A Japanese American mondo documentary directed by Sheldon Renan and Leonard Schrader.
Murder and murderers in America are discussed.
This was really nothing special. The killers were covered quickly. Lots of television footage was used, so the audio and video were both pretty terrible. There was tons of dead air noise to the point of cacophony and some of the video was so low quality that movement in it turned psychedelic. There was also a strong anti-gun message, even though most of the killers did not use guns. There was some gruesome crime scene footage, but that was tame compared to other mondo films I've seen. I rate this o.k. and would not recommend watching it.
An Italian mondo documentary directed by Gualtieto Jacopetti and Franco Prosperi.
Scenes of contrast from around the world are shown and "explained" by the narrator.
These old mondo films were wild and still are. There were funny moments like the explanation of the vending machine restaurant, paint spitting art and the "hard head" village. Many of the scenes from America were explained as if Americans are a strange and foreign tribe, almost aliens from another planet. It may have been intentional for humor. There were also tragically disturbing moments like the stink bug tacos in Mexico, flamingos and the tortured children. I can watch almost anything, but those pushed my limits. The audio on the version I got was in English, so it was easier to watch than the last mondo film I reviewed. I like to keep my reviews of mondo films short so as not to give away everything. If mondo films are for you, you need to see the originals (like this) and I rate it good. If mondo films are not for you, you know it and won't watch them. Be aware that it seems nothing is "off limits" in these.
An Italian mondo documentary directed by Gualtiero Jacopetti and Franco Prosperi, with music by Riz Ortolani.
Scenes of various things happening in Africa in 1964 are shown and explained.
The best parts about this to me are Riz Ortolani's music (knew it sounded like Cannibal Holocaust) and being filmed in Technicolor Techniscope. I did appreciate that it showed a wide variety of material. There was everything from poachers and corpses to white women at the beach in Cape Town. From what I've read, it's all real and not staged. There was stuff that disturbed me and that's pretty gruesome. The zebra scene was not cool. However, the narrator pointed out that the only dangerous animal in Africa is humans. I don't mind seeing human skeletons scattered along a road and being run over by jeeps, but the zebras did not deserve what happened to them. It's difficult to describe something like this. If you're ready to see anything and everything, get ready to read subtitles really quickly because I would recommend it. If you don't want to see nudity, violence and stuff like that, Discovery Channel, National Geographic and Animal Planet skip the grizzly and gruesome details of reality. Africa was not fit for children's programming in the mid-'60s. I rate this awesome just for being so wild and raw.
A Canadian music documentary by Ron Mann.
A man runs a guitar shop in New York city, building guitars from the wood of demolished buildings.
As with most films, there were positive and negative attributes to this. Production was top notch. Everything looked good because of filming in many areas of the shop and having good camera placement and editing. The audio quality was good, but the audio content was not to my liking. Most of the guitarists who played in the shop were not very good. Sure, they are in popular bands, but their posture and technique are terrible and the material they played sounded like music ended in 1977 or so and was only played in America. Some of them I wanted to say "Stop! put it down, can't you hear that it's suffering?". Fortunately, Jim Jarmusch (film director (image)) made an appearance with an acoustic made of some different wood. The decorative work on the instruments was not exactly my style either. Portraits and text blocks just don't seem to belong on a musical instrument. The whole thing was basically Fender Telecaster worship. I get that it's a historic guitar and obviously great for American rock music of the '60s and '70s. There is just so much "else" out there. There were 2 guitars in the shop which looked cool. 1 was a butterfly body design with a Floyd Rose bridge and the other was a '60s Japanese looking thing. There were also wild unfinished body pieces in the backgrounds. "Screw this stuff that looks cool, I want to copy one of the most boring guitars ever." I liked the interview/conversation style of dialogue, but I think that Rick Kelly (the luthier) should have said a little bit more. There was also crying when the young woman who works there celebrated 5 years(?) of that job. I have to rate this tolerable because there was more negative than positive about it. If you like Fender Telecasters and American rock music from 40 - 60 years ago, this film is for you!
