Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
My Honor Was Loyalty (2016)
Poorly executed movie that fails to make use of the material
While making a movie on a shoestring is a challenge, bad decisions have been made to make this movie bad. For instance, we are served poorly executed battles that are obviously located in the same area that has to represent Russia in 1943 and Normandy in 1944. These battles just look downright fake. Coupled with this is the poor acting, marred by dubbing, the poorly cinematography(shaky handy cams!) the endless boring battles scenes and finally the borrowing from the thin red line.(long intro, voice overs, chaotic battle scenes, a lot of pondering and thinking).
The movie is presented as the story of a regular guy serving in the SS. It is literally announced at the start of the movie. However, the movie plays this fiddle a bit too much. For example: at one moment the subject is raised why the men joined the SS and it is presented as if they just wanted to do their duty. But the SS was not just some regular army unit. The SS were selected men, all volunteers, who adhered to a certain ideology and are noted for a long list of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Notably, the unit in this movie, the 1st SS, was notorious for this.
While the subject could have been interesting, the movie does not make much use of it. Where moral ambiguity would have been interesting, this is downplayed and only brought up at the end of the movie and the cloaked in a kind of apologetic by showing that the allies were bad as well. It would have been a much better movie if it had shown the SS as they were, brave perhaps, but brutish as well, and so perhaps explain how they could do the things they did. Now we just get to see what we have already seen before. A soldier getting tired of war and disillusioned. That we have seen before and seen done a lot better.
Crimson Tide (1995)
Despite great acting Crimson tide lacks flow. Its events are too construed and convenient to make a believable story.
Nuclear devastation threatens the west coast of the United States when Russian rebels capture several intercontinental missile bases in Siberia and declare war against the USA. The crew of the submarine USS Alabama is in the midst of this modern missile crisis when the order arrives to launch the preemptive strike. Then communications break down, but not before a last garbled message comes through.
Now the captain, played by veteran Gene Hackman, and his second in command, played by the gifted Denzel Washington, face off: fire as ordered, and possibly trigger a global nuclear war, or reestablish communications, and thus risking the submarine and cause a delay with possibly disastrous consequences for the US. A rebel submarine makes matters more difficult.
The movie is commendable in that it remains focused on the crew and we know not much more than they do. This makes us feel as they do. However, Crimson Tide lacks flow. Flow is when events in the movie feel as being part of a natural progress that makes the story move forward. A movie lacks flow when we start to wonder.
With Crimson Tide it starts with the assignment of Washington to the Alabama. It somehow feels strange that an important ship like the Alabama gets a second in command assigned who knows nothing of that particular ship, has no experience and seems of a different disposition that his commanding officer. But then stranger things happen.
Next is the garbled message. Just when the Alabama loses contact with central command they get this garbled message. Is it a recall of the previous order? Nobody knows..but how convenient that it arrives just in time to lay a seed of doubt and stir the fires of conflict. But it could happen. Stranger things have.
Next then is that when Washington convinced Hackman to reestablish contact with headquarters using a buoy, the winch breaks down and makes such noise that it alerts the rebel submarine. How very convenient. But stranger things have happened.
Next, the Alabama succeeds in destroying the Russian submarine even though the latter fires four torpedoes first on the latter. But the only two torpedo's fired by the Alabama do hit. It could happen. Stranger things have.
However, the last torpedo damages the Alabama and it sinks to the bottom of the sea, reaches hull crushing depth, but just in time regains buoyancy and escapes in the nick of time. Well. It could happen, stranger things have.
Then when the Alabama is in the position to reestablish contact with central command the transmitter is broken. And when the confrontation between Hackman and Washington reaches boiling point, it suddenly works again. It could happen.Stranger things have.
But having so many events conveniently happen breaks the flow of the story. Strange things happen, a series of strange things is extremely rare. And if a story requires them to be there otherwise there would be no story is bad story telling.
Compare Crimson Tide to the Caine Mutiny which has no such odd incidents. It is a natural story that has flow. Crimson Tide can only exist because it requires exceptional strange things to happen. This is its main flaw. No excellent acting by Hackman, Washington and Mortensen can repair that damage.
Red Eye (2005)
A swan song from Wes Craven..
The courteous creep Jack Rippner (Cillian Murph) manipulates the seat arrangements in a plane during a Red Eye flight so he can sit next to cute hotel manager Lisa Reisert (Rachel McAdams) and blackmail her into sparing the life of her dad in exchange for the deaths of the under secretary of Homeland security and his family who happen to stay in the hotel she works for.
