Reviews

I liked the movie. But, it seems like Kevin Smith has passed his peak. This movie and Clerks 2 were both very funny and entertaining movies. But, they don't live up to his past works.

His movies seem to be more sentimental now. There is less of a focus on humor and more on drama. I don't think Kevin Smith knows how to write dramas incredibly well. When I'm seeing some of the more sappy scenes in his movies it reminds me of the visual impression I get when I'm hearing a 20 something or college student recount a romantic episode. There is all the bohemian philosophy and crude imagery you might imagine.

I think we could do without the bohemian philosophy. I get enough of it talking to people; I don't feel the need to pay for a movie ticket to get more of it.

The crude imagery has its place in some of the humor. And it was used quite effectively in some of the scenes in this movie. One in particular would be the porn star who has constipation. That was crude and funny.

I always knew that Woody Allen had a Jazz band. I think anyone that has seen more than five of his movies probably knows that. Many of his films claim that the recordings for the soundtracks were done by Woody Allen and his band. I like the music his band plays. I'm not very familiar with New Orleans Jazz or Jazz in general. But, I still think I can understand and enjoy it the way Woody Allen says he enjoys it.

This movie is a complete train wreck. I remember Francis Ford Coppola was contemplating suicide on film because he thought Apocalypse Now was going to turn out to be a complete and utter failure or an unfinished project. I could imagine the director of this documentary coming to the same conclusions.

The problem is, Woody Allen is a more interesting character when he is writing or performing. Watching this movie shows us how average his life is (when taking into account the small things that make up life). This movie could have just as well been about a plumber unclogging pipes, or a mail man delivering mail. I don't see what makes a movie about a famous director staying in hotels grasping in any intellectual, philosophical, or emotional fashion.

And that is basically what this movie is. Its him and his wife staying in hotels, going on airplanes, and doing gigs. The gigs eventually get as boring as the airplane rides. The movie feels more like a reality show than a documentary. Do we care that hot water was not working in Woody Allen's hotel? Do we care that he would rather get bitten by a dog than licked by one? Do we care about the omelets Woody Allen's wife orders for breakfast? If any of use answered yes to any of those questions, maybe we should re watch some Woody Allen movies to see the qualities that we were most certainly missing.

I watched this movie because I saw Martin Scorsese directed it. I've seen just about every piece of film he's captured. I never read any of Fran Liebowitz's books or her essays. The movie is called public speaking as though Liebowitz were a good example of it, but she seems to be demonstrating the opposite. I'm not sure how you can be so smug and still be a good public speaker. Generally, you have to speak differently in public than you do in private. After all, its a different audience. Liebowitz seems to be talking the same way someone would if they were in a date situation. The whole movie you kind of feel like you are being held hostage by this unbearable woman who feels (incorrectly) as though you are clinging on to her every word.

This may be a problem with many of the humorists located in New York. I'm proud to say I'm not from New York although I know many people from there. It seems to me their main problem is that they live under the assumption that they know absolutely everything, while knowing nothing. This would be a great convention to live your life by if you were a sociopath. Since no one of consequence would be the only people present, when speaking in public.

I was surprised at the very low score of this movie. It seemed like it would not warrant such a low score. I was proved wrong.

The movie is basically a softcore porno. The character development and acting is on par with a porno. The writing and dialogue is on par with a porno. The cinematography is a small cut above a porno. The sex scenes are a cut below a porno.

I could go into more depth on the reasoning behind those four statements, but it seems pointless to reenact the movie in my head. I'll just say that the dad in the movie acts cartoonishly evil. The nurse is very poorly developed and comes off as an implausible character. The daughter seems to have rapid changes in character shift for no apparent reason. And the other characters are essentially beside the point.

I never read the book, but know that it is very popular. The movie does a bad job at selling the book.

Though, I would still be up for reading the book after having watched the movie. This is because the fault of the movie was only partially due to the content of the book. The movie tries to move along at quick pace at the beginning. It has a very catchy poppy kind of theme to it and talks about a real practical use of the study of economics.

After those 5 minutes, things seem to go terribly south. We get this long and fact lacking piece about sumo wrestling. There is an interesting statistic at the beginning of the segment about how sumo wrestlers will lose matches when there is no real loss to them in order to get payback in the future. The rest of it is exposition about how all the super smart economists are using these fancy numbers and statistics to give very good proof that sumo wrestlers are cheating. I would have liked to hear more about these statistics and the reasoning behind why its very likely that we're cheating. This smug movie instead insults our intelligence and passes by this thinking that we would be too stupid to understand it. The narrator goes on about assassinations of whistle blowers... blala yada yada. I started to lose interest at this point.

There was a part that had an interesting look at why abortion may be one of the key reasons of the drop in crime in the 90's. This really peaked my interest and some convincing figures where given. I liked this segment and am eager to read more about this.

After that is a boring long Good Morning America-esque expose on paying kids to get better grades in school. The kids are annoying, the concept is annoying, the results are paltry, and it all seems pretty meaningless by the time you get to the end of it. This was the segment that really killed the movie. It felt like it went on for an hour, although I'm sure it didn't. This reality show garbage really shouldn't be in any kind of movie that calls itself a documentary.

I really wasn't expecting to see a well put together film when I started watching The King of Kong. I was more interested in the subject matter. This film is put together very well and definitely keeps the viewer hooked. But, that isn't the interesting part of the movie.

I was shocked by some of the people in this movie. And by that I mean I was shocked by how terrible they were