Reviews written by registered user
|16 reviews in total|
I watched the movie, Indoctrinate U, on recommendation of a friend, and
I have to say I was excited, I like the subject matter. I feel the
discussion of political as well as just the simple teacher-student
power relationship is an interesting subject. Unfortunately, that was
really the high point of the movie, my anticipation.
He uses techniques that only bad documentarians (see Michael Moore) use. These include but aren't limited to:
1. The attack interview - He sticks a mike and camera in people's faces and they are understandably flustered, you would be to if the banality of your day was interrupted in that manner. So using the footage as he does is questionable, at best.
2. He edits, a lot - The interviews are cut up, a lot. He actually cuts off a women describing why the university has a women's center, and not a men's center, mid-list. This is disingenuous as it seems as though, at least some of the time, the editor is shaping the interviewee's thoughts not the interviewee. I actually thought there was something wrong with my DVD, until I realized there were just that many edits.
3. He voices over - This sometimes can be used effectively, but Maloney doesn't seem to understand the power this gives him. Also, this is a sub-point, he represents the other-side of arguments. So he will be portraying someone, or thing, in a positive light and simply say the that whoever was on the other side of the argument says "this". The problem is that he rarely quotes and never has the people that are legitimately on the other side of the argument on screen. He more than once misconstrues an argument on the other side.
4. Way too much content - The director, oddly, chooses to talk about many, at least 8, different things. They are all on the same theme no doubt, and all interesting, but that is way too much for a movie, maybe enough for a mini-series. The effect of this is at no point in the movie do you feel you have a true understanding of an issue or event.
5. His warrants don't match his claims - He says, as the title says, that colleges are propagating liberal doctrine. Well, I think he quite successfully proved that some are trying to, but he never shows any statistical data that people leaving college are any more or less liberal than those entering. He doesn't prove that liberal professors have any effect on their students. Which to me seems like an easy point to make, so it's curiously missing from the movie.
6. What he talks about is skewed - All the discussion in the movie is based around very minute cases. So although many of the people were legitimately wronged, there is no evidence that this is a pervasive problem, only that these people had a poor experiences.
The problems in this movie are really simple. He should sit down and watch Errol Morris documentaries for days and he will see what a quality documentarian can do.
I'm giving this movie a poor grade because of his techniques not his statements.
Strictly for those interested in the subject matter, I wouldn't advise anyone to watch it though. 3/10
The World According to Monsanto is a good documentary about a great
subject. Monsanto has received many condemnations in its quest for
profits but this documentary provides a slightly more scathing review
of the company.
The movie gives the obligatory history of Monsanto and it's damage to the world. And just when it looks like it is going to continue in mediocrity the movie changes gears and really attacks the subject at hand. Monsanto, and other multi-nationals, have for years now tried to effect people that make decisions and oversee "the public good". This movie, in the latter half, attacks Monsanto as a company which strives to blacklist dissenters and keep the truth from seeing the light of day. The movie uses various primary witnesses and at a couple great interviews. I would go into more detail but I prefer brevity.
The movie in my mind has three faults, interviews, a bleeding heart and the internet. The interviews were at times well done but at some points the interviewer spoke too much or the interviewee was lackluster (Dr. Michael Hansen was a horrendous interviewee). Occasionally the movie goes too far and essentially tells you FEEL BAD when all that needs to be said is this is what's happening (town of Anniston the old guy in the wheelchair). Finally, the documentarian uses the internet, even wikipedia, as a way to show the audience her search for the facts. I felt that it diminished credibility and wasn't an effective visually. (Yes, I know she didn't actually only use the internet for this documentary...)
A movie for people who wish to be called informed or like to know what's in their milk. 8/10
The film is based around the 2002 Bolivian Presidential Election and
the Gonzalo "Goni" Sanchez de Lozada Campaign.
The movie starts by introducing us to "Goni" and his flailing campaign and then quickly brings in GCS, Greenberg Carville Shrum, (yes, the James Carville) is an international political consulting firm. The film starts off kind of awkwardly and there is really nothing special about the first 3rd of the documentary.
But the movie quickly kicks into gear about 30 min. in and never pulls up. Rachel Boynton, the director, does a good job of just presenting facts, never bashing the audience in the head with something that can be seen. She asks pretty good, not great, questions of those she interviews and presents people fairly throughout the film. The movie centers on the topic of how can international consulting firms participate in a democracy that isn't their own. The movie shows the personal feelings of the consultants for GCS and the effects GCS has had on Boilivia.