It is that kind of thriller directed by horror expert Wes Craven who is well past his prime nowadays. So where you hope something unexpected to happen you get the usual aggravating nonsensical tale of a lone woman against creepy guy. Reality and logic require suspension and the gods of ultimate coincidence need to be invoked to keep the tale on track. During the cat and mouse game between Lisa and Jack it even gets to physical blows, but of course, as per script, nobody notices anything. Not even the violent banging against the walls of the toilet in an airliner triggers questions.
The low point is reached two thirds into the movie. Lisa escapes the clutches of the scary guy to run through the airport dodging security and police, while trying to phone her dad and her hotel at the same time. Why she doesn't go to the first security guard or police officer she sees is baffling considering that she has been attempting to warn them the whole time. Even more unbelievable is that the hotel assistant she gets a hold of doesn't even bother to call the room where the undersecretary is to warn him of impending attack, but instead decides to take the elevator all the way up and deliver the warning in person. What cheap way to create suspense.
More unbelievable scenes follow, mostly at her dads house. The police delays from showing up and the neighborhood doesn't bat an eye when Lisa runs over a bad guy with a stolen car and smashes it frontally into her dads house. In the end Lisa, after fighting Jack tooth and nail is saved from the creep by her dad. Hey, she is a woman after all.
To sum up.There are some unintentional funny moments, a few funny stupid people and a cast that makes the best of a failing script bled dry of originality. If you happen to be a fan of Wes Craven don't go and see this movie: you'll see his image notched. If you have something better to do you might consider skipping it also. It isn't totally bad, it is just implausible and run of the mill.
A Bridge Too Far (1977)
Death in color..
When the allies dropped four airborne units(one a Polish brigade) into Holland near the end of 1944, only to have one of them defeated by unexpected resistance from German units and cheering crowds of Dutch, nobody took in account that they would make a movie about it some decades later. Perhaps if they had known, then their decisions would have been different, not that war gets to be more or less tolerable either way.
Cornelius Ryan provided the source material for the movie and if you want to try your hand on a book that holds the middle ground between a historical narrative and something readable 'A bridge too far' is certainly recommended. Ryan wrote several more books about the war, the Longest Day being also made into a movie some years prior to this one, but the one about Berlin never got made. Perhaps times had changed or that book was too much about German women raped by dudes from Siberia, I can't tell. We have Der Untergang as a substitute nowadays.
Mentioning the Longest Day reminds me of a question that has plagued me for a while now, which is: how and why did Sean Connery get to be promoted from Corporal in the infantry to Major-General of an airborne unit? This minor question is at the heart of the movie and it never gets explained. You might think I am pulling your leg, but after having seen this movie just now, this question actually is just a subquestion of the bigger one which goes: where are the people in this movie?
The movie plays out like a documentary filled with a fair share of Monthy Python stereo types, but without the intended silliness, and otherwise bland Americans. But maybe I am mistaken about intentions? The movie seems more like a race about who makes the least dumb mistakes and the Germans won, but only by a margin. Or perhaps we can say the Poles and Americans would have won, had they not been on the same team as the British.
This movie is noticeable different from that other Ryan movie where mistakes where made, but John Wayne was there to safe the day. Here no amount of upper lip stiffness, jolly ho hum and cigar gnawing can turn the impending defeat in anything else but one. And the funny bit: the Germans do not even have to lift a finger, just talk among the high brass a bit.For war is the business of high ranking officers who get mentioned in books and movies, the rest fulfill their duties by killing or getting killed.
While the star studded cast executes their moves, the only people who remotely resemble people are the Dutch, but again, only by a margin. The most silly is possibly James Fox who gets this amazing scene in which he drives past the troops under his command Jolly greeting those who are about to die. Dickie old boy, how is the leg? Still twitching, sir. Brave lad! Next scene sees Dickie's tank being brewed by a German 75 mm Pak, despite 25 pounders bombarding their position. Which makes one wonder why them Germans are only bombarded by airplanes after they shot to pieces the advance squad or why the English didn't use something heavier. But I am no general.
