Change Your Image
FlickDoc
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Evil Lives Here (2016)
Tragically Missing Information
I've only watched the first two episodes on Netflix, and on that basis will not watch more. Both of these episodes are *very* scarce on causal information. The first simply takes the parents at their word; they may be providing all accurate information, but they *really* need more sources. For example, in the first episode, reference is made to this being a second marriage for the father, but no reference whatsoever is made to the first marriage!
As another example, in the second episide on Netflix, only one of the killer's sisters is interviewed (at least primarily). She mentions *once* something like "...the turmoil in our family", and that's it! No mention of the parents or the other siblings -- no mention of early childhood experiences.
To be clear, I'm *not* saying that the missing information would reveal the causes of these killers' actions, but doesn't it seem strange that these would be missing from the accounts?
Sad stories, but incomplete.
Sullivan's Travels (1941)
I do not understand the positive reviews.
It is rare that I write anything here, much less to disagree with the predominate opinion that this is a great movie. (I'm usually close to the same score as the IMDb average, and only *very* rarely differ by more than 1-2 points.)
But to my wife and I, this movie is not *not* funny, nor does it make any sort of accurate point (profound or otherwise) about social conditions of the time. The lead characters come across as complete imbeciles *and* the movie insults the ideas it purports to satirize. No insight is provided into the real lives of the poor, and if any insight is provided into the rich, perhaps that insight is more on point: they don't *really* care for anyone other than themselves and have no empathic capacity to feel what it might be like to be genuinely poor. (This is *not* what I think -- but the movie illustrates it over and over again.)
I know this movie is from 1941, and perhaps I'm viewing it with the standards of 2019, but I wish my parents and grandparents were still alive so that I could ask them how they responded to the movie when it first came out. *Maybe* in that context it could be seen differently, but I doubt it.
I'd love an honest chat with Preston Sturges and the other makers of this movie to find out what they thought they were doing. Now *that* would be enlightening.
There are so many old movies that are truly great -- movies that I adore -- but this simply is not one of them.
The Profit (2013)
Repetitious Stories with No Real Endings
(Disclaimer: I have only seen 7 episodes of "The Profit".) I tried hard to get into the show because I really like the idea of teaching the audience (and me) the basics of how to run a business. However, this show fails in at least three important ways: (1) The episodes tend to follow very similar formats (e.g., a small business with great potential but with some sort of "people problems"), (2) We never find out what *really* happens to each business after Lemonis works with it, and (3) Lemonis never seems to actually help a business. In the 7 episodes I watched, Lemonis got involved in every one (financially and with advice), but then ultimately walked away from each.
My advice to Lemonis and the producers is similar to the advice that Lemonis gives each business owner: Focus on being great rather than on being popular or making money. If you're lucky, the money will follow.
This show has great potential, but I'm not holding my breath.
The Kid Stays in the Picture (2002)
Further evidence that the Oscars are unrelated to excellence
If you want an Academy Award for best documentary, you'd be advised to avoid making such a wonderful and creative film that audiences forget they're watching a documentary. This is the "problem" with "Kid Stays in the Picture". It sets an entirely new standard for documentary film making through use of stunningly simple but highly effective three-dimensional handling of "flat" imagery (e.g., still photos). My favorite example of this is the wisp of smoke that appears to be coming from a cigarette in the hand of someone in a photo. I'm certain that most audience members won't even notice such details (of which there are many); rather, audience members will simply have a "feeling" that they're watching real-time action.
But there's more to this film than a creative and brilliant approach to documentary film making. It's the story -- the terrific yarn-of-a-life -- of Robert Evans. Since seeing the film, I've read Evans' book (on which the film is heavily based) and I've listened to the unabridged audio version of the book (read by Evans himself, similar to his narration of the film). I found all to be fascinating, but the film has something that might have been lacking in the book: thoughtful editing by someone other than Evans. (I still think the book is worth a read, or better yet, have a listen to the tale told by the man himself.)
So, why didn't the film get nominated for an Academy Award? Hollywood insiders may conclude that Evans made too many enemies during his many years in the business. I have no doubt that Evans made plenty of enemies (as do most great executives, as well as most people who manifest any form of greatness), but I think there's a better explanation for the absent nomination. Paradoxically, the film's strength is in this regard its weakness: it's so good that people forget it's a documentary; but because they're conscious of the fact that it's not a traditional feature film, they don't quite know how to categorize it. I'm no historian of the Oscars, but I suspect that films that don't clearly fit a single category have always had trouble getting recognized.
This is a great film, and will most certainly be used in documentary film-making classes for years to come. But you definitely do not need to be a documentarian or even a film-buff to love this movie. It's just a whale of a great tale.
Thank you Robert Evans, Nanette Burstein, and Brett Morgen! I look forward to more from all of you!