Change Your Image
christinarivers
Reviews
Big Vape: The Rise and Fall of Juul (2023)
Propaganda for Juul
I have never seen so many addicts, none of whom look at all healthy, trying to convince themselves that their drug is somehow better and even aspirational. I fail to see how trading an addiction for the same addiction (under more socially acceptable branding) is something to be proud of. Nicotine is nicotine is nicotine and it is highly addictive.
When you advertise it to young people, young people are going to become addicted. That is what Juul did, while also claiming that they were targeting current smokers and, in doing so, singlehandedly created a whole new generation of addicts.
I find it difficult to believe that this wasn't intentional. When asked to stop making flavors, which were what attracted kids to their products, they tellingly refused to do so. They saw an opportunity to make millions of dollars and they jumped on it and never thought twice about the people they could hurt.
Whether or not the lung damage shown to kids came from Vitamin E, Juul was the company responsible for creating the addiction in the first place. It is well known within the addiction and recovery community that addicts gain a tolerance for drugs and then seek out other drugs to try to get a better high, and that is exactly what happened.
Vaping is still relatively new, so we don't really know what its long term effects are. Juul didn't care to wait to find out and, for some reason, found it unreasonable to go through the FDA approval process. But, if someone inhales chemicals into their lungs, whether it be nicotine or meth or marijuana, it's going to cause damage.
To claim that no one has died from an e-cigarette is misleading. I'm sure Philip Morris could claim the same about cigarettes for years - until lung cancer came along. A more accurate statement may be that no one has died of an e-cigarette yet.
Disappointingly, this entire documentary seemed to be more about trying to glamorize Juul than it was about indicting them, as it should have been. It was far too long and spent far too much time trying to make the founders seem like they were "good guys" and not enough time showing the repercussions of their actions. It just seemed like a last ditch attempt to save a company that, quite frankly, doesn't deserve to be saved.
Juul used the same advertising as Big Tobacco, targeted the same people as Big Tobacco, and used Big Tobacco money in their business. It was no surprise to me that Big Tobacco eventually bought out their company. Juul and Big Tobacco are one and the same. They just wanted to make cigarettes cool again.
The Hatchet Wielding Hitchhiker (2023)
Why didn't anyone help him?
This documentary is heartbreaking and deeply disturbing to watch, but certainly not in the ways that it was intended to be. It was clear from the get-go that Kai was delusional and needed psychological help. Instead, the media sharks descended upon him and took advantage of him because they thought they could make money off of him.
What if they had looked at him as a human being with a horrendous childhood who was desperately in need of help, instead of only seeing him as their next cash cow? Would things have ended differently? They had an opportunity to really make a difference in this kid's life and they squandered it.
This isn't an indictment of Kai so much as it is an indictment of the bloodthirsty media who exploited him. And this documentary doesn't even have the self awareness to see that. Shame on every single person who chose to ignore the warning signs because they were so focused on the dollar signs! Disgusting!
The Dropout (2022)
The role is too big for Amanda Seyfried
Why didn't someone tell Amanda Seyfried to stop nodding her head? She does it in every scene and it has become so distracting that it's hard to follow the story. It's a way for her to try to be convincing but, ultimately, the role is just too big for her and it actually makes her less believable.
Thankfully, there's a solid supporting cast and good writing, so it makes the series watchable.
Since I haven't been following the case too closely, it's been interesting to watch. I do think that Elizabeth Holmes is portrayed as a sociopath and it becomes more and more apparent as the series goes on.
Overall, it's a decent documentary so far (I'm on Episode 5) - if you can look past Amanda Seyfried's acting and the constant nodding.
Soupçons (2004)
Do they really expect me to believe that Michael Peterson is innocent?
If this documentary was meant to convince me of Michael Peterson's innocence, it actually had the opposite effect. Peterson is utterly charming - and narcissistic and manipulative and completely lacking in empathy or remorse - a typical sociopath.
One accidentally telling scene (I say this because the documentary was incredibly biased) was one where Peterson's eldest son comes to visit him in prison. Peterson goes on and on about himself for a while, then asks how his son is doing. His son tries to tell him. Instead of listening to him, Peterson jumps up and starts complaining about how noisy it is (subtext: "poor me, I have to live in this noisy prison"). His son is left standing there with tears rolling down his face. I believe this scene is likely indicative of their entire relationship: son trying to get father's attention; father too self-involved to notice or care.
Another accidentally telling scene is when Peterson is seen freaking out because they are going to exhume Elizabeth Ratliffe's body, ostensibly on behalf of her daughters, although it's fairly clear that Peterson realizes he's in trouble. He then becomes just as freaked out about the fact that the body will be perfectly preserved while looking at his ex-wife - his ex-wife (don't get me started on her!) who clearly lied for him, saying that there was hardly any blood at the scene, when multiple witnesses say there was lots of blood that some of them actually had to clean up afterward. Also notable is how strikingly Ratliffe looks not only like Peterson's ex-wife (you can barely tell them apart), but also Kathleen.
And then, of course, there's the fact that Peterson's son "finds" the blow poke. Even Peterson seems to realize that this may not be credible to the judge or jury and asks his defense team to "fudge a little bit" about where it was found. To their credit, they refuse to do so.
And then, there's the owl theory. Are we even meant to take it seriously?
I could go on and on, but the ultimate question this documentary tries to pose is whether there was a miscarriage of justice. I absolutely believe that there was a miscarriage of justice, but not in the way that the documentary would like to portray. It is deeply unfortunate that the prosecution chose the wrong expert, thus allowing Peterson to go free after only serving 8 years for 2 murders.
If you want to watch a biased documentary that leaves out most of the prosecution's case, then this is perfect for you. If you want a more neutral documentary that shows both sides of the case, you are likely to be as disappointed as I was.