An American documentary by Reed Cowan and Steven Greenstreet.
People in favor of same-sex marriage speak and protest against the Mormon church and their political actions to prevent it.
Not really a subject which interests me, but it was made quite well. There was more talk than techno. Most of it was interviews. This also made it more information than entertainment. There was only 1 camera placement per interview, but they looked good and there were enough of them that it did not get repetitively boring.I have to add another documentary criteria: crying. There were 2 people in this who cried far too much. This behavior only damages their ability to communicate. The gay couple only cried once (I think, not going back to check), which was alright. I rate this o.k. because it was fine, but not something I'm interested in.
A Palestinian Israeli French documentary by Emad Burnat.
A man from a small village films protests about the village's land being taken. New housing is being constructed for settlers and there is a barrier, guarded by soldiers.
I think this illustrates a subject that lots of people know is happening, but do not know the details about. Conflict in the Middle East is as old as time itself, but what this film does is show how that effects individual people, families and a village. They are regular humans too, not just something mentioned in passing on the nightly news. There was lots of talk (in Arabic and Hebrew with English subtitles) and not much techno (or music). What music there was stayed out of the way. It was definitely more about information than entertainment. 4:3 TV video doesn't float my boat, but it was for POV/PBS and needed to be that way. Emad Burnat spends any footage not involved with protests on filming his youngest son, Gabreel (image). By my documentary criteria, this was great. I just didn't find it all that engaging or interesting. That is just a matter of personal taste. I rate it adequate because it is a great documentary, but I did not really get into it.
A British documentary directed by Paul Almond and Michael Apted.
Beginning at the age of 7, 14 British people are interviewed every 7 years.
This was definitely interesting. There is a 2019 film, but I was not able to find a copy. Given that I watched over 13 hours of material in a few days, I did get a little tired of repetition. If I had watched them on TV when they came out, I would have enjoyed it more and that is why the repetition was there. TV viewers are not expected to remember what all 14 people were doing for the past few chapters. I think the idea was a good one, if a little intrusive into the lives of these chosen people. I find that I share the most similarities with Neil. He was the one who was homeless before becoming a politician. I'm not saying that I am either of those things, but like him, I am viewed as an eccentric. There were some great quotes from the whole series and none of the people were boring. It was not quite as deeply informational as I would like from a documentary, but it was not completely entertainment either. There was no techno and mostly talk, so that was good. I rate it adequate and wish I had watched a few less of the episodes.
An American documentary directed by Ava DuVernay.
A discussion on racism and the prison industrial complex in America.
Pretty good. It was definitely on-topic all the way through and looked at multiple aspects of the problem presented. On my documentary scale, this was more talk than techno and more information than entertainment, which is how I like them. What I liked most was that it didn't just stick to a racism problem, but included the whole financial problem of non-white ethnicity, jails and poverty vs big business, power and greed. It explained how what started as keeping slaves slaves after emancipation turned into a runaway system of crime and punishment. It was also not just black people talking about racism, but white people too. There was one section which unintentionally prompted humor from me. Repeated violent criminals were referred to as "superpredators" and it made me think of Stan Winston's Predator (of 1987 film fame) and what would a superpredator be like if that was just a regular one. I rate this adequate, but I think that non-white folks would rate it higher. You might want to check it out.
An American documentary by Dinesh D'Souza.
The narrator explains his views on current American politics and the difference between Democrat and Republican parties. He also interviews people who agree and disagree with him.
