Reviews

This episode is not only bad in itself but it's worse because it's a part of what was once a wonderful mystery series. It is, in fact, a desecration. I never liked Dudgeon as a replacement for John Nettles. Dudgeon is wooden and humorless. In an older Midsomer he played a surly, shifty gardener. He was perfect for that role. But even he could have made a believable detective if the writing was up to par. Unfortunately it's not, it's banal. The dialog is bland, the motives of the characters are bizarre and unbelievable and the plot is predictable and melodramatic. Midsomer is a darker, more depressing place now.

'Midsomer Murders' worked because of its subtle humor. Odd motives, strange methods of homicide and barely hidden passions among respectable, self-absorbed villagers were just part of the fun because the entire series was based on its dark humor, a beautifully crafted send-up. Without the humor the motives of the killer and other characters seem just convoluted and creepy. The solution looks to be pulled out of a hat since there's insufficient preparation for it in preceding scenes. The final rescue is prolongued, preposterous, and overwrought. And there's a sappy love story tacked on which is too contrived to be heart warming.

Brian True-May is gone, taken down by nasty elements of the PC thought police. His absence is sincerely felt. How much that effects the quality of recent episodes I don't know, but it can't help. This episode is practically unwatchable. Don't bother.

The cops in this British drama don't act like professional policemen but more like mentally deranged teenagers with anger management issues. The main character, DI Thorne (David Morrissey), is not in control of his emotions. His volatility and rage seem to infect the other members of the cast so that in total what we have here is a virtual feeding frenzy of scenery chewing. Cops yell at other cops and cops and medical doctors yell at each other. In one scene one character becomes enraged and punches another character repeatedly in the face for no reason that was apparent to me. DI Thorne seems to believe that he can communicate with a woman in a vegetative state by shouting at her. Other times he seems depressed and on the verge of suicide. The plot is senseless and contrived. Nobody appears to behave rationally. A woman doctor, when she finds out that her daughter has been kidnapped, just freaks out and starts screaming uncontrollably and Thorne freaks out too, running around like a chicken with its head cut off. So who's minding the store?

I don't generally like procedurals that feature serial killers, and especially serial killers with weird and perverted MOs, and especially serial killers who have an obsession with the primary investigator, sending him taunting messages. These are tired, boring clichés. That's my prejudice. But I must admit that genre could be done well in the right hands. This one is just awful. Don't waste your time.

My wife and I have been great fans of this program in the past. I've seen 4 episodes in the 2013 season and they're nowhere near the quality of New Tricks' best years. The 4 episodes play on Brian being phased out of the series and try to wring as much emotion as possible from this and other situations. Sandra verbally abuses Brian unmercifully in one of these episodes, which, since we're sympathetic to Brian and his problems seems like overkill. Many scenes are played like a soap opera. There's way too much yelling and emotional exaggeration. Somehow the gentle humor of the original team is replaced with a lot of awkward moments and drawn-out tearful reflections. When we watch mysteries we're mainly interested in solving the mysteries and the personal lives of the team should add to the story, not detract from it. I'd say that the writing just isn't up to par, though I also appreciate the difficulties of creating a show with the chemistry of the original cast disrupted by changing personnel. I'd just say the show is past its prime.

"Vitality" is apparently a vehicle for a variety of alternative healers (i.e. quacks) who want to be taken for legitimate physicians. Their cover story is a sermon about the importance of exercise, diet and sufficient sleep as the basis for a healthy life. As far as that goes, that's good advice, and advice that no actual MD would be hesitant to give. A large part of our health care costs are from treating people whose lifestyles are unhealthy and sometimes very unhealthy. This is where "Vitality" gets it right. If people would start getting enough exercise, stop smoking, and drinking excessive amounts alcohol our health care costs would plummet. If this film would encourage people to live healthy lifestyles that's a good thing.

The problem comes from the stated and implied ideology that underlies the good advice: the bias against Western scientific medicine and false claims that Western medicine 'treats only the symptoms' of disease and strives to get patients hooked on pills. On the contrary, scientific, or evidence-based, medicine is focused on finding and treating the cause of illness, not treating symptoms. And no real doctor would encourage his patients to live an unhealthy lifestyle.