Some scenes later it is the Brits turn again to do something dumb by executing a frontal attack on a pillbox under the cover of broad daylight. Let's try that at night next time Hannibal Lector says. That is called learning on the job, for you. Pity it took some dead soldiers to learn that lesson, but I am sure he is used to dead bodies. The Germans some scenes later outdo the Brits by sending an armored recon unit across the enemy held side of the bridge which results in amazing carnage that has inspired painters. There is nothing so gripping as burning wrecks and dead bodies to inspire artists.
By this time one wonders what kind of movie this is supposed to be? If someone said it is an anti- war movie, than I might believe them forthwith. But we will never find out I suppose and the only thing one can say is that compared to that earlier Ryan movie it has far less people in it, but then, this one is in color, so who is complaining?
Gawd calling(gooodmorning America!)
After spending a third of a trillion dollars Ellie, played by Jodie Foster, finds herself at the other end of a worm hole. That is to say: back on Earth. It took her 18 seconds to do so.
Earth, inhabited by moronic creatures called humans, has just found itself to be the target of practical joker living on a planet orbiting Vega or thereabouts. Thereabouts cause that planet was probably just a relay station. It send them humans an instruction manual for building a device nobody on Vega or thereabouts could afford to build, hoping them dumb humans would do it. And they did. In fact, they made even two of them. How stupidly funny is that.
To their great embarrassment one of the earthlings appeared so they sent it back with some garbled message that would have the slow witted creatures pondering stuff for the rest of their pathetic existence.
What is next? Ellie asks her dead daddy, the guise the alien has assumed for her(and not Adolf H, which would have been funny). Well, we sent you back without a shred of evidence and nobody will believe you. And we erased all the tapes, and the audio and anything that could proof we exist. How about that? It will be just like.. a religion! You feel right at home!
Fine with me, Ellie says. For as we have found out from the movie, Ellie doesn't believe in gawd.. but she does believe in something after having had her trip to another world. So she has become a spiritual person so she can have intercourse with the religious guy named Palmer Joss without feeling ashamed for it. (In hindsight the painful look on her face when she kisses Palmer might very well be because Foster was a closeted lesbian, which by Jove would at least have made the movie more interesting if Ellie had been too. Nuke them straight people! )
So the whole movie, aptly named Contact, was about finding an excuse for the atheist (assumed closeted lesbian) Ellie to have (straight) intercourse with the Christian Palmer. Two third of a trillion dollars spent on matchmaking and brain reprogramming.. Does this movie get closure that way? Perhaps it does.
The more I think of this movie, the lower my scoring. The biggest part of the movie turns around a conflict between science and religion, in which the latter means: the Christian faith of the American kind. 95 percent of the humans are religious someone says to atheist Ellie, which is why she doesn't get selected at first. She could have replied: but only a third of them are Christian. So who will it be? A Christian volunteer? A Muslim one? A Jewish? A Buddhist? Which religion shall be required? And if it will be Christian, which denomination? The catholic one? Oh and did I tell you about my sexual orientation? Only 4% of the female population confesses themselves to be lesbian. And how about white vs black vs Asian? What race shall represent earth? But we just skip over that one shall we.. cause, darn it, this is America and there is just one American gawd and that is the white Christian one and no other exist!
And.. the American atheist gets to finally go after the American Christian dude and the first alien device gets blown to smithereens by an American religious nutcase cause them Americans prefer their own American atheist to go after all in their secretly build religious nutcase free intergalactic American travelling device version two so they can adorn the alien property with an American flag. Only they forgot to give her one.
The nicest part of the movie is the beginning sequence, in which we see no humans at all. The camera travels backwards from the planet into outer space. Cool that! In between there are some more nice shots of desert landscapes and some sequences about the planets. As long as there are no humans in it, the movie is actually nice.
Jodie Foster, how I like her, is at her worst here. She seems constantly on the brink of a nervous breakdown, about to scream or about to cry. Why did they send that nervous wreck to the aliens? No wonder they returned her and without any evidence so they will not send another one. Cause them humans are just too stupid to get that travelling through wormholes mucks with space and time. But you know.. Einstein is dead and with him all the brilliant scientists have died out.. Stephen Hawking? Never heard of the guy. Carl Sagan? Wasn't he a script writer for sci-fi movies? Higgs? Penrose? Witten? Just a bunch of loonies.
The movie has also Blofield in it. He is named Hadden. Hadden is a deus ex machina. When the plot grounds to a halt, he steps in with a lotta money and gets it floating again. Jup.. the movie is almost brilliant. But there aren't any cats in it though so it remains almost.