In America, we supposedly have some kind of laws protecting freedom of speech and press. I think this is covered under those. If the historical reenactments were poorly made, go ahead and criticize it for that. I agree with most of his ideas and think that the historical scenes were shoddy. As far as idealogical and political documentaries go, this fits somewhere between the "more techno than talk, more entertainment than education" Discovery Channel and independent youtube films I've seen and the "more talk than techno, more education than entertainment" films from David Icke, (old) Alex Jones, Jordan Maxwell and Michael Tsarion. It leaned a little too heavily on the entertainment side, though. I was actually laughing about some of it. Liberal Democrats getting all sad because Trump was selected entertained me when it happened and still does. I have a feeling that Conservative Republicans would not have been crying if Hillary Clinton were selected. There were some sections that I thought were a little too "heavy handed": equating Trump to Abraham Lincoln and Democrats to Fascists (including Hitler) was a little bit over the top. What was not heavy handed was illustrating how Democrats and Republicans view people keeping what they earn. This film was rated very poorly by other critics:
"off-the-screen rants... shabbily constructed and artistically bankrupt... cherry-picked facts, overt omissions, inept historical reenactments, slanders, innuendos... painfully unendurable... tedious and repetitive... he's not putting his claims together in any form that makes sense" - Wikipedia
It has extremely low percentage scores on public film review sites and won 2 Golden Raspberry awards. I don't think it's that bad, but that Liberal Democrats got distraught and were the only ones who rated it. I rate this o.k. because it's middle of the road in documentary production and I agree with lots of what Dinesh says.
An American documentary by Theo Anthony.
The history of Baltimore, Maryland is compared with studies on poverty and rat problems. There are interviews with people who kill rats and some who keep them as pets.
Not very good. My first complaint is the slow pace. Second is that there was too much unrelated B-roll. What do drag racing and a video game prototype have to do with Baltimore rats? Third is that it focuses on rats as a pest control problem. Experimental animals gets some time and pets might as well have not been included. I guess my last complaint is that there was not enough rat footage. The most talkative characters were Edmund, the professional exterminator (image)
and the guy who was fishing for rats in alleys using turkey and peanut
butter. The most entertaining moment was when a rat stole the bait from
his fishing line. The overlays of demographic maps of Baltimore showing poverty was extremely informative because the same section in the middle of the city was always there. I'm rating this tolerable and would hesitate to recommend it to anyone.
A British documentary produced by Jemima Harrison for BBC Two.
Scientists study an inbred family in Turkey whose children are quadrupedal.
So stupid. It all seemed contrived and forced. I would hope that this is not how real scientists act. They acted more like modern sit-com characters than professional anythings. In fact, the video should never have been made. As soon as the children turned out to be inbred and brain damaged, that should preclude any further investigation. I turned it off and am rating it shit. Do not watch!
A British American documentary by Eric Steel.
The Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco California is a popular suicide destination. Interviews are interspersed with footage of the bridge and jumps.
So slow! If this were a book, it would have half a sentence per page and tons of blank pages between sentences. It seems like Eric there wanted to stretch a 10 minute mini-doc into a feature length film. The interviews weren't all that great, just relatives complaining about their non-conformist child/cousin/sibling/friend who jumped. Then the climax came at the end. The guy with long dark hair who was pacing the bridge through the whole duration executed a remarkable jump. That was the best part. Otherwise, it was painful to watch because of so much B-roll and dead air. I rate this bad because it wasn't bad enough to turn off. You would really be better off watching something that makes better use of time.
An American documentary directed by Morgan Neville.
The story of Fred Rogers' life and career is told with interviews of family members and co-workers.
Technical proficiency and a positive message are what make this worth watching. It was a little tame for my tastes, except one short clip. I can't seem to find it in the timeline, but Fred Rogers says "I'll tell you what children need" in a way that makes the viewer know he means it. I thought that was priceless. The documentary covers his decision to start a television program, his rise to fame, how the show worked, parodies and controversies and finally, his death. The interviews were filmed well, even though some of them may have been "single camera single take" jobs. The audio was very level and video from multiple formats and dates were combined in a coherent fashion. Subject matter was ordered in a consecutive and sequential (by date) manner, with re-occurring themes that supported Mr. Rogers' philosophy and beliefs. I'm rating it adequate because it was of a high quality, but didn't go that extra step into good.
An American documentary directed by Fax Bahr, George Hickenlooper and Eleanor Coppola, starring Francis Ford Coppola.
Francis Ford Coppola is making Apocalypse Now.
