. As long as the film is not directly and clearly telling people to kill the president, which wouldn’t be protected under freedom of speech, then it’s just a matter of personal taste as to what’s decent and not.

“I’m sure it offends many people, but there are many movies that portray young people being chopped up, and, frankly, I find that much more disturbing,” Goldner said.