At the end of the movie Ellie is back were she started: in command of a large array of antennae listening to the universe. Did anything happen in between? Apparently not. It was all a dream probably or maybe she got back to another Earth in another universe? Isn't that her once deceased dad in the background walking toward her over a pearly white beach? What was it all about? Well we see her looking up at the night sky showing a milliard sparkling stars. She has become that spiritual person in which the scientist and the religious nutcase have become one. I feel at peace with the universe now. So let's depart with that gooey feeling. Yuck!
The Magnificent Seven (1960)
A sad swan song for the classic western
Maybe the Magnificent Seven is the swan song of the classic western, you know the ones in which men are meticulously shaved all the time, dress in spotless clothes and the weather only turns sour when it was needed. But most of all, they did what they did because of some noble principle(unless they were bad).
It is established early into the movie. Adams and Tanner step in when nobody wants to bury a dead Indian. They transport his corpse to the cemetery while opposed by nameless bigots who do not want an Indian in their graveyard. Even after death there is racism.
Adams seems to be one of those decent selfless gun for hire types(think lone ranger) and thus, when asked by a group of Mexicans to have him protect their village from a band of marauders, he accepts the dangerous job for a pittance. This raises the one importance question that will plague the movie, echoed by Eli Wallach: why? What makes a gunslinger like Adams decide to put his life on the line to do this thing for no good money at all?
I loathe to compare movies nowadays, but in the seven samurai there was a very good reason: they were lordless fighters who were trapped in a rigid social structure that allowed for no social mobility in desperate times. In other words: they were doomed to it. Fight or starve. But in the late 19th century US men were far doomed in that manner in a land of opportunity that experienced an economic boom.
Sturges thus needs to establish another motive, so he has Tanner supply an answer of a kind: it seemed to be a good idea at the time. This might have been a sarcastic Bruce Willis line from say Die Hard, but this isn't a tongue in cheek movie because it takes itself pretty serious indeed. Wrong answer therefore. Seven against forty(six actually)is no good idea at any time. It almost feels as if Sturges is caught in between the mood of times: the spaghetti westerns will supply other reasons: greed, revenge, and other less noble principles. The classic westerns had their own noble reasons, but they are never supplied. In fact, when the villagers betray the seven, the latter even come back to save them again.
The movie never explains why the men do what they do, even if their behavior is at odds with their characters. Take Harry Luck, a fortune seeker, who tags along because he believes there is more to the job than the twenty dollars pay for 6 weeks being shot at. Why would he think that Adams is hiding something? Does it follow from what went before? Is it made believable in the movie? But most of all, why does Adams take him along, knowing that Luck might bail the moment he finds out there is nothing else but the twenty dollars and the likely possibility of death?
Sturges cannot shake loose from the confines of the earlier movie and the prescriptions of the classic western. He could have the villagers or Adams dupe the others. Suggesting more wealth that there was, but that would made them look bad and that cannot be. He could have spend more time on character building, thus giving personal reasons.. which actually seems the way he is heading, but alas there is not enough movie to do that for seven characters. Not even the character of Adams is well developed in the movie.
The central weakness of this movie is this lack of proper motivation for the characters involved and the failure to establish their personalities. This would not have such a great weakness if the rest made up for it with, say, good gunfights. But they are weak and awkward at times.
This leaves us actually with a weak movie that cannot deal with the cultural transition from 15th Century Japan to 19h Century us in an acceptable way. Sturges is just not up to the challenge. The movie therefore simply pales in comparison to The Big Country(2 years older) that sees a man resisting violence out of principle and A fistful of Dollars that followed four years later in which the main characters are no longer driven by noble goals. As such the movie is not so much interesting by itself, but rather as an in between piece of work. The last of the classic western and, perhaps, showing an embryonic development of what was to come.
The Andromeda Strain (1971)
Without a doubt an interesting tale, but...
For sure, the Andromeda Strain has an interesting premise! The inhabitants of a village in the middle of nowhere all die where they stand, but for a newborn and an oldster. The suspect? An alien microscopic life form carried to earth by a returning satellite. Thus a group of scientists is put together, more or less under duress, to investigate events. First at ground zero and later in an underground secret lab somewhere in a desert in Nevada.
But after this promising start the movie makers forgot something. Shouldn't they put a timer on the whole thing? Granted they do that, but very late into the movie and even at that point they forget to inform group of investigators until even later because they scientists are incommunicado with the rest of the world.
