dneher's reviews

Because of the promos, I thought I would be in for an onslaught of conspiratorial sensationalism. Instead, I got what amounts to a behind-the-scenes look at the Commission's creation and investigation. I cringed whenever the film veered into examining evidence that the Commission either did not have access to or was not inclined to consider, but the film handles those tangents judiciously and with restraint; not much fuel is added to the conspiratorial fires. The clashing personalities and agendas of the members of the Commision depicted in the film probably will be of most interest to political wonks, but there's plenty for the rest of us to enjoy, too.

This film seems meant to be an acompaniment to a school curriculum on early Virginia history. It earnestly, if somewhat ploddingly, tries to make the case that Virginia was the bellwether of cultural and political progress in the New World. Sometimes the case is convincing (first representative assembly), sometimes not (first "Thanksgiving").

The film modifies the original story in minor ways and injects some humor --- not exactly Dickens' strong suit --- into the proceedings. The humor, however, is hit or miss and often veers into farce. Also, while color-blind casting of family members is probably the wave of the future, I found that it interfered with my ability to suspend disbelief.

This is an interesting story well told and would deserve a high rating based on the story alone. However, the production is substandard. The music is nonstop and too loud and frequently causes the viewer to strain to hear what is being said.

Dr. Lewis likely has interviewed more serial killers than anyone else on the planet, but it is doubtful whether all that talk has produced any useful research on the subject. Her seeming determination to discover multiple personalities in every serial killer she interviews damages her credibility and exposes her stunning gullibility.

At first I tried to put myself in the shoes of India Oxenberg, bearing in mind how young she was. However, any sympathy turned to exasperation as her stubborn inability to learn caused the misjudgments to pile up, and as she demonstrated a willingness to endure unceasing degradation. Ultimately, I just wearied of listening to her.

This series is more of a response to Morris's book than a video adaptation of it. The filmmakers view MacDonald's story with plenty of skepticism, as does Morris himself in one clip.

As others have noted, this series is as much about Michelle McNamara as it is about the California rapes and murders. McNamara's story --- a sad but unremarkable descent into obsession and addiction --- is simply not interesting enough to justify the extended treatment it gets. The series is on surer footing when its focus shifts to the crimes and, in particular, to the victims of those crimes.

I suspect that Armstrong hoped that this video would help rehabilitate his reputation, but his performance does him no favors. His petulance and self-absorption are on full display. With his deep pockets and his ready access to media, Armstrong tried to ruin the lives of people who he knew were telling the truth; yet he is more concerned in this video with what he imagines to be the world's unfair treatment of him.

The clinic staff's compassion for dogs that everyone else has given up on is touching, but the movie is problematic. We see two successful (so far) courses of treatment, and a few others are mentioned, but we don't know overall success rates. Given the clinic's mix of traditional and holistic approaches, how can one determine in any individual case which treatments worked and which ones had no effect? Dr. Goldstein even acknowledges at one point that applying scientific rigor to his methods is not his thing. I doubt that this movie will persuade anyone who is not already a believer.

The information we learn about Darwin's voyage, work, and faith will reward a viewing. That information takes up about half the film. The other half, consisting mostly of comments by fundamentalist Christians, is much less interesting.

It turns out that watching a rich guy's video of his summer vacation is not a whole lot more entertaining than watching your neighbors' video of theirs. The circumstances of Admiral Yamamoto's fatal crash and the crash site itself have been well-examined by historians. The only new ground that this vanity project breaks is the dubious discovery of a gold tooth at the crash site, a discovery that the movie investigates at tedious length.

Given its crowdfunding origin, this movie is likely to be viewed mostly by hobby gamers, who will learn little that they do not already know. However, the director chose well the five designers to profile, particularly the three lesser known ones. Their struggles to get their games to the marketplace, while not especially revelatory, are plenty interesting.

The most dispiriting take-away from this movie is its illustration of how vulnerable the officials of a struggling city can be to the blandishments of a savvy entrepreneur whose project promises to restore some luster to the city. The problem is more troubling than normal in this case because public funds were mis-spent in the service of a parochial religious enterprise.

This a Jakob Dylan promo video masquerading as a documentary on the Laurel Canyon music scene of the mid 60's. Dylan gets far more screen time than any of the ostensible subjects of the movie. He even takes his turn as a talking head.

I would have preferred a little less re-enactment and a little more history. What were the fates of the deportees? Did any deportees return? How many persons were indicted? How many indictments led to trials, and how many trials led to convictions? The interviews with present-day townspeople are interesting, though.

The series aspires to be an exposé of police corruption and brutality but is stuffed with hokey backstories and subplots --- not to mention the main story --- that too often do not ring true. Take the court proceedings. Please. In this post-Law & Order era, it is disconcerting to watch scenes that are a throwback to Perry Mason in their disregard for proper courtroom procedure and rules of evidence. What's more, the final court scene is shamelessly lifted from To Kill a Mockingbird. Speaking of which, watch that movie for a more plausible portrayal of a criminal justice system that has lost its way.

The filmmakers take a few tidbits that have been known to New Testament historians for decades and use those to spin a largely speculative account of Jesus' final days. As if sensing the thinness of the material, they pad the movie with several unnecessary and unnecessarily graphic scenes of violence.