If only for the informational value, this is worth viewing. I have watched a few times. The creators have a viewpoint, but everyone does. At least the purpose and intent isn't obscured as much media is today. We keep being hammered and bullied to "agree and support" divergent mores and values that may be antithetical to personal and religious beliefs. This divergent viewpoint offered at least is based on historical facts that can be researched.
6 Reviews
Very interesting look at a few of the unethical MKUltra CIA programs.
falseprophet6168 November 2018
Very interesting look at a few of the unethical MKUltra CIA programs.
It also features some of the lead-up for the programs, giving some background for how such things could come about, which was very welcome.
Surprisingly, the famous drug-focused programs that so usually occupies these is only touched upon here. Although drugs are sometimes part of these programs, they are not the sole focus of them. It's more about brainwashing, and reprogramming with other (sometimes horrifically direct) means. So don't expect lots of information on the programs where they just messed with people who were on LSD.
Some of the reenacted readings are less than ideal, particularly CIA-man(?) at typewriter. You'll see what I mean.
It certainly didn't need to be 3 ¾ hours long. The editing was lacking in several areas...
A lot of time is spent listing names for each portion, that could have just been shown to the viewer all at once, for about 15 seconds, then later, when comparing who was involved with each segment, by highlighting and fading each portrait and name, the inter-involvement could have been more clearly illustrated. Perhaps with diagrams. The narration serving to draw attention to overlap etc, rather than listing, always listing. The same could have been done with the funding sources. As it stands, it's difficult to make sense of any of it.
Sometimes the documentary will just stop, and there will be echoing audio snippets with eerie visuals for a minute or two. Often things we've already seen & heard. The documentarians were trying to establish some atmosphere or something? A good editor will mold the content in such a way to give the viewer chills and moments of impact, rather than separating the content for substance-less droning. Not well executed, just more time wasted really.
In the latter half when interviewee (if memory serves, the only one) Peter Breggin is introduced, it's a big breath of fresh air from the established editing formula. Although his ideas & criticism towards classical psychiatry are not properly explored, he does offer a valuable humanist perspective of the callous & absurd CIA-endorsed programs. His full ideas could have been an interesting counterpoint. I definitely recommend viewers to look up Breggin's work, even if you disagree with him, if only for a change of perspective from the typical medical practitioner's. Thomas Szasz also comes to mind.
The narrators (who I understand to be the authors of docu) also take some ridiculous liberties, such as ending sentences with patronising smirky lines like "see how that works?" These do not belong in documentaries. When you're taking a break from cringing at the horrific medical experiments you might be lucky enough to cringe at one of these unnecessary lines. There are also more than a few repetitions that will have you wondering if they're trying the unethical techniques on the audience, themselves.
The black & white aesthetic looks good for the most part, little bits of colour are permitted during specific moments, but I get the sense that the film might have worked better if it were even less enforced. For instance, perhaps during the new location footage?
Optimally, if somebody with skill in editing were to fanedit this, they could probably achieve great improvements. One of the few cases where a faneditor is given a documentary with much material to work with, to do so. It might just be the first documentary fanedit, unless any commenter would like to enlighten me.
This may seem like a very critical review, but the good content of the documentary speaks for itself, so I definitely recommend a watch if the subject interests. Perhaps one chapter at a time will be best, however.
If only it didn't have so many elements holding it back, that at this length, are difficult to forgive.
EDIT: It seems that skeptics* don't like the docu authors much at all, and my own perspective has lowered to a degree. They appear to have some questionable ideas about vaccines (a topic to which I personally defer to the mainstream consensus) and have had collabs with Alex Jones (whom I detest, he is a hilarious living meme though...) in the past.
*(although I'm not personally a traditional skeptic, by any measure as, somewhat paradoxically, I follow many philosophical & religious movements AND secular, atheist & skeptical organisations simultaneously)
It's up to you whether this impacts your own skepticism when watching this docu but my general suggestion would be to take it with more than a little salt.
It also features some of the lead-up for the programs, giving some background for how such things could come about, which was very welcome.
Surprisingly, the famous drug-focused programs that so usually occupies these is only touched upon here. Although drugs are sometimes part of these programs, they are not the sole focus of them. It's more about brainwashing, and reprogramming with other (sometimes horrifically direct) means. So don't expect lots of information on the programs where they just messed with people who were on LSD.
Some of the reenacted readings are less than ideal, particularly CIA-man(?) at typewriter. You'll see what I mean.
It certainly didn't need to be 3 ¾ hours long. The editing was lacking in several areas...
A lot of time is spent listing names for each portion, that could have just been shown to the viewer all at once, for about 15 seconds, then later, when comparing who was involved with each segment, by highlighting and fading each portrait and name, the inter-involvement could have been more clearly illustrated. Perhaps with diagrams. The narration serving to draw attention to overlap etc, rather than listing, always listing. The same could have been done with the funding sources. As it stands, it's difficult to make sense of any of it.