So the drama that is for the grab is lost and what conflicts arise never lead to anything serious that you would expect when disparate people have to work under pressure to save the world from extinction. This missed opportunity is born out by little mistakes, such as the fact that the men all are clean shaven even after days of hard work. In fact the whole movie looks crispy and clean.
There is even drama fully cooked and ready when some members start to suspect that the alien life form might have something to do with biological warfare. But that moment of tension sizzle out to nothing. Another conflict arises when the scientists advocate to nuke the village, but the politicians hesitate. But it is hardly an issue that impacts the plot. While it should have as it leads up to a twist in the movie.
The movie focuses on the scientific investigation using instruments that look hopelessly dated nowadays. A sizable part of the movie has the team go through a sixteen hour decontamination procedure involving a slow descend through five levels of the underground lab that ought to impress the viewers. And I would agree such painstaking thoroughness is impressive and a pain to watch to. And we then see them do the meticulously scientific research for another big part of the movie, which is again an awesome testimonial to the scientific method, but at times feels as exciting as watching paint dry. Blinking computer screens with unintelligible numbers don't do it for me. It is boring.
The b rate actors are unable to add to the tension arch which doesn't mean they do a bad job, but they are just not able to amend for the lack of drama like a Henry Fonda can. He can make any dull line of conversation seem interesting but the actors that are billed here aren't up to it. At times the actors looked nailed to the ground, standing up erect and delivering their lines in an almost monotone voice. So now I really saw what wooden acting looks like.
All in all the movie is still watchable while you are doing something else as well. For once this might be a movie that actually might do a lot better when remade. I suspect the novel by Crichton is still good material. Just add some more dialog and drama. All ready to go.
Have some more bullets, please.
It is against my method of reviewing to compare one movie to another and I won't do so here either, but I want to mention that Jean Reno played a great role in the movie Leon as an social inept assassin who gets saddled with a teen girl. There is however nothing remarkable about 22 Bullets or The immortal(L'Immortal) as it is called in France.
Reno plays Mattei a retired gangster who gets gunned down in an underground garage by an unknown group of men for unknown reasons. Instead of dying he survives the 22 bullets that hit him and it is obvious that he is going for some payback time. The hit men send one of their own to the hospital to finish the work they started, but he kills the wrong person.
The next one and half hour we follow Mattei down a beaten path figuring out who the hit men are, why they tried to kill him and killing them one after the other. This trail of dead bodies would have given setups for some special deaths, like having the guy with the dogs killed by his dogs, or killed with an overdoses of cocaine, for Mattei catches him in a drugs lab, but nothing of the kind is ever used. It is pretty boring run-of-the-mill what you get to see.
The movie keeps forgetting important stuff. For instance Mattei is numb in his right hand but yet he can steer a motorcycle several times in the movie during chases. How the heck is Mattei going to control the throttle with his numb right hand?
At yet another time we witness how the female cop is being spied upon in her car so the hit men can find out where Mattei's family is, but a few scenes later we see Mattei planning with the same cop in the same car and apparently the hit men are now not listening in.
All kinds of silliness abounds. At one moment Mattei has to liberate his young son from the bad guys. So he jumps on the windscreen of the car, then proceeds to pound the guy against the car slamming him repeatedly, while he knows his son is locked up in the boot and must have been terrified to death. At another moment Mattei is fighting with someone in a kitchen. He gets overpowered, and just right at that time the cops bust in to save him.
The police is, of course, hugely inept so Mattei can get away with killing his enemies unopposed. At one moment the police botches a tailing job when they try to find out where he goes by chasing him around town with cars. With such an inept law enforcement agency Mattei can even get away with gunning people down in broad daylight in the streets.
One watches this movie, is baffled by the silliness and looks for any redeeming qualities. Well, some attempts a depth are made, but really there isn't much here that warrants any further attention. A b-movie at best.
Gangs of New York (2002)
As a young kid Leonardo DiCaprio's sees his dad killed by Daniel Day- Lewis in a street squabble between immigrants of all feathers and the natives. Not the Indian natives mind you, but those white dudes born and raised in the US from fathers who stole the country from those other natives a few generations before, as opposed to all the immigrants that come over from Europe and want their share of prosperity there and then. Get of my property! So DiCaprio swears to do Day-Lewis in when he has grown up. The movie then fast forwards sixteen years into the future to come to a halt around the time of the civil war. We learn that Leonardo's desire to kill Day-Lewis has not dampened yet and he learned all kinds of usual skills that help progress him and society towards a better one.Of course not: he just knows how to kill people with a knife.