This was extremely similar to other "making of" film documentaries that I've seen. Information density was a little bit sparse because (as always) there were problems while filming, the director was going nuts and the cast and crew were working too hard. Most of the narration came from the Coppola couple, with Francis being interviewed and Eleanor speaking about the filming years later. There was a good mix of interviews and on-set footage. All of the interviewees were filmed in different locations, which helped lots. The subject matter is kind of stale to me now and has lost it's original charm. The version that I watched was in 4:3 aspect ratio and it seemed like the bottom was cropped off even then. Lots of the "on-set making of" footage was very grainy and exposures were off in anything but the best sunlight conditions. Apparently, Eleanor Coppola did not have a cinematography team working for her like her husband did. Audio was a little bit low, but mixed correctly. IMDb lists a rating of 8.2/10 and Rotten Tomatoes lists 100% Tomatometer with 94% audience score for an average of 92%. I think that's a little bit high because of how many other films have similar documentaries about them. I rate this o.k.
An American documentary directed by Chris Moukarbell, starring Lady Gaga.
Gaga's PR firm made her a promotional documentary.
What a farce! An hour and a half, of course. The "plot" follows Gaga as she finishes an album and gets ready for the super bowl. During this time, she films 2 music videos and goes to the doctor because of physical pain. I cared not for the characters. Gaga is possessed by demons and is paying the price for fame with physical and emotional pain. The bitch hits her record producer's car with her jeep in a parking lot and shows only superficial remorse. They're both rich and can buy new vehicles, so they don't care. The dialogue seemed scripted or stoned. Pick one and you're probably right. Sets looked like rich bitch paradise "Oh, I'll take my bikini top off now for no real reason". Camera-work was atrocious. hand held with vertical format cell phone footage mixed in every once in a while. The only positive aspect was a short shot of some serious female anatomy points. Audio was not bad, except "her" music. As if anyone would believe that she writes songs! It was laughable. She's there in the studio, holding guitars and pretending to play piano. IMDb lists a rating of 7.1/10 and Rotten Tomatoes lists 74% Tomatometer with 80% Audience Score for an average of 75%. Apparently, people like being lied to. I watched it to the end, but I rate it shit anyway. Oh, poor demon-possessed pop star has to do work. Poor, poor Gaga with her millions of dollars, rich bitch mansion and Mercedes-smashing jeep. Go cry to your personal chiropractor.
A British documentary directed by Martin Scorsese and Michael Henry Wilson.
The famous film director, Martin Scorsese narrates his perspective on the history of American films.
This seemed very professional and cohesive. I just wish he had included the period of his career and his contemporaries in the timeline. Clocking in somewhere between 3 and 4 hours, it's engineered for those with a deep interest in movies and filmmaking.The information density was just about right. He spoke on each topic and showed clips for enough time that the viewer could digest the information without getting tired of it. There was the main interview with Scorsese himself and this was supplemented by possibly second hand footage of interviews with other directors who further illustrate the points that Scorsese is making. The whole "documentaries about movies" genre interests me a great deal. The interviewees on this type of film are talking about their job, but there's a meta level at which they are speaking about what is happening right then and what they are currently a part of, like standing between 2 mirrors or like Russian dolls. The camera-work for the main interview was as dull as it gets. He was always in the center of the frame, looking at the unmoving camera on a tripod. There was some zoom or cropping used, but that was all. Showing clips from the films that he spoke of was the best part. It illustrated his point while adding interest. I thought the audio all sounded right. Even switching between the main interview, secondary interviews and film clips, there were not noticeable volume differences. IMDb has an 8.6/10 rating listed and Rotten Tomatoes lists 100% Tomatometer with 96% Audience Score for an average of 94%. That's one of the best scores I've seen on any consensus average. I thought it was a fine documentary and very professionally made, but a solid A grade seems a little high to me. I rate this adequate. I'll be keeping it with the rest of my "films about films" and would recommend it to anyone who is interested enough in the subject to watch something over 3 hours long.
An American documentary directed by Jon Fauer.
Cinematographers are interviewed about their jobs.