This documentary features interviews with a variety practitioners of superstition and magic: naturopaths, chiropractors, acupuncturists and 'natural healers'. You hear the word "allopath" used to describe regular doctors, a term invented by homeopaths and used to denigrate medical doctors. They talk about "energy fields" as being the basis of health and disease, a wooly and mystical concept that has no meaning in the real world. Those 'natural healers' promote diet and exercise as cover but in fact they see clients and presume to treat specific illnesses with what is little more than snake oil and incantations. While charging Western medicine with being about the money, alternative healers often manage to fleece their clients out of lots of it. Worthless treatments and supplements can be very expensive, often prescribed to treat imaginary illnesses such as toxic plaques in the bowels or psychosomatic infestations. What these quacks are promoting is the idea that people trained in magical systems be taken to be on an equal footing with actual doctors who went to medical school. If that ever were to happen I fear for the quality of medical care in America.

This relatively short film is about the consequences of texting and driving and a warning for viewers to not to do it. Herzog has considerable skill in interviewing and assembling the interviews in order to make a point or create a narrative. We can see his artistry here, but we're left wondering: what is it all about, really? Both victims and perpetrators of texting and driving accidents are interviewed. Of course it's what you'd expect: descriptions of the carnage, devastated families and offenders who have to live with guilt for the rest of their lives. These are the kind of scenes that are played out in any fatal accident, no matter what the cause. And except for the particular reason for driver distraction, in this case texting, they are generic to all bad accidents. This exercise in persuasion is powerful, moving, and pointless. Why? Because anyone dumb enough to text and drive wouldn't be watching a Werner Herzog film to get pointers on driver ed. Telling a person not to text and drive is like telling him not to stick his hand in a wood chipper while it's running. You don't warn people like that about the dangers of doing something anyone with half a brain would know from the start not to do, you don't let them drive in the first place.

Every American should see this film, even though I think the 'values' it expresses are downright evil. People should see it just to be warned about this disease of violence and murder that is metastasizing on our southern border. As documentary cinema it's pretty good; it follows certain characters who have an intimate involvement of the drug culture and drug trade. There is no narration, just interviews with essentially two main players: one a Mexican CSI investigator, and the other a morally ambiguous songwriter who specializes in 'narcocorridos', songs about the Mexican drug trade and the carnage that goes with it.

Narcocorridos exploit sensational stories of murder and violence, naming real events, real drug lords and real victims, and generally casting them in a heroic aura which is far better than these criminal scumbags deserve. Corridos, songs which tell stories, are a venerable tradition in Mexican folk music. Traditionally they have a sweet, lyrical quality, telling tales of Pancho Villa or the revenge of jilted lovers and the exploits of famous bandits. Of late the corrido has taken a darker turn, celebrating the nihilistic deeds and deaths of narcotraficantes and in general glorifying and promoting the culture of trafficking and murder. For this reason narcocorridos have been banned in Mexico as an incitement to violence. And, unavoidably, since the songs often name players, dates and locations the bands themselves become partisans in the drug wars and have become too often the victims of the mayhem they celebrate. The songwriter interviewed in this documentary lives in California and makes his money off the public's fascination with the horrors of the drug trade. His band features, along with the traditional instruments like tuba and accordion, a bazooka, which is shown but not, we must hope, played on stage. Gone are the bittersweet sounds of Los Alegres de Teran or even Los Cadetes de Linares and instead we have musicians with attitude. They seem to be really good musicians but their music is drowned out by the attitude.

On the other hand, we also follow a young policeman whose job is to collect forensic evidence from crime scenes after the shootouts between rival gangs. This often involves severed body parts strewn conspicuously about the neighborhood as a message to the other guys. It's an awful, thankless, job because few of the murders are solved and the corruption of the Mexican authorities is epic. He is careful, dedicated and in danger. Policemen in the northern states are killed on a regular basis. This fellow represents the best of Mexican manhood, unlike the locos you see posing with their pistols and their AKs. You get to see what he's up against. He is the real hero, but is anybody going to write a corrido about him?

The problem with the drug culture is that is isn't actually a culture, with its traditional values. It is instead the absence of values, the absence of culture, a black hole that threatens to swallow light itself. Santa Muerte is not a real saint. She is the anti-saint. Near the end we see an entire cemetery where the rich drug dealers go when they die (seldom of natural causes). Each mausoleum is like a big ornate church with domes and cupolas and there looks to be a whole city of them. And the windows are glazed with bulletproof glass. The drug culture becomes a parody of itself.

