Bad Actor: A Hollywood Ponzi Scheme

Wanna be filmmakers retell a story in a way that adds absolutely nothing new- I don't understand how so many people get funding for a film, then get corporations to buy in and everyone makes nice fat stacks.

I'm not sure why these new directors choose to add actors to make a story inside of a story- it's pointless, adds nothing to the story, and is an odd direction choice to make when you had a fascinating story on its own without these weird breaks.

That being said, I'm not sure how I feel, especially regarding 'investors'- it's almost like the old adage that's been prescient since the beginning of time has suddenly been seen as unnecessary. NEVER DO BUSINESS OR LOAN FUNDS WITH FAMILY OR FRIENDS. Full stop. No good can come from it and often leads to disastrous outcomes. You would be far better served by throwing money into a paper bag, starting a large fire, then soaking said sack in gasoline, then tossing it on the fire.

The egotistical people surrounding Hollywood has always been obvious, but watching them behave so foolishly without even the most rudimentary due diligence is crazy; family and/or friends were victims because people such as this prey upon that trust and exploit it until the bitter end. I don't understand the mentality of 'oh he had phone calls right in front of me!' when that is one of the easiest and silliest maneuvers to fall for. It takes absolutely no effort to perform perfunctory tasks to research before investing hundreds of thousands (MUCH LESS 1.3 MILLION DOLLARS! WUT?!) that would at least open your eyes to the nonsense yet so many will charge full-steam ahead, and then actually wring their hands and clutch their pearls that they could be victims.

Look, I get it, being a victim sucks. Losing money really is horrifying. But I would suppose this to anyone considering placing themselves into the same position- if you were asked to place a stack of $1000 on the hood of your car and walk away, in the middle of a busy Walmart parking lot, and you were told you would receive $10,000 if you leave it there for 30 minutes, would you? I promise it will be surveilled by armed guards hiding in plain sight and I guarantee it isn't going anywhere! You've known me twenty years, and I'm conducting an experiment on the susceptibility of human nature! There will be film crews all around!

If you would let this happen, just send that money to a homeless shelter, at least it will help someone in an honest way.

Con men/women (yes women will do this, too) is a term short for CONfidence, which operates under the assumption that the criminal will prey on your trust and belief that you're too smart to fall for this. Do not allow someone to turn you into a victim-if they're angry you won't do whatever it is they've asked for, they're not a good person. Their reaction will tell you everything you need to know about their character and intentions.

This documentary tells you everything you already know about it before you watch it. There is no new information in it. The glossy production can't make up for the lack of depth. It begins with an interviewer showing amazement at anything she's told and devolves into long explanations of what a Ponzi is. There is a distinct lack of depth, so it's boring as hell. Given the subjectmatter, this really should have been an interesting documentary, but if you look beyond the gloss, you get something that looks as though it was created by a university student. It only really gets into interesting territory halfway through.

It's madness that she (the filmmaker) CHOSE to tell a story via documentary, when she had no more than fifteen minutes of testimony and zero evidence - this is horrible! Apparently she wasted her budget on licensing clips from major motion pictures (a very cheap, lazy and tired tactic, I might add) to zhuzh up and punctuate the OPINIONS, yes the opinions of tangential people to the crime - it is absolutely rediculous that she entered into this project unprepared, and on the hopes of a wing and a prayer! Ironically this could certainly be one of the projects that Zach used to scam folks by utilizing to gain legitimacy - terrible TERRIBLE.

I have never seen a "director" craft a documentary such that they place themself as the central figure. This young person seems to be cosplaying as a director rather than doing her job. The protagonist isn't that interesting and the inexperienced leader of the film is equally uninteresting. This is like a college project that somehow got funded by a rich uncle and sold to Hulu... Yikes all around. Of all the interesting criminal stories in the world, this might be at the bottom of the list. I actually can't think of much more to write and can't pick out any positives... there is a minimum character requirement.

What a giant colossal waste of my time and investor's money. Why was there so much time spent on a long boring explanation of a Ponzi scheme? Why were we watching people audition for roles in the "recreation?" Why do I care about these random people's thoughts on the case? Where was the statement from the wife? Of all the many, many people defrauded, they couldn't get more interviews from them? Was this supposed to be a documentary about Zach Horwitz or a documentary about making a documentary? It was terrible and even when the guy passes by on his way into the courtroom she doesn't even try to get a comment or reaction in any kind of way. I cannot believe Hulu actually bought this piece of flaming hot garbage. Definitely looks like something from my one class of film production in undergrad 20 years ago. Go read the article in the New Yorker or listen to the podcast Scamfluencers: ep 3 or heck just go to Reddit...all way better options than wasting your time on this!