That all being said I didn't like the camera angles or the audio. The audio was inconsistent; interviewer's voice was not miked so her questions were almost impossible to hear. The camera, at times, makes you feel not a part of the action.
The movie is for anyone who watches the news or would like to consider themselves "well informed." 8/10
Story of a state congressional race in Texas 2002, Rick Green* (R) vs.
Patrick Rose (D).
The story's characters are only mildly entertaining; Rick Green is the most interesting with Mr. Rose being kind of introverted at times. Rick Green is a hardcore Christian reassuring himself that either he wins his seat back or "He (God) has another plan for (him)." The story is woven in with a side story of the democratic ticket in Texas and the history of the Democratic Party in Texas. The side story of the race for the governorship and the senate seat is pretty bland and not worth watching. The narration is a tad to telling bashing the audience in the head with some things that should be shown. The movie is only likable because of the subject matter.
For political people only - 7/10
Story tells of a Right-wing conspiracy out to get Bill and Hillary
Clinton. There are some of issues with the movie: 1. It throws you a
lot of hard to decipher information at you and some of it is bullshit,
e.g. when introducing people it throws you a little mini biography; 2.
Doesn't show the other side enough, or at all. There are others but
those are the main issues.
The movie paints this picture of a number of people out to get the president and represents evidence ranging from good to tenuous. The movie allows only mild articulation that Whitewater, Monica Lewinski and other Clinton scandals to be the result of good reporters gone bad and allows zero articulation by those on the other side. I happen to agree, somewhat, with the movie's premise but disliked the representation.
If you're close minded don't even bother, you will hate it, for those with an open mind and politically opinionated. 7/10
I love movies especially comedies, but this movie completely missed the
What I Liked: Jessica Alba and Elizabeth Banks in all their beautifulness What I Didn't like: The lack-luster score, the bad plot development, the bad comedic timing, the complete lack of character development etc. basically name something that could go wrong and it went wrong in this film...
Bottom Line: The movie's only redeeming quality are the two leading women's beauty, the rest is completely devoid of anything resembling cinematic value. In fairness to the script the writing was better than the movie, their were points where execution fell way below the potential.
This movie is only for die-hard fans of Alba, Banks and Eckhart if your not one of them don't watch the movie.
First I just want to come out with it, I'm for the withdrawal from
Iraq, so I am partial to this film.
OK moving on.
The talking heads were poorly done. The Documentarians gave us all the background info on each esteemed contributor, but no time to digest. I felt as though giving 10 sec intro for each talking head would have made each contribution stronger. My other issue with the film is that it kind of zooms through some issues. The first issue being America supplied both the Iranians and the Iraqis with weapons during the Iraq-Iran war. There were others, times when they were being slightly revisionist in their history.
Not for the average bloke. If you like to feel "in the know" and enjoy documentaries it is a must.
I watched Southland Tales for the first time, and I was taken aback.
This movie was an orgy of ideas and creativity, unfortunately that is
not a complement.
You are struck by, at first, references to Christianity and politics, nothing new, but the movie adds all these layers, other religions, pop. culture references, scientific references and Marxism. I felt I was always struggling to keep up to all the themes.
The film however has an excellent score, and is overall superficially enjoyable.
Southland Tales is not for Republicans or those who search for a concrete morals or themes to their movies.
Hacking Democracy, to me, comes way out of left field, so when my
friend recommended I was skeptical but willing to watch. The movie
introduces you to voting fraud via a mother and some very dedicated
watchdogs. The movie takes you through the personal fight of these
people and never ceases to provide the big-picture as well.
Come to the movie with an open-mind and take the ride. The movie does a good job of not coming off as extreme or radical and constantly roots itself in the moment. The people who are fighting for a more open system are very easy to identify with, and overall the movie succeeds in its goals.
Hacking Democracy takes an extreme position, but does it with Apple Pie. 10/10
The movie fails to transcend the screen, and stays simply as a piece of
film, a point in history.
The movie focuses on a group of people attempting to change the outcome of Ohio in the 2004 Presidential Election. The film presents, in the beginning, the views of exclusively democrats, but gradually things open up.
The movie's true fault lies in the fact the only take aways one has from the film are factual and concrete, no ideas to be applied to other situations. But in documenting the lives of these individuals during the 2004 race the movie succeeds.
So Goes the Nation is movie for the truly politically motivated or those interested in the 2004 Pres. Election. 7/10
|Page 1 of 2:|| |