Chogyam Trungpa was a Tibetan 'tulku' who ventured to America and established a Tibetan Buddhist center in Boulder, CO in the 1970s. Coming at the twilight of the hippie period of the 1960s he found many followers who had experimented with psychedelics and were ready for further explorations into new worlds of consciousness. Some people, of course, are naturally attracted to ritualistic religion and Tibet had lots of rituals. And Buddhism has always had an aspect of psychotherapy, a promise of healing for minds in distress, especially for people unable to afford expensive shrinks. Few Westerners had tasted for themselves the exotic and esoteric teachings of Tibet and the fact that Trungpa promised to open these new and exciting spiritual realms for them, (and in a community which at the same time indulged in drunken revelry and free sex) was a compelling magnet to inquiring minds everywhere. Lots of well-known poets, writers and artists went to study at Trungpa's feet. That his behavior was eccentric and even scandalous was just an added attraction.

Trungpa's addiction to alcohol was legendary and this film doesn't try to cover it up. His students argue that the booze didn't impair his judgment but the facts speak otherwise. The video, of course, never mentions it, but in 1975 Trungpa staged a meditation retreat at Snowmass, CO which devolved into a wild naked party. Trungpa, drunk as a skunk, provoked a bloody fight which landed several followers in the hospital. The Boulder Buddhist center had began to acquire the reputation as a cult and that was not helped by Trungpa's drunkenness and womanizing. He took full advantage of his position as guru to ravish his female students, though by all indications they went willingly to his bed. He was married and this caused his young wife a great deal of heartache. His followers defended him. He was a genuine Tibetan and supposedly enlightened and conventional rules didn't apply to him. After all, this was "crazy wisdom." How could you argue with that? He died young of alcoholism, but for many that didn't diminish his message.

One thing is certain, Trungpa's followers weren't the usual losers and zombies who get caught in cults. Many of them were very intelligent and independent artists and writers. But there was a similar cultish dynamic. Many of them had to be treated for alcoholism after Trungpa died and the Buddhist center in Boulder self-destructed. They drank because he was their role model and he drank. They refused to see any of the guru's behaviors in a negative light. The scandal that finished off the Boulder Tibetan Buddhist center is another bizarre story never mentioned in the movie.

It is probably unrealistic for people to expect their saints to be totally pure and without usual human failings. People want to project their fantasies of purity and goodness on their leaders and gurus. No human can live up to those impossible expectations. At least Trungpa was out in the open, he was never hypocritical, what you saw was what you got. Many people found him genuinely likable and for them he seemed to possess a great deal of wisdom. The viewer must decide for himself. Was he full of "crazy wisdom" or just crazy? The film is well-made, but glosses over the negative aspects of his operation and fails to explore the nature of the esoteric Tibetan traditions that were the main attraction at the Boulder center. However you can get a pretty good feel for who Trungpa was and how he influenced so many people by watching this documentary.

This piece of steaming dreck is not only bad film making, it is morally corrupt. 50 Cent is a wooden actor, but then it's supposed to be about his life and no doubt he's just a wooden, psychopathic narcissist. Like the musical form he celebrates, his emotional range is as narrow as Freddy Kruger's fingernails. He's basically a thick thug with a sense of rhythm. The film, like gangsta rap, celebrates thruggery and violence, greed and cruelty.

The characters refer to themselves by the n-word so often you wonder if they really feel that way about themselves. I know, the use is supposed to be ironic, like bloke, or dude, but you know that can't really be the case. If white people are not allowed to use the word you know it still means what it always did. Women are called 'bitches.' What does that tell you? The flick seems to be saying: just act like a damn fool gangster, sell crack to your friends, shoot anybody you don't like, go to jail and you'll come out of it a star.

There's a telling moment early in the film at a time when crack is new on the scene, and one character, realizing it's enormous potential for profitability says, "This will get us out of the ghetto..." The exact opposite of the truth, crack locked thousands of helpless black youth in the ghetto permanently. Even the very few that ever made any money selling it were still locked in the ghetto and the hip-hop that celebrates that way of life locks thousands more in the ghetto. No wonder there's a plague of black-on-black murder in some of our major cities. Maybe a first step toward fixing this situation might be to denounce this kind of evil propaganda.