This was a little bit of a special interest piece. You need to be really into how movies are made to see value in it. I watched the extended/extras version with 2 full hour long interviews added to the hour and a half feature duration for a total of 3 and a half hours because I'm really into how movies are made. Information density was there if you know what they're talking about. Each interviewee explains some of the aspects of what a cinematographer does and how the quality of this work is determined. There were tons of interviewees: 110 of them! Given my high level of interest in the subject matter, even I found this a little on the dry side and was easily distracted while watching it. My mind tended to wander some while these folks were talking. Too bad the cinematography on this documentary was so poor. Each interviewee was filmed from only one camera on a tripod. If you watch the extras, you find out that the camera operator was moving the camera around as well as zooming in and out while they were filming. To be clear, more cameras or shot positions with less movement would have been better. The audio all sounded great to me. I could hear the monologues very clearly and there was not much dynamic range of volume. IMDb has a rating of 7.1/10 listed, Apple iTunes has 3.6/5 and Rotten Tomatoes lists 61% Audience Score for an average of 68%. I think that I agree with the barely passing grade. I rate it poor.
An American documentary directed by Kenneth Bowser.
The stars of Hollywood talk about the '60s, '70s and '80s.
Oh boy, I really needed to see this shit about mainstream flicks! 2 hours was too much, but the pacing was moderately quick. The plot seriously went nowhere. Usually, documentaries about movies are supposed to make you want to watch the films they're about, but this did the opposite! I don't want to have watched those movies! Information density was pretty sparse. It seemed like people spoke on a single talking point for far too long. Selection of interviewees was top notch. These were the people involved in the subject matter and could not have been chosen better. I think that the subject matter itself is what repulsed me so much. These are the most popular films leading into the era of the blockbuster and I like the most obscure films most. The camera-work on interviews was textbook, but terrible. Every one of them was on the left with tons of headroom (image). Some variety would have been nice. There were endless kinestasises of still photos as well. Clips from the films were as sparse as the information density. Audio worked. I could hear dialogue, sound effects and music. I would call the style uncreative at best. IMDb lists a rating of 7.5/10 and Rotten Tomatoes 100% tomatometer with 81% audience score for an average of 85.3%. It is easy to believe that this got 100% on something because it's a mediocre documentary about mediocre films that were enormously popular for their mediocrity. Obviously, I disagree with so high an average grade. I rate this poor because it sucked a fat one, but wasn't painful.
An American documentary directed by Charles de Lauzirika.
The plot is no secret: the making of Blade Runner.
In a "making of" documentary, I'm really looking for 1 thing: does it make me want to watch the movie that it's about? This did. 3 and a half hours is a little bit much for anyone who doesn't love the original film or who isn't into filmmaking. I watched the original a long time ago and remember not being impressed, but I am very into filmmaking. The information density was very high and the interviews were revealing. Almost everyone who worked on the film was interviewed about each stage of production. Most of them were only filmed with one camera placement, but what they said illustrated the story very well. The troubles that Blade Runner encountered on its way from concept to final product were large, nearly insurmountable. What I liked most was the special effects section. That's what I would really like to do, so it was cool to hear from people who made those things happen in a science fiction film of such renown. Audio was all very good. I could tell the microphones were placed properly and the resulting audio was mixed correctly. IMDb has this rated at 8.3/10 and Rotten Tomatoes has 92% audience score for an average of 87.5%. A high B+ seems appropriate because I really liked the depth and found it interesting, but it didn't blow me away and make me shout "YAHOO!". I rate this good.
A Canadian documentary directed by Zoran Maslic.
A poet left Bosnia because of war and moved to Canada, where he opened a restaurant.
It's difficult not to compare this with Zoran's other film, Annoying. This was not as good. The pacing was very slow and the interviews seemed a little too informal. It was very clear that the film was a portrait of Goran Simic, the poet, but I expected more to happen or some deeper meaning to be revealed. Way too much of the camera-work was handheld, which added to the informal style of the film. Audio was good, with subtitles even when people were speaking English. I can't really compare ratings by other critics because Zoran made sure that his website is the only place where this is mentioned, besides a vimeo page where I watched it. Overall, it seemed slow, uneventful and informal. I rate this o.k.
