Tag: Documentary

Bieber Bieber Bieber.

I found myself surprised that Mr. Bieber had a second documentary coming out to DVD. The first one was pretty big news, Justin Bieber: Never Say Never. Hell, it made me tear up a bit, and was in 3D. It made over $10 million in the box office, I am pretty sure (which is a lot for that type of movie). A lot of mother fuckers saw it. A lot of them probably saw it multiple times.

However this documentary is a different beast. Justin Bieber: Always Believe. For some reason it isn’t called Always Beliebe. Missed out on the pun, fuckers.

Anyways, this one went straight to DVD. I am pretty sure it was made for TV, and probably was on TV first, but I literally cannot find out which channel made it or showed it. I really can’t find it. Finding info on this fucking documentary is basically impossible. Which is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of problems.

This picture reminds me of the Nick Cage rape eyes pic.

Holy shit. I might have been scammed. There is a different documentary called Justin Bieber: All Around The World that exists and came out last year. But this one I can’t even fucking find on IMDB. But I totally watched it. What the fuck is this shit?

I think this is a fucking fake documentary, trying to make money off of people, despite you know, not being sponsored by Justin Bieber in any way. Here is how I know. One: Justin Bieber isn’t even in this movie. I cannot tag him. He has created no new content, no special shows, no intereviews for it. The only way he is featured is fucking repetitive photos shown while people are talking (each photo shown at least 5-6 times probably, they keep popping up), and old interviews when he was like, sixteen.

Most of the documentary is how he has matured, how his music fits a wider audience now (not just little girls), and his love of hip hop in his new CD. But you know, features only interviews of him when he was 15. Not even Usher is in this movie, despite how much he is talked about.

What is talked about? Two things mainly, after his love of hip hop. How much swag he has, which was probably said over twenty times in 65 minutes, and his relationship with Selena Gomez. Unfortunately, they don’t talk about how they aren’t together any more, so it ends happily, unlike Katy Perry: Part Of Me. What’s even worse about the Selena Gomez section, is they show a clip of them on some random red carpet together, over five times. THE SAME FUCKING CLIP. AGGGH!

Speaking of fucking repetition. To make matters worse, they also repeat the clips the interviewers say. So these people I never heard of (random producers, internet bloggers, company people), don’t even have enough material for the 70 minutes to talk about. At least twice did I hear them repeat an interviewee clip. What. The. Fuck.

I can’t describe this documentary’s legality at all, but it made it on the “Coming Soon” June list for dvd releases at the local rental shop. Like officially printed by the company. Shit, maybe Family Video made it and that is why it exists? I wan’t to review the legitimate documentary that I missed, but I don’t want to see anything about Bieber for a long fucking time. This is seriously one of the worst things I have seen. Never Say Never looks perfect in comparison.

His Swag looks perfect in comparison.

Whew.

Just whew.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was a documentary that raised up quite a stir when it was released. Like. A lot of stirs, a lot of negative feedback, and a lot of controversy. I think I vowed never to watch it back in the day, didn’t want to accidentally give it any money. So yeah, watching it was totally biased, and I probably made up my mind ahead of time. Deal with it. Reviews (and life) are sometimes not fair.

Hey, stop looking at that Darwin statue. Stop it right now.

The “documentary” was split into four basic parts. First, Intelligence Design as an alternative to Evolution, and the scientists who have tried to do research in it who have been “expelled”. Then eventually, that Nazis are a result of Darwansim/Evolution being taught. Whoa whoa whoa.

That seems like quite a jump, but yes. Ben Stein went full on Godwin’s Law. Made in 1990, he stated that “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”

I used to love Ben Stein. Not for Ferris Bueller’s Day Off either. I hate his scene, and I hate everyone who quotes it when there is any silence. That isn’t original or funny. People should stop that. I liked him for Win Ben Stein’s Money. A great and funny game show, and well, it proved Ben Stein was kind of smart.

But a movie entirely about Intelligent Design? That isn’t even the big issue. The biggest issue is the amount of deception that went into this propaganda, to show only his (/their?) side of the coin. I realize that most documentaries are biased, which is why I rarely review them. But at least they try to hide the biases a little bit.

How could you Ben?? I trusted you!

So here is why it is bad. First off, in between the clips of interviews and scenic shots, there are clips from old shows and movies thrown in, to make light of certain arguments and mock them. Serious documentaries don’t do that, but comedic ones might. This one was not going for comedy.

Secondly, the amount of distortion done to the interviews, and facts not shown just to show one side and lie about it, is astronomical. That is a big science unit. In fact, there is a really long wikipedia article on the movie, that not only explains complaints by many of the interviewers, but also why their examples are wrong based on the facts they showed in the documentary. Literally, almost everything is wrong in this documentary, making it deceitful as fuck.