I kept watching this movie to the end because I was fascinated by its badness. And because there is a trio of attractive cat actors who take up more screen time than the story justifies but who are about the only thing about this disaster that are attractive or interesting and the only ones that a person might care about.

The story is about Isabelle, a bookstore owner and cat lover who evidently is cracking up. She's getting flashbacks from her past with weird sounds in the background. You have to wait to nearly the end of the film to see what the flashbacks are all about. Because Isabelle is crazy she's not a very likable or interesting character. She lacks affect and has zero personality. I don't blame the actress who plays her, she's playing a very damaged and evil person, but she's damaged in a way that makes her boring and repellent. I believe that people like that really are boring, unlike Lucy in the famous opera. Not only is Isabelle boring, the movie is so sluggish as molasses in unfolding the plot. Only the cats make it the least bit interesting. O yes, Isabelle has a sister, or sister surrogate, and they're always talking on the phone about Isabelle's mental state and sinister events in the past the nature of which are never really clear. For some insane reason the sister thinks she has to rescue the pathetic Isabelle..from herself?

I hope I've said enough to make you not want to see this flick. I won't reveal the plot which grinds to a halt after way too long. There's quite a bit of blood at the end, but it's still boring. Instead of suspense you have ennui. Like many low budget films the problem isn't the low budget but the fact that there's really no story here and no interesting characters (except the cats). The plot has no twists and turns but plods along in a straight line to a sticky conclusion. Run away!

I came on this by accident and was pleasantly surprised. I think it's a really excellent film, a "southern Gothic ghost story" for which the word 'haunting' seems just right to describe the mood it evoked in me when I saw it. I think it's the sort of film that not everybody will 'get'. It's about a young man who has to choose between life and death. It's subtle and literary with echoes of a half-remembered past. The story is poetic and unique, not at all like the usual haunted house tale, but more like a piece of folklore. It's a bit scary, but not that scary. It doesn't aim to frighten but stir something deeper in the audience. It has more to do with a meditation of life and love and death and the passage of time. This film uses music to great effect. I even had to look up some of the songs on iTunes. You might not like as much as I did, and I'm sorry about that, but it really got to me.

This film is interesting to watch, especially the tour through the ruins of Detroit, a fascinating graphic representation of the collapse of a major American city. The haunted landscape with its empty houses and buildings (often very large buildings) evokes emotions of loss and decline, both sad and romantic at the same time. I was thoroughly entertained while I was watching those scenes. This documentary also interviews some of the residents of those devastated areas, and while those survivors are likable and interesting in themselves, they seem to have little insight into what's going on around them or why. This video provides a paucity of information about what brought about those alarming conditions, instead focusing on allowing the pictures to tell the story.

There are a couple of major omissions that are quite glaring, as if the videographers just had to avert their eyes from the truth because of ideology or just a personal aversion. First is the alarming crime rate. Only about 21% of the homicides are solved. There is no indication here about how dangerous Detroit has become. Another omission is the abysmal condition of the public schools. Without decent schools there is literally no hope for the kids still having to live in the Detroit area. My understanding is that it is not due to lack of money because Detroit schools receive more per pupil than the national average. Only 25% of high school students graduate. A young student is more likely to wind up in prison than in college. A third glaring omission is the fact that the city has been ruled by Democratic politicians for 50 years. The city's problems are to a large extent the result of bad politics, misspent money and cronyism. Without a viable opposition who was there to keep the politicians honest?

I don't mind that much if the documentary was just meant to show the wasteland that was once Detroit as a series of visual images for their own sake. However there seems to be something under the surface that is hinted at but never developed. Why did Detroit take such a nosedive in the last decades? I would have preferred a more in-depth analysis. Why couldn't Detroit adapt to changes in the global market? Auto plants in other parts of the US are doing okay. Did the unions kill the auto industry in Detroit? This is a question that is never asked in "Detropia." Perhaps because the filmmakers didn't want to face the answer.

