Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

This documentary actually turns out to be quite a lot more than a political polemic, and it's all the better for it. Naturally, extreme lovers of Bush will be put off immediately, but no surprise there. And, people looking for straight Bush bashing may be disappointed as well. This is not an expose into the darker side of the Retard King, and it purposely goes easy on the conspiratorial tone. There is a significant, though not entirely fleshed out, subtext about media control and the consequences of that, but mostly this is a story about some fascinating, driven, rather demented people and their travails amongst the big fish. In other words, it's most entertaining and enlightening on a human level, not a political one.I will say that the 'revelation' at the end is so extreme that it changes the perception of the entire narrative, and it's something which the movie itself never entirely comes to grips with. The way it's structured does give the momentum of the drama a naturalistic feel, but I wonder if there wasn't a better, more upfront way to rework it and maintain the impact.However, the sense of howling into the wind is subtle and well played, and the real human drama of people striving to be more than they actually are (even by duplicitous means) opens up a whole range of connections between GWB, the author and the publisher. The idea that the publisher and the author are to some extent frauds, or at the very least unabashed showmen, would call into question the validity of the whole documentary if the approach didn't feel genuinely vérité, which is why it works much better as a depiction of flawed humanity than as an investigation into the (also interesting) issues with the book, media, etc.

As most people know, when you dig up dirt on a major public figure, especially one who is running for president, many setbacks come with it. Horns and Halos is a film regarding a man, James Hatfield, who decided to venture down that path. He's responsible for the book "Fortunate Son" which is a pull no punches bio on the man who now occupies, for a second time, the address of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. There was a lot of controversy surrounding the book, mainly because of it's accusation that Mr. Bush was once arrested for cocaine possession in the 70's. In the film, we follow Hatfield, and his publisher, Soft Skull Press, as they struggle to get the book released. What happens is poignant and ultimately tragic.

A tumultuous journey to get a book published about a presidential candidate in an election year, Horns and Halos shows what it is like when a small independent book publisher goes up against the national media, hordes of lawyers, and the Republican party, all to get an unauthorized biography on the shelves. Directors Suki Hawley and Michael Galinsky profile self-proclaimed 'punk' and founder of Soft Skull Press, Sander Hicks, and the author of Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President, J. H. Hatfield.Soft Skull's headquarters, based in a college dorm-like basement office in the east village in New York City, where Hicks and his small team put out leftist literature, is an extension of Hicks himself with its dingy walls and well-worn couches. Hicks chose to put out Fortunate Son after a major publishing house, St. Martin's Press, pulled the book from the shelves only four days after its release. Hatfield's 'checkered past,' including a stint in prison, severely damaged his credibility as an author. His biography on George W. Bush made allegations of cocaine arrests and more of Bush's youthful indiscretions. Hatfield's ease in getting scandalous information about Bush had already made his book's facts questionable, and his time in prison for an attempted murder sank the book and St. Martin's confidence in him.Shot almost completely on video, Horns and Halos uses archival footage and news reports, including a segment from 60 Minutes, to tell its story in addition to lengthy interviews with both Hatfield and Hicks. Hawley and Galinsky, who had worked on two feature films before Horns and Halos, took on the same roles for this film as for past endeavors. Hawley managed the editing and sound while Galinksy was in charge of cinematography. The two made a smooth transition into political documentaries for this film, as their previous experience revolved around the independent music scene. With Horns and Halos focusing around an independent company run by a punk rocker (the scenes of Hicks' band we could all do without), the directing pair have transcended from independent music to leftist politics with relative ease.Hawley and Galinsky do not interject any of their own political biases into the film, instead letting the well spoken and quite outspoken Hicks do much of the political ranting, while only portions of Hatfield's interviews covering Bush's politics. Most of Hatfield's interviews focus on him defending himself against his past and defending his book's credibility. Several of the interviews, most notably one coming from a Dallas Morning News reporter who was the first to question Hatfield's assertions about Bush, not only question Hatfield's credibility, but also provide for a more politically balanced film. The soundtrack could fit with the film's theme better. While Hicks' own song with lyrics that focus on trying to get the book published provide for a humorous interlude, the choice of using only 'indie/punk' music for the entire film may have harmed some scenes that would have benefited from a better, more classical choice of music.Coming in at just under 80 minutes, Horns and Halos seems to be over after the first hour. At the 60-minute mark, the most jarring moment in the film, Hatfield's suicide, comes as a shock to the viewer. His book had finally been released in a third edition, only this time to mixed reviews and dismal sales. The buzz around his book had been squashed by his seedy past in jail, and the press did not take him seriously after its release. We later find out that Hatfield, who had 'two strikes' against him, had been under investigation for credit card fraud, and would go to jail for life if convicted under the 'three strikes' rule. Horns and Halos does not leave any strands out, as each personality is explored in full as they pertain to the story. Although a full epilogue would have tied up any loose ends in the Hatfield/Hicks story, it can be argued that a documentary, especially one of this ilk, should instigate the viewer to explore the issues of Horns and Halos on their own and form their own opinions. While the viewer may be left asking why Hicks' band was included so much in the film, including a live concert segment in a hazy bar, the viewer will not question his role in the film as publisher or activist, as this film fully explores his role and personality. Tension between Hicks and Hatfield rises and falls during the film, mostly over business issues surround the book. One scene in particular shows Hicks interpreting an e-mail from Hatfield in a monstrous, angry voice. Hicks admitted most of the bickering over releasing the book came in the form of e-mails and conference calls, but the two worked well together in public, as Hicks was the more media-savvy of the two. On what appeared to be a shoestring budget from the video camera quality, Horns and Halos still succeeds in telling the story of young and young-at-heart individuals exercising their free speech rights against the traditional corporate and governmental system. While the protagonist Hicks may come off as having his head in the clouds and the late Hatfield does not always appear to be comfortable or stable on camera with his newfound celebrity, the pair's story makes a good case for their cause. Hicks especially seems to want as much adversity as possible. It's as if he's the type of person who is always looking for a fight, whether it be with the current president of any of his advisors.

In the late nineties up until the G. W. Bush election, documentary filmmakers Michael Galinsky and Suki Hawley stumbled upon a goldmine of subtance. At the time, James Hatfield's book "The Fortunate" was recalled for many reasons, mostly because of his shady background. With hopes that his biography's truth would outweigh his past, he meets with Sander Hicks, the colorful publisher of his company called Soft Skull. Hicks makes the documentary for the most part. He constantly changes through different punk phases throughout the film, suggesting that he was looking for himself simultaneously to looking for "The Fortunate Son"'s distribution. His band "White Collar Crime" provides not only some fun music for the soundtrack, but also an introspective into the young man's sometimes frantic personality and political rebellion. The trials and tribulations the odd pair go through are documented with a taut, always entertaining pace. The film is never boring or tedious, even when the book is in an ongoing limbo of failures and complications. I liked how Suki and Galinsky didn't try to justify Hatfield. By the end of the film, he is just as much of an enigma as he was when the film began. He is impossible to read and always unpredictable, but when a haunting tragedy strikes, he is not judged or manipulated. "Horns and Halos" is moody tale told with nimble filmmaking. Its solid theme of a tainted pass serves as a metaphor for a truth lost almost lost with ceonsorship.