Even better, two professors at Iowa State University were mentioned in this, and at the time of writing, I am a graduate student there. Heck, I have talked to both of these professors, including Dr. Hector Avalos, a religious studies professor here, and he confirmed the same things. They were told they were getting interviewed for a different movie. The questions they were asked were misleading, their responses cut up to different questions to make a point that wasn’t made, and other shady tactics.

The scientist in me is literally exploding with rage over the attack on science in this movie, using underhanded tactics. The good person in me is similarly exploding, at the deception and lies thrown about. This is why I have a rating system that goes from 0 to 4, not 1 to 5.

Oh wow, with The Gatekeepers, I believe it is the first documentary that I have seen in the theaters.

The first one not based on a musical act, that is.

Either way, local theater probably got it by accident, and despite never hearing about it, I decided to give it a spin. Not to mention it was nominated for an academy award! (It lost to Searching For Sugar Man).

Long story short, Shin Bet is the main intelligence agency for Israel since the Six-Day War. Basically it was a surprise attack by Israel, thus a quick war, which expanded its borders to include the West Bank and Gaza strip. After that, the territory they had just gained was full of Palestinians, so they had to make sure they didn’t try to revolt or cause trouble. This lead to occupation, and the Shin Bet being an important tool to protect Israel from terrorism.

The Gatekeepers is a documentary interviewing the last six heads of Shin Bet, to talk about the last four decades, prod them into telling secrets or what have you. You know, since they are now all out of the organization for various reasons. Yay secrets! Yay terrorists talk!

Yep, an actual picture from the documentary about people talking. Looks entertaining as fuck, right?

Well, the information gained from these men was neat. Seeing them talk about torture, sketch propositions, morality, and regrets in their life. Very very interesting.

But it could have been laid out WAY better and more coherently.

I didn’t know this documentary would be all subtitles, but that makes sense and is fine. However, the subtitle work was shit. Over 10 occasions I couldn’t read the subtitles clearly or at all, which is kind of really fucking annoying. The least they could do is make it not a challenge to figure out what is being said. After all, documentaries tend to be about gaining and sharing information. If you fail at the most basic levels, then what the hell.

I think it also could have been ordered a lot better. When each man first is shown in the movie, they show up a quick graphic telling me their name, and when they were head of the Shin Bet, but never again. Although it is pieced together chronologically, it isn’t just an interview with one and then the next and so on. No, they all talk about all six events. After all, they all were in Shin Bet doing things before being the head, and afterwards they still paid attention to the events. It is great getting multiple perspectives on events, but you know what would have been even better? Knowing which man was in charge at which point in time the entire movie, not just the few seconds they showed it to me.

Despite going chronologically, I never knew when in time every event they talked about occurred, so even if I can somehow remember who was head and when, I still wouldn’t know who was in charge. These are simple problems to fix that would amplify getting the information out there better. Heck, even a permanent placard in the top right hand corner just having their name/years on it permanently would be preferable.

Finally, the strange CGI graphics implemented in the movie, to show multiple TVs in a control (Or Intelligence like) room to transition between scenes just felt tacky.

Although I think the information is interesting, despite knowing practically nothing myself, I think they put together a piece of shit documentary on most of the technical angles to feature it.

Documentaries, schmokumentaries.

But hey, Netflix has them, and sometimes they should be watched. Should Waiting For Superman be watched? We. Shall. See.

Ah. Hitlerman. Just who we wanted.
Wait. Superman? Like the regular boring one? Fineeeee.

Fun fact, this movie is about the failing American Public School System.

I watched it during the middle of the day, while I was prepping a lecture at a public university. I have found out that I am the problem with the American Public School System, and I apologize profusely.

Wait wait wait. This is talking about Elementary Schools, Middle Schools, High Schools. Never mind, I take back my apology.

Basically, tenure is a thing now in high schools, that teachers get basically right away from unions. Leads to bad teacher, hard to get rid of bad teachers, and schools that don’t care. Some amazing schools exist, but the only way to get into them (to make them fair) is a random lottery, versus money. So uhh, that sucks. Kids get sad, and we need to know about it.

Actual picture from documentary, generic stock photo, or something I took 8 years ago?

Well, this is one of those awareness documentaries. They let you know that something sucks, show it to you over and over again, and then that is it. Tell me to continue the cause? What? I ain’t got time for any causes.