This is just about my all-time favorite TV show. It follows real homicide detectives as they work to solve actual cases. You get to ride along with them and see how they put together the clues and catch their suspects. You get to see the devastating effects these homicides have on the families of the victims. You can see how the detectives interview actual suspects and how they handle the strain this rather grim and arduous work which often pulls them out of bed in the middle of the night to go to some miserable crime scene to examine a dead guy who was alive only an hour or so before. These detectives are admirable, heroic, stoic and dedicated to do the work they do and they're not without a sense of humor. This sense of humor isn't the breezy, wisecracking sort you get on the fictional cop shows, but a genuine dark humor which comes from an all-too-real appreciation of the tragic nature of their work and the absurdities of the situations they have to deal with. For example, a suspect is being interrogated by a female officer. The suspect is saying how he was friends with the victim and would never hurt him. However, it's looking more and more obvious he did it. "I knew him since grammar school, he's like a brother to me," the suspect pleads, "I love him to death." The detective replies: "I hope nobody ever loves me that much."

The vast majority of these murders occur in minority neighborhoods. This is a fact of life that many people have a hard time getting their heads around. Why this is may be a complex question. There seems to be a feeling of resignation among the residents of these 'hoods. They are very often reluctant to give information to the police even though they are the ones suffering most from the crimes around them, and though cooperating with the cops would be the surest way to mitigate the crime problem which is making their lives a living hell.

You can observe several salient things watching "The First 48." First, the housing in these high crime neighborhoods isn't really so bad. Second, people appear to be well-fed and possess TVs, cellphone, iPods and all kinds of consumer items including pretty good cars and nice clothes. You are far more likely to see obese people than starving people.

The third thing that impresses is the absolutely deadpan, casual, mindless and cold-blooded way these killers usually commit their murders. Most of them appear to be sleepwalking. They kill on impulse, not from passion or even for some economic gain. They kill innocent bystanders as easily as they kill intended targets. They hardly appear to know how to aim their guns. It seems you have generations of young thugs who appear to be just too dumb to think of anything else to do than to go out and shoot their friends and neighbors for...well, it doesn't even seem like sport, it's more like just something to relive the boredom. I don't know the reason for this, but it is the most absolutely remarkable thing you come to know from watching this series or just reading the stories in the newspapers. It is profoundly shocking to realize that a large cohort of young men, often in their late teens and early 20s have such little regard for human life, and little regard for anything else either. Often the young killers appear stunned, zombielike, when they find themselves in police custody, like they have no idea why they're there and wondering when they can go home.

This show is beautifully produced, visually and structurally, with a very real sense of compassion for the families and friends of the victims. Though the killers seem to be emotionally detached, the families of the victims feel the loss of a loved one very deeply indeed. "The First 48" touches on so many subjects, sociology, criminology, old-fashioned detective work, spirituality, psychology and forensics. It is just about the best 'reality' show on TV today.

This movie has good production values and masquerades as a political thriller when in fact it is pure propaganda. It has some good actors and the camera work and cutting suggests a sense of movement and suspense, but when you find out what it's all about you see there is no story there. Not only is the story absent and the characters unconvincing, it contains a nasty anti-Israel, anti-American subtext. We are asked to believe that a desiccated, boring, old Brit secret service agent has claimed the moral high ground and sacrificed his career and pension to please a pretty girl and expose his PM as a collaborator with the evil Americans.

Page Eight fabricates an incident where Israelis murder a peaceful demonstrator "in cold blood," and then cover it up. This is a gratuitous slander. It is alarming how casually such a fictitious accusation is made and how casually it is accepted as typical by the intended audience.

Who are the enemies here? Certainly not the terrorists, they hardly receive any notice except a bit of hand-wringing over the possibility of their mistreatment. This flick is aimed at a liberal audience outraged at the conduct of the war on terror of Tony Blair and George W. Bush.

Now, lately, we have seen a turnaround: with Obama as President there appears to be far less concern about secret facilities where terrorists are supposedly tortured, and little concern about drone attacks, which under W. would have outraged the haughty BBC viewers. Of course Israel is always on the agenda, any attempt to defend herself against barbarians brings her under attack from the enlightened snobs at the Beeb. Political thrillers are supposed to be about the fight against the bad guys, not trashing allies.

I was fascinated and totally on the edge of my seat for this one. Despite flaws in the production and irrelevant scenes involving one of the GIGN member's wife and little daughter, included obviously for the sake of emotional pull, this film is an accurate reenactment of the Air France hijacking of 1994 and subsequent raid to free the hostages. This film is a stark reminder why we have to endure airport security and how crazy these Muslim religious fanatics are.