Perhaps the movie has some deeper meaning by showing how utter vapid the life of Di Caprio is as it is solely geared towards one violent goal. If he is to represent the Irish immigrants that came to eek out an existence it is lost on me. Blame me for not getting it.
The next two hours then might see interesting things about the historical background of the US in the late 19th century or even about the life of the immigrants, but nope.. it is all about a gang of criminals. The kind that plague society any time in any setting and is filled with thugs, hoodlums, scumbags, crooks, sadists and profiteers and anyone else preying on other people. But perhaps that was the message?The US is made by criminals?
It takes DiCaprio around two hours to do in Day-Lewis, which he could have done by gunning the guy down in the first 15 minutes, but nope, he needs to linger because of reasons. Moral ones. DiCaprio shows nothing redeemable and what I see is a person who has thrown away his life and sense by wanting to destroy another for nothing but revenge. No noble goal is guiding him. It is just bloody revenge.Get a life dude! There is some kind of romancing going on between him and Cameron Diaz, which is probably in there just to extend the movie even further for it feels like they just go through the motions. Diaz is a unlikable as the others, only she is female, so maybe that is her excuse.
For my life I can't figure out why anyone would sit through this movie that has such unlikable lurid characters. Perhaps the acting is great, but really, why would you watch two hours of bloody violence, an awkward romance and nothing else? There is another movie about gangs called the Godfather, which is also about a group of criminals and also about immigrants. It has drama, character building and other things going for it. This movie just can't compare to it. It is almost as if Scorsese wanted to redo the Godfather in another time, like a precursor, but simply lacks the quality of writing to help him tell the tale. Perhaps Scorsese might have given Shakespeare a try by turning it into a west side story kind of thing, but it has nothing of the love story, nothing of the sad tale. It is just a boring movie about one guy wanting to do in another and taking two hours to do it.
Don Quixote: a tragedy and a comedy
So let's not get too close-minded here and, for the sake of argument, assume the premise: that there are, or were, aliens at work on the moon, either on the near or far side or both. And not only on the moon, but on mars and the sun and the earth as this documentary has it.
So how would you go about it to make people believe it?
Let's look at this very unclear old black and white picture of some part of the moon that shows what looks like an artificially created construction because it might resemble the tower of a nuclear plant and therefore it might be a nuclear plant that might be used to make nuclear devices that could be used for offensive or defensive means, hence we are under a threat, just like in the cold war! And we cannot do anything about it and that is why the government doesn't tell us and wants it to remain a secret! It would start a nation wide crisis and as a result the nation would collapse and be send back to the stone age.
Why not build your own telescope then and check out the moon? I read you can now get telescopes to discover 1 km wide objects on the surface of the moon. So that should allow you to see those 22 mile high and wide structures.
But nope. Instead you make a documentary with people with vague credentials (Researcher? What kind of title is that?) who use the word 'might' a lot and conjecture up a whole race of human-like aliens and bemoan government led conspiracies, based on hearsay, flights of fantasies, bad pictures and computer enhanced imagery. And even at some point suggest space battles between aliens. Yep: star wars.
The documentary slowly progresses to its climax, after showing and telling the same thing over and over again and the climax is actually the low point, but an important one as the real truth gets exposed. Supposed pictures of a dead alien woman recovered by the otherwise unrecorded Apollo 20 mission are shown and then a 'researcher' tells us that even if it is a fake it is a clear sign that there is an attempt to misguide people, hence it is a sign of a cover up, hence it is a sign that something is there to be covered up.
And there you have it. The truth that gets exposed here is not that there are aliens on the moon or government conspiracies but the truth that facts do not matter: when facts stand in the way of truth then they get pushed aside, for it is the 'truth' that there are aliens busying themselves with humanity and it is the truth the government knows it and hides it.
It is this documentary that is the conspiracy. And the conspirators see themselves as heroes. But these heroes are fighting windmills. Don Quixotes. In the wikipedia about Don Quixote one can find a very apt quote from Harold Bloom about it, preferring the glory of fantasy over the real world which includes imminent death
And that is what this documentary is. A fantasy, a flight of imagination, the exposure of the silliness of humanity and the sadness one can experience when people, like some astronauts, delude themselves merely because they want to believe something. It is a tragedy and a comedy. It is life.