The last 30 minutes (roughly) is watching many different lottery processes, and watching a majority of the kids look sad and cry and stuff. This isn’t regular guilting, this is extreme guilting. Whatever, its a fine message. I just hate that it doesn’t do anything about it. Awareness is not a worthwhile enough reason to do something. Shit, I think I got a little bit more out of the subject from Won’t Back Down than I did from this.

Have you heard about Bully? I bet you have. If you haven’t then the plan has failed.

The Weinstein brothers are famous for taking indie or art house pictures in the 90s and bringing them to the mainstream. The next most famous thing they are known for is creating Kevin Smith. The next main thing after that is the saying that the best type of advertisement is the ones you get from free. Make it so the newspapers write articles about your movie, and boom, people know about your movie.

So when it came to dealing with the MPAA over ratings issue, they were probably rolling around in glee at all the free advertisements!

For the three of you who don’t remember, initially the MPAA gave the film a rating of R due to its language, despite it all coming from actual footage of high school and middle school students using/hearing it. After a long battle, the MPAA caved and gave it a PG-13 rating. The film makers really wanted kids and teens to see this movie, to get the anti-bullying message out there. Unfortunately it still only got limited release in theater, and then 11 months later, it is released on DVD/Blu-Ray.

“If this video needs to be seen by everyone, why don’t you put it on the Internet for free?” Because fuck you, money, that’s why.

Ah yes, the bus. Danger at ever corner.

What is the documentary about though? Bullying. Oh okay. That makes sense.

It starts with the chronicling of one boys life, who eventually committed suicide from all the stress. It showed the parents grief, their anger towards the school who would seemingly do nothing about the bullying going on right in front of them.

Then it also tells the story of five other individuals. Some are just regular nerdy looking kids. One is a lesbian in a small conservative town. A girl who found a gun just to scare other bullies, and more. Heck, Iowa is represented, woot woot!

For some of the students, a guy with a camera walks around and captures some days in their life, letting you experience it as well.

And that is about it. What? You thought there would be a solution? Nope, this is awareness damn it. This is to make you feel bad.

What? This kid wasn’t picked on for his looks, but his poor choice of sports teams.

Like I just said before my bullying joke, this film wants you to feel bad, and that is about it. It has emotional scenes, people crying, people being picked on. If you were bullied, you might get sad from that memories. If you have children, you might get sad for that reason. You will probably get sad for being a human being. But in my eyes, that is all it does. It is to raise awareness that bullying is happening, and the schools aren’t doing much. Yes. But by offering no solutions other than awareness, I don’t see what it is doing at all.

Maybe it hopes bullies will see this and change their way? Maybe. But if that is all it could really hope for, you’d have think they would have done the things mentioned above (Free on the internet, or at least not wait a year to release it for purchase). I am sure the maker of the film probably disagrees with the way it was all gone down, but I can’t really take him away from the issue, since I don’t see him putting up a fight anywhere.

Either way, I think Bully is actually just a sensationalist piece, that tries to hit you in the feels, but offers no useful information. How sketch is this follow a kid around with a camera thing too? There is a principal that by observing something, it changes. These bullyies might have actually bullied harder or worse knowing they were on camera, to get famous that way. Who knows. I just know I can’t trust it.

What is a Heckler?

Someone who is a dick at a live event basically. A person who disrupts the show, calling out over the performer. Whether it be positive or negative, a heckler it be, yet generally it is negative.

People hate Hecklers, but man, some of the best comedy from stand up comedians come from attacking Hecklers.

But they don’t like it. That is what the movie Heckler is trying to say.

And 80 minutes of this guy.

Made by Jamie Kennedy, Heckler wants people to know that Hecklers suck and they are literally Hitlers. You will see ton of comedians bashing hecklers and giving nice reasons why.

But I lied when I said it was 80 minutes on the subject. I will still overestimate the time that topic got, and give it about 40. The last half? Well, it is more a general attack on mean people everywhere. By mean people everywhere, Jamie Kennedy of course is referring to critics/bloggers.

Oh shit! I am one of them!

Jamie Kennedy believes that Hecklers and Movie Critics are basically the same thing, maybe with the latter being worse. He actually goes around to people who reviewed his movie, Son of the Mask, badly. He does raise a valid point when he tries to figure out from them why they felt the need to attack his actual person in the review, which no one has a good answer for. But at that point it is uncomfortable.

I am not saying I disagree with what is said. Movie reviews should stick to the movie. It is fine to actually critique things, hell even make fun of things for a laugh. But you know, don’t then say the person is a giant dildo. Or whatever.

But Jamie Kennedy does it in the most dildo way possible, I don’t even care. It’s not the viewer’s fault that so many people disliked Son of the Mask. It’s just the normal reaction to a pisspoor movie.