The movie had a made-for-TV quality and could have done with higher production values; perhaps the budget was limited. The version I saw had dubbed voices which made the acting seem worse than it really was. I think it would be a lot better in French with subtitles. A lot of the technical details of the planning of the raid were just not explained, no doubt the film makers were more interested in dramatic effect. But the fact that it was an accurate reenactment of real events made these flaws appear minor and the events more gripping.

At one point the French Government tries to appease the Terrorists by giving them a large sum of money without any hint or assurance that the hostages would be released. I said to myself, "Did that really happen? I mean, could they be that dumb?" Those leery of French politics will just have to groan and say "Not again!" But then at the time they didn't have the lessons of 9/11 to inform them.

All in all I was immersed in this film and was quite willing to overlook its minor flaws in light of the important lessons it teaches. Historical accuracy counts for a lot in this kind of drama.

Of course partisans for one side or the other will judge this video on ideological grounds, I think I can say objectively it's a pretty good, though slanted, documentary on the ephemeral Occupy movement which appeared and disappeared in a relatively short period of time, full of sound and fury, signifying...what? The movie explores that question. "Occupy Unmasked" is better than just a polemic, it is very effective in showing just how inarticulate, destructive, and frankly, just plain fatuous the Occupy movement was. How the encampments were a breeding ground for filth, crime and disease and how it ended leaving piles of fetid trash and millions of dollars of damage to local businesses, and to public parks and buildings. There is a lot of detailed information here and the graphics are electrifying. It's a fun video to watch.

What it shows is the American left in the 2st century, adrift in a sea of slogans and political and historical ignorance. Gone are the clearly defined goals of the old communists and socialists. Participants in the demonstrations can hardly articulate what it's all about, they appear tongue-tied when trying to answer the simplest question about what they want or what the aims of the movement are. Their main aim seems to be to cause as much violence and disruption as possible and then see themselves on the evening news. They never get beyond, "Hate the rich!" and "Capitalism sucks!" Mostly the demonstrators were privileged white kids who were taking some time off and thought the government should forgive their student loans. Perhaps they believe that if they can cause the collapse of the current system something new and wonderful will emerge from the ashes. Because they're so poorly educated they don't realize how often that's been tried before with disastrous results.

I think this is a very good film on a subject that could have been ruined with too much heavy-handed polemic and paucity of information. It could have been pretty awful and I would have said so despite my personal antipathy toward the infantile and destructive tactics of the demonstrators. I think most people who aren't committed leftists will enjoy it because of the skill and drama with which it's realized.

Herzog is a competent filmmaker and this documentary has its moments but it's way too long. Supposedly a meditation on the death penalty it meanders, showing long tedious interviews with friends and relatives of both victims and perpetrators. There are also just too many long segments of static graphics combined with spooky music. Guess those are supposed to encourage the audience to meditate on the issues concerning life and death. In any case, the appeal here is almost wholly emotional. Herzog is against the death penalty and he pulls out all stops to show the apparent boyish innocence of the killers and recount the miserable childhoods they suffered. There's a long sequence where one killer's father goes on and on about what a failure he was as a parent. The father is also serving a life sentence for murder. The implication is that of course those sweet boys were turned into killers by the bad influence of their environment and just happened to have made a mistake, as boys will.

The backstory is entirely different and for that reason the movie, while showing interesting crime scene video, fails to examine very carefully the case against the two. The investigation and capture of the suspects comes out in fragments, there is no coherent narrative here. What was, exactly, the case against them? This film is long on emotion and short on details. These killers were not innocent boys who got caught up in some prank that went wrong. They went to a house to kill and rob and had no compunction about killing again to try to cover up their crime. They were, as the details of the crime make clear, vicious, murdering psychopaths. Compassion might dictate that they should be kept alive but at what cost? This movie doesn't actually address the details in any comprehensive way. When you realize what those young men did there's a natural tendency to want to see them got rid of, permanently. But whereas revenge is considered unworthy of civilized people, we are left with the practical problem of what to do with criminals who are very unlikely to be rehabilitated and must live the rest of their long lives at taxpayer expense.

It is a copout for this film to dodge these issues. Whereas we learn more of the death house procedures than we ever wanted to know there is little discussion about issues of crime and punishment. The film allows the viewer to come to his own conclusions, which is good, but provides a lot more emotion than discussion on the subject of the death penalty. Herzog can present compelling interviews with plenty of emotion but he has difficulty with a coherent narrative.