Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews15
Cockeymofo76's rating
I watched the movie, Indoctrinate U, on recommendation of a friend, and I have to say I was excited, I like the subject matter. I feel the discussion of political as well as just the simple teacher-student power relationship is an interesting subject. Unfortunately, that was really the high point of the movie, my anticipation.
He uses techniques that only bad documentarians (see Michael Moore) use. These include but aren't limited to:
1. The attack interview - He sticks a mike and camera in people's faces and they are understandably flustered, you would be to if the banality of your day was interrupted in that manner. So using the footage as he does is questionable, at best.
2. He edits, a lot - The interviews are cut up, a lot. He actually cuts off a women describing why the university has a women's center, and not a men's center, mid-list. This is disingenuous as it seems as though, at least some of the time, the editor is shaping the interviewee's thoughts not the interviewee. I actually thought there was something wrong with my DVD, until I realized there were just that many edits.
3. He voices over - This sometimes can be used effectively, but Maloney doesn't seem to understand the power this gives him. Also, this is a sub-point, he represents the other-side of arguments. So he will be portraying someone, or thing, in a positive light and simply say the that whoever was on the other side of the argument says "this". The problem is that he rarely quotes and never has the people that are legitimately on the other side of the argument on screen. He more than once misconstrues an argument on the other side.
4. Way too much content - The director, oddly, chooses to talk about many, at least 8, different things. They are all on the same theme no doubt, and all interesting, but that is way too much for a movie, maybe enough for a mini-series. The effect of this is at no point in the movie do you feel you have a true understanding of an issue or event.
5. His warrants don't match his claims - He says, as the title says, that colleges are propagating liberal doctrine. Well, I think he quite successfully proved that some are trying to, but he never shows any statistical data that people leaving college are any more or less liberal than those entering. He doesn't prove that liberal professors have any effect on their students. Which to me seems like an easy point to make, so it's curiously missing from the movie.
6. What he talks about is skewed - All the discussion in the movie is based around very minute cases. So although many of the people were legitimately wronged, there is no evidence that this is a pervasive problem, only that these people had a poor experiences.
The problems in this movie are really simple. He should sit down and watch Errol Morris documentaries for days and he will see what a quality documentarian can do.
I'm giving this movie a poor grade because of his techniques not his statements.
Strictly for those interested in the subject matter, I wouldn't advise anyone to watch it though. 3/10
He uses techniques that only bad documentarians (see Michael Moore) use. These include but aren't limited to:
1. The attack interview - He sticks a mike and camera in people's faces and they are understandably flustered, you would be to if the banality of your day was interrupted in that manner. So using the footage as he does is questionable, at best.
2. He edits, a lot - The interviews are cut up, a lot. He actually cuts off a women describing why the university has a women's center, and not a men's center, mid-list. This is disingenuous as it seems as though, at least some of the time, the editor is shaping the interviewee's thoughts not the interviewee. I actually thought there was something wrong with my DVD, until I realized there were just that many edits.
3. He voices over - This sometimes can be used effectively, but Maloney doesn't seem to understand the power this gives him. Also, this is a sub-point, he represents the other-side of arguments. So he will be portraying someone, or thing, in a positive light and simply say the that whoever was on the other side of the argument says "this". The problem is that he rarely quotes and never has the people that are legitimately on the other side of the argument on screen. He more than once misconstrues an argument on the other side.
4. Way too much content - The director, oddly, chooses to talk about many, at least 8, different things. They are all on the same theme no doubt, and all interesting, but that is way too much for a movie, maybe enough for a mini-series. The effect of this is at no point in the movie do you feel you have a true understanding of an issue or event.
5. His warrants don't match his claims - He says, as the title says, that colleges are propagating liberal doctrine. Well, I think he quite successfully proved that some are trying to, but he never shows any statistical data that people leaving college are any more or less liberal than those entering. He doesn't prove that liberal professors have any effect on their students. Which to me seems like an easy point to make, so it's curiously missing from the movie.
6. What he talks about is skewed - All the discussion in the movie is based around very minute cases. So although many of the people were legitimately wronged, there is no evidence that this is a pervasive problem, only that these people had a poor experiences.
The problems in this movie are really simple. He should sit down and watch Errol Morris documentaries for days and he will see what a quality documentarian can do.
I'm giving this movie a poor grade because of his techniques not his statements.