My last foray into the 3D movie territory was with watching Coraline, but that was using the classic blue/red scheme and everything in my brain got messed up. But this new 3D that they are using at theaters? I tried it once, three years ago, with Avatar. Movie is pretty old now, turns out. So three years have passed since then, I’d like to think that the 3D technology and jumped leaps and bounds at this point, and should be all BAM. IN YOUR FACE.

THE THIRD DIMENSION.
YEAH.

So of course my second ever attempt at a new 3D movie, I figured why not go to Katy Perry: Part Of Me.

Aww, look at the happy couple. True love and all. Err.

Speaking of concert movies, this is my third one, and second one to be based off a single famous artist. First of course was Bieber, and second Glee. And just like before, I have no idea how to review them.

This movie is suppose to show a different part of Katy Perry, and more of her past, that the average person doesn’t (or doesn’t care to know). All this with a world concert series that she was going on for almost a whole year, with roughly only a few days off ever 2-3 weeks. And what did she do with those few days off? Go see the love of her life, her husband, Russell Brand of course!

Now I forgot in my timeline when their divorce happened, and assumed it was in the summer. I thought all the talk about their love was just a tragic joke, and the movie was finished before they broke up. But nope, that definitely did happen during the movie, and it was sad as shit. But you know what? Katy Perry still did her show that night. Didn’t cancel a single thing, despite all those tears. That’s some dedication.

Katy’s youth was with a super Christian family, her parents traveling preachers. Her first album as a teen was signed to a gospel production company outside of Nashville. But she wanted more. Turns out when she got to LA for music purposes outside of religious, she was pretty much signed right away. Since 2001. But clearly wasn’t famous yet. She didn’t like kissing a girl until 2008, leaving her 6-7 years of struggling musicianness before getting it big. That was while writing a lot of her own music too, and the normal story of “oh I don’t want to be the new Avril / Spears, I want to be me!” like talk.

I am sure it is real, but maybe overblown for the purposefulness of the film.

Ohhh, I get the cover now. She dreamed of being a star in her room, and now she is! How clever!

So yeah, despite being an overnight sensation, she wasn’t an immediate success, which is nice to know. And (although it obviously has to be a part of the reason), she doesn’t seem to be some girl hired for her boobs to sing other people’s songs with lots of autotune, a pop standard. The movie did a real good job of humanizing her.

Honestly, if you didn’t feel sad while she laid int the chair realizing Russell Brand wanted a divorce and could not stop crying or talk to anyone, you are a robot. Which would explain your dance moves.

The actual concert spliced through it seemed really well done and entertaining. Surprisingly, Firework was not the last song. Go figure. I think it just needed (like all of these) less fans freaking out and recording stuff, I don’t care about other normal people’s love. They can stop that.

Also there are some mini interviews, including Adele and Rihanna. Why? Because Katy Perry had 5 number 1 singles from 1 album, only person to do that besides Michael Jackson. And he got a movie recently too, so why not Katy?

The review of this doesn’t matter, you won’t see it if you hate her music probably. You probably also won’t if you like her music. I will say it is a bit more interesting than the other concert films I’ve done. But if she is just a fad in five years, then ehh, who cares.

A couple of days ago I asked an open question to some friends to try to get me some crazy, whacked out documentary to watch. Nothing unfortunately really matched the level I wanted, so I instead found Dear Zachary to watch, hearing it was at least powerful, and a bit fucked up.

But real life, fucked up, not the the made up conspiracy theories way.

Either this is really touching documentary, or a really creepy one.

Basic gist of the story:

Andrew is a guy who people apparently like. Went to Med School, was in training to be a doctor, meets with a Shirley Turner girl, who no one really knows about. Bit later, Andrew is dead, shot six times, while trying to break up with Shirley. She flees back to Newfoundland, and now claims to be pregnant with a baby from Andrew.

The documentary director/friend Kurt Kuenne originally sets off to gather all the information on Andrew that he can, through his old family video recordings (used to make fake movies) to interviews with all of his family and friends, so that someday, his son can learn about his passed father, and also more of the circumstances that lead to his demise. The piece also follows Andrew’s parents, as they move to Newfoundland to begin a long custody battle through the Canadian government to gain the rights to the son, from the woman who is slowly being convicted of killing the husband.

Sounds messed up, yeah? Because it is. And I can’t say more about it. Will ruin the story.

I liked the story a lot, in a “WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT” sort of way. Lot of real emotion in it, given the topic that was probably obvious. The only reason I don’t give it a 4 is just because of weird editing that kept bugging me throughout.

