bilajahmet
Joined May 2023
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews6
bilajahmet's rating
At this point, I would argue that the documentary presents itself more as a piece of narrative-driven propaganda than an objective, fact-based investigation. A credible documentary should lay out verified facts, provide multiple perspectives, and allow the audience to draw their own conclusions. Unfortunately, this production seems to abandon that journalistic standard.
While I am unsure if this criticism is directly applicable to the OceanGate incident alone, there is a broader concern regarding platforms like Netflix increasingly serving as tools for narrative control, often appearing to prioritize political agendas over public interest.
The film disproportionately places blame on OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush, which appears to be a convenient scapegoating tactic. This reminds me of how all wrongdoings in certain scandals are often condensed onto a single figure, much like the late Jeffrey Epstein. Thankfully, the documentary stops short of implicating Rush in events as unrelated as 9/11 - but the tone leans toward exaggeration.
After watching for about an hour, the bias becomes unmistakable. The same viewpoint is reiterated using different voices and scenes, all focused on blaming one individual without adequately exploring wider systemic issues. This undermines the documentary's credibility.
One recurring term in the documentary is "third-party investigation." While the term may sound authoritative, the film never specifies who this third party is. Transparency is critical, and this vague language casts doubt on the legitimacy of the investigation. Additionally, the documentary references a collaboration with Boeing - a company still reeling from the 737 MAX tragedies. Ironically, one might wonder if Boeing had dedicated more diligence to its own aircraft testing rather than external ventures, the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines disasters might have been prevented.
Furthermore, the documentary omits critical questions. For instance: Which third party authorized the OceanGate expedition? Who was the congressperson the CEO alluded to? What were their political ties and roles in this matter? These omissions raise serious concerns about the film's depth and intent.
In conclusion, this documentary felt more like an attempt to shape a narrative rather than to inform. I had high expectations and eagerly awaited its release. Sadly, it turned out to be a biased production that offered little in terms of new insight or meaningful analysis - ultimately making the two-hour viewing experience feel like a waste of time.
While I am unsure if this criticism is directly applicable to the OceanGate incident alone, there is a broader concern regarding platforms like Netflix increasingly serving as tools for narrative control, often appearing to prioritize political agendas over public interest.
The film disproportionately places blame on OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush, which appears to be a convenient scapegoating tactic. This reminds me of how all wrongdoings in certain scandals are often condensed onto a single figure, much like the late Jeffrey Epstein. Thankfully, the documentary stops short of implicating Rush in events as unrelated as 9/11 - but the tone leans toward exaggeration.
After watching for about an hour, the bias becomes unmistakable. The same viewpoint is reiterated using different voices and scenes, all focused on blaming one individual without adequately exploring wider systemic issues. This undermines the documentary's credibility.
One recurring term in the documentary is "third-party investigation." While the term may sound authoritative, the film never specifies who this third party is. Transparency is critical, and this vague language casts doubt on the legitimacy of the investigation. Additionally, the documentary references a collaboration with Boeing - a company still reeling from the 737 MAX tragedies. Ironically, one might wonder if Boeing had dedicated more diligence to its own aircraft testing rather than external ventures, the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines disasters might have been prevented.
Furthermore, the documentary omits critical questions. For instance: Which third party authorized the OceanGate expedition? Who was the congressperson the CEO alluded to? What were their political ties and roles in this matter? These omissions raise serious concerns about the film's depth and intent.
In conclusion, this documentary felt more like an attempt to shape a narrative rather than to inform. I had high expectations and eagerly awaited its release. Sadly, it turned out to be a biased production that offered little in terms of new insight or meaningful analysis - ultimately making the two-hour viewing experience feel like a waste of time.
Compared to season 1, obviously one felf disappointed but considered it as a standalone season, it was beyond good. Stakes were high regarding number of characters but don't know why tension was missing. Character development for some characters was amazing but for some it lacks the depth. "The Front man" acting was really good, even at some points i assumed maybe he gonna really join the hero side (the way he save some characters). Certain deaths were shocking and this time games weren't at that much entertaining but overall except ep 1 initial 25 min, everyone going to be enjot this season as well.
The episode was okay, but I didn't feel fully connected to it. While it focused heavily on war and fighting, I never felt genuinely worried about what would happen to my favorite characters. The action scenes were visually impressive, but the tension just wasn't there. There were also some plot issues that didn't make sense-like, why would two enemies suddenly want to negotiate in the middle of a war? It seemed out of place and made me wonder what the writers were thinking.
Sauron's power was displayed well, but at times he came across as more foolish than intimidating in this episode. The death scene of a supporting character at the start was well done, but since I didn't even know her name, it lacked emotional impact for me.
The episode really needed to develop its characters more, especially the supporting ones. For instance, when women and children were running for cover and being attacked by fireballs, the scenes were intense, but I wish they had shown more of their fear and struggles. It could have really increased the tension if their stories were explored further.
Overall, it was a good episode and definitely exciting leading up to the finale. This season has been much better compared to the last one, and the recent episodes have shown significant improvement. I'm looking forward to seeing how it all concludes in the finale.
Sauron's power was displayed well, but at times he came across as more foolish than intimidating in this episode. The death scene of a supporting character at the start was well done, but since I didn't even know her name, it lacked emotional impact for me.
The episode really needed to develop its characters more, especially the supporting ones. For instance, when women and children were running for cover and being attacked by fireballs, the scenes were intense, but I wish they had shown more of their fear and struggles. It could have really increased the tension if their stories were explored further.
Overall, it was a good episode and definitely exciting leading up to the finale. This season has been much better compared to the last one, and the recent episodes have shown significant improvement. I'm looking forward to seeing how it all concludes in the finale.