Strictly for those interested in the subject matter, I wouldn't advise anyone to watch it though. 3/10
The World According to Monsanto is a good documentary about a great subject. Monsanto has received many condemnations in its quest for profits but this documentary provides a slightly more scathing review of the company.
The movie gives the obligatory history of Monsanto and it's damage to the world. And just when it looks like it is going to continue in mediocrity the movie changes gears and really attacks the subject at hand. Monsanto, and other multi-nationals, have for years now tried to effect people that make decisions and oversee "the public good". This movie, in the latter half, attacks Monsanto as a company which strives to blacklist dissenters and keep the truth from seeing the light of day. The movie uses various primary witnesses and at a couple great interviews. I would go into more detail but I prefer brevity.
The movie in my mind has three faults, interviews, a bleeding heart and the internet. The interviews were at times well done but at some points the interviewer spoke too much or the interviewee was lackluster (Dr. Michael Hansen was a horrendous interviewee). Occasionally the movie goes too far and essentially tells you FEEL BAD when all that needs to be said is this is what's happening (town of Anniston the old guy in the wheelchair). Finally, the documentarian uses the internet, even wikipedia, as a way to show the audience her search for the facts. I felt that it diminished credibility and wasn't an effective visually. (Yes, I know she didn't actually only use the internet for this documentary...)
A movie for people who wish to be called informed or like to know what's in their milk. 8/10
The movie gives the obligatory history of Monsanto and it's damage to the world. And just when it looks like it is going to continue in mediocrity the movie changes gears and really attacks the subject at hand. Monsanto, and other multi-nationals, have for years now tried to effect people that make decisions and oversee "the public good". This movie, in the latter half, attacks Monsanto as a company which strives to blacklist dissenters and keep the truth from seeing the light of day. The movie uses various primary witnesses and at a couple great interviews. I would go into more detail but I prefer brevity.
The movie in my mind has three faults, interviews, a bleeding heart and the internet. The interviews were at times well done but at some points the interviewer spoke too much or the interviewee was lackluster (Dr. Michael Hansen was a horrendous interviewee). Occasionally the movie goes too far and essentially tells you FEEL BAD when all that needs to be said is this is what's happening (town of Anniston the old guy in the wheelchair). Finally, the documentarian uses the internet, even wikipedia, as a way to show the audience her search for the facts. I felt that it diminished credibility and wasn't an effective visually. (Yes, I know she didn't actually only use the internet for this documentary...)
A movie for people who wish to be called informed or like to know what's in their milk. 8/10
The film is based around the 2002 Bolivian Presidential Election and the Gonzalo "Goni" Sanchez de Lozada Campaign.
The movie starts by introducing us to "Goni" and his flailing campaign and then quickly brings in GCS, Greenberg Carville Shrum, (yes, the James Carville) is an international political consulting firm. The film starts off kind of awkwardly and there is really nothing special about the first 3rd of the documentary.
But the movie quickly kicks into gear about 30 min. in and never pulls up. Rachel Boynton, the director, does a good job of just presenting facts, never bashing the audience in the head with something that can be seen. She asks pretty good, not great, questions of those she interviews and presents people fairly throughout the film. The movie centers on the topic of how can international consulting firms participate in a democracy that isn't their own. The movie shows the personal feelings of the consultants for GCS and the effects GCS has had on Boilivia.
That all being said I didn't like the camera angles or the audio. The audio was inconsistent; interviewer's voice was not miked so her questions were almost impossible to hear. The camera, at times, makes you feel not a part of the action.
The movie is for anyone who watches the news or would like to consider themselves "well informed." 8/10
The movie starts by introducing us to "Goni" and his flailing campaign and then quickly brings in GCS, Greenberg Carville Shrum, (yes, the James Carville) is an international political consulting firm. The film starts off kind of awkwardly and there is really nothing special about the first 3rd of the documentary.
But the movie quickly kicks into gear about 30 min. in and never pulls up. Rachel Boynton, the director, does a good job of just presenting facts, never bashing the audience in the head with something that can be seen. She asks pretty good, not great, questions of those she interviews and presents people fairly throughout the film. The movie centers on the topic of how can international consulting firms participate in a democracy that isn't their own. The movie shows the personal feelings of the consultants for GCS and the effects GCS has had on Boilivia.
That all being said I didn't like the camera angles or the audio. The audio was inconsistent; interviewer's voice was not miked so her questions were almost impossible to hear. The camera, at times, makes you feel not a part of the action.
The movie is for anyone who watches the news or would like to consider themselves "well informed." 8/10