Sometimes the documentary will just stop, and there will be echoing audio snippets with eerie visuals for a minute or two. Often things we've already seen & heard. The documentarians were trying to establish some atmosphere or something? A good editor will mold the content in such a way to give the viewer chills and moments of impact, rather than separating the content for substance-less droning. Not well executed, just more time wasted really.
In the latter half when interviewee (if memory serves, the only one) Peter Breggin is introduced, it's a big breath of fresh air from the established editing formula. Although his ideas & criticism towards classical psychiatry are not properly explored, he does offer a valuable humanist perspective of the callous & absurd CIA-endorsed programs. His full ideas could have been an interesting counterpoint. I definitely recommend viewers to look up Breggin's work, even if you disagree with him, if only for a change of perspective from the typical medical practitioner's. Thomas Szasz also comes to mind.
The narrators (who I understand to be the authors of docu) also take some ridiculous liberties, such as ending sentences with patronising smirky lines like "see how that works?" These do not belong in documentaries. When you're taking a break from cringing at the horrific medical experiments you might be lucky enough to cringe at one of these unnecessary lines. There are also more than a few repetitions that will have you wondering if they're trying the unethical techniques on the audience, themselves.
The black & white aesthetic looks good for the most part, little bits of colour are permitted during specific moments, but I get the sense that the film might have worked better if it were even less enforced. For instance, perhaps during the new location footage?
Optimally, if somebody with skill in editing were to fanedit this, they could probably achieve great improvements. One of the few cases where a faneditor is given a documentary with much material to work with, to do so. It might just be the first documentary fanedit, unless any commenter would like to enlighten me.
This may seem like a very critical review, but the good content of the documentary speaks for itself, so I definitely recommend a watch if the subject interests. Perhaps one chapter at a time will be best, however.
If only it didn't have so many elements holding it back, that at this length, are difficult to forgive.
EDIT: It seems that skeptics* don't like the docu authors much at all, and my own perspective has lowered to a degree. They appear to have some questionable ideas about vaccines (a topic to which I personally defer to the mainstream consensus) and have had collabs with Alex Jones (whom I detest, he is a hilarious living meme though...) in the past.
*(although I'm not personally a traditional skeptic, by any measure as, somewhat paradoxically, I follow many philosophical & religious movements AND secular, atheist & skeptical organisations simultaneously)
It's up to you whether this impacts your own skepticism when watching this docu but my general suggestion would be to take it with more than a little salt.
A historical look into population control...
bmac-1250216 February 2019
This is a long historical documentary on mind control, and ultimately, population control. It gives the viewer an in-depth look into the CIA's MK-Ultra program and it's myriad of sub-projects, all geared towards the goal of controlling the human mind and manipulating populations.
Granted, it's over 3 hours long, but I found the length necessary to thoroughly learn about the subject from its inception to its conclusion. For the last century, governments have been experimenting with their populations, often without public knowledge or consent, in hopes of finding that single key, data point, or formula that would lead them to ultimately control whole populations of people.
It's no surprise today we have social media platforms, based on feed-back loops, which have captured the minds of people like an opioid.
This film is good stepping off point for observing the manipulation that occurs today. It almost seems ubiquitous.
Excellent Film, As for the detractors "Life is harder when you are dumb.
aduramr9 February 2023
I had no issue sitting through this and have watched it more than once as well as found and read the cited materials and have ordered some through the Library of Congress.
Excellent Film, As for the detractors "Life is harder when you are dumb, that is not the fault of the documenters. The people rating this as a marvel movie event or too busy imbibing the discredited since 1977 main stream media do not have any opinions worth viewing. Watch this and make up your own mind via critical thinking.
As a Graduate student I really don't have time or the necessity to write more to combat the rampant stupidity of those that want comfortable lies.
Excellent Film, As for the detractors "Life is harder when you are dumb, that is not the fault of the documenters. The people rating this as a marvel movie event or too busy imbibing the discredited since 1977 main stream media do not have any opinions worth viewing. Watch this and make up your own mind via critical thinking.
As a Graduate student I really don't have time or the necessity to write more to combat the rampant stupidity of those that want comfortable lies.
Garbage, written by shills
kasey-918598 November 2018
Alex Jones shills right here! The Dykes tell some truth, but usually leave out all the real truth, because it may not be acceptable and popular opinion among the sheep. This is really a rudimentary work that the actual Truth movement is way ahead of, because they aren't blocked in their research by personal incredulity and by purposefully concealing reality.
Production value lacking of other people's research
kcraddock-8918212 February 2019
It's hard to sit through this marathon, even for someone interested in the Truth. The parts where Aaron Dykes changes his voice for "The typerwriter guy" is absolutely cringeworthy and sad and the constant black and white is pathetic.
All this information is just other people's research repackaged by these two. This I guess is ok for the beginner, if you can stomach sitting through over three hours of this snooze fest.
All this information is just other people's research repackaged by these two. This I guess is ok for the beginner, if you can stomach sitting through over three hours of this snooze fest.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