Mostly occurred at the beginning, when the documentary didn’t flow very well at all, not to mention a few times when they said they would get to something later and then barely touch on that topic later. This is the world of wikipedia damn it, we need more information!

Ahhhh another documentary, run for the hills!

Thankfully, in a documentary such as This Film Is Not Yet Rated, it doesn’t really tackle an issue that people are 50/50 on. Most people I know are all on the same side of the argument.

Which argument? The MPAA sucks argument.

I have no idea what kind of pictures to show for this review.

Seriously. If someone actually before this was like “Man, the MPAA is great. They are so consistent with movie ratings,” then I would think that was a made up person.

It is one of the easiest things to bitch about when bitching about movies. “How the hell is this rated PG-13 when blahblah is Rated R? How have we gotten more strict on movies (Jaws is PG) and less strict on violence and gore?”

It went over the history of the MPAA, and how films get their ratings. There is a secret board made of parents with children from 5-17 years old, and apparently they can’t serve more than five years. Their identities are kept secret in order to protect them. They watch a movie, determine a rating based on what they feel are appropriate for their children, and that is it. They specifically are parents with no training in terms of film education or child up bringing, because they wanted an “Average consensus”.

Now what is wrong? Well, Kirby Dick, the director/narrator also hired private detectives to figure out the board. At the time, a lot of their members had their kids outside of the range stated, and one even had no children at all. Similarly, they found out that larger film producers were given more specifics on what to cut, specific scenes that earned them a hire rating and how to make it lower, while indie people were given a rating and said to resubmit with cuts with no hints.

It also showed a bias in the rating between sex material, and was more willing to give an NC-17 if it was homosexual sex versus heterosexual sex.

As an added bonus, he submitted his film for rating (which received an NC-17 for the scenes in it of NC-17 films). But also recorded that process as best he could (phone calls) etc, and also the repeal process. The repeal board is a different group of individuals, and also includes a protestant and catholic priest (which may or may not get to vote).

No cameras were allowed in the building, and for some reason they refused to release any individual names and quickly got pissed off and said no to his repeal. Thankfully the private investigators already investigated who was at those meetings months earlier! Oh yeah, most of the appeal people are movie theater and studio executives.

Uh oh.

What have we learned? That PI’s ar pretty kick ass in real life too.

Now that it is 5-6 years later after released. What has changed?

Hell if I know. I bet board members were changed on the MPAA to fit the standards they claimed. But the repeal board? Eh, maybe just the normal changes over time. But as the MPAA gotten any better?

Hell no. So many ratings disputes still up for grabs, all of that Bully drama (which I might not disagree with. Wanting to show it to middle/high schoolers is not a reason enough to lower a rating. Also the Weinstein bros have said that the best type of advertising is free advertising…aka controversy), and you know, other stuff.

All this means is the movie did absolutely nothing to warrant a change. But as far as I am concerned, this and the FCC need to go, and we just have to make more people mad about it. Kony 2012 this bitch! Watch this movie, is on Netflix (eek!), who helped make it (oh okay). And if you want to hate the FCC more, feel free to watch Bullshit! episode on Profanity.

Catfish is a “documentary” on, well, the internet.

Ready for my vaguest plot summary ever?

This is Megan!

This is a “documentary” about Abby. Abby is an 8 year old girl who paints pictures, and mails them off to a guy named ‘Nev‘ in New York City, because she saw him in the paper and thought he was cute. Nev lives with two filmmakers, and because of his relationship with this wunderkind artist, they want to make a film! Begins with them getting more artwork, and it kicking ass. He even befriends Abby’s family!

First her mom, Angela, and then her older sister, Megan about 19. Facebook is great. Turns out Megan is great too. Has a lot in common with Nev, writers he own music, has her own social life. They don’t start dating, but they are interested in each other. He also gets to know her friends, her moms friends, whatever.

But one day he finds out that a song she sent him as a cover, sounds identical to a different cover found on the internet.

Roadtrip!

Yes, that is all of the plot outline you will get out of me. A lot of the point about the movie is the discovery, and journey, so even letting you know more already ruins it. Obviously I used quotation marks around documentary a lot.

Is this a real story? Maybe. Probably not. It at least has real people in it. They aren’t saying its fake. Technically the events that occurred all seem to have happened, but maybe parts were exaggerated or recreated for the purpose of a movie.

Finally, it is kind of a different movie genre. It seems to be a bit experimental, and I think it pays off. There could be a theme of fakeness in this movie, given the topic at hand, and the questionability in the film itself. If so, well done. Layers and shit.

But yeah, I liked it, even though it slowed at points near the end. If it is real, I like the level of respectability that went into it. If not well, its a pretty good fake documentary.