I have read with interest, the majority of comments with regard to this documentary, and am not astonished to see that many are affected (adversely or otherwise) by the work of what I can only speculate to be a talented film director in the making.
Respectfully and contextually (this is IMDb not Tiananmen Square...), the subject matter is of secondary importance to me. This yarn has good guys, bad guys and a narrative - the basis of all good theatre.
What's eminently apparent from watching 'Loose Change 2E' is that the goal of building a coherent message (however 'alternative') is achieved with just enough professionalism so as to render it instantly plausible. This plausibility is perhaps not altogether factually credible, but it doesn't need to be - it serves to fuel our natural penchant for inquisition, seeking flaws and continuity errors and offering us the status-laden opportunity to claim bragging rights with our peers as a result.
The narrator asks for answers to well considered questions with effective use of sarcasm, but my main criticism is that it sadly falls into the trap of open subjectivism when giving direct opinion later on. This wasn't necessary as the implication was already palpable and the message already well developed. However, the effective delivery of narration coupled with a well considered backing track combine to make this a very watchable and interesting production.
In terms of the actual content, I ask only what the consequences would be if the events of 9/11 were independently and formally investigated and this line of argument proved to be actually true?? What if they are right??
Respectfully and contextually (this is IMDb not Tiananmen Square...), the subject matter is of secondary importance to me. This yarn has good guys, bad guys and a narrative - the basis of all good theatre.
What's eminently apparent from watching 'Loose Change 2E' is that the goal of building a coherent message (however 'alternative') is achieved with just enough professionalism so as to render it instantly plausible. This plausibility is perhaps not altogether factually credible, but it doesn't need to be - it serves to fuel our natural penchant for inquisition, seeking flaws and continuity errors and offering us the status-laden opportunity to claim bragging rights with our peers as a result.
The narrator asks for answers to well considered questions with effective use of sarcasm, but my main criticism is that it sadly falls into the trap of open subjectivism when giving direct opinion later on. This wasn't necessary as the implication was already palpable and the message already well developed. However, the effective delivery of narration coupled with a well considered backing track combine to make this a very watchable and interesting production.
In terms of the actual content, I ask only what the consequences would be if the events of 9/11 were independently and formally investigated and this line of argument proved to be actually true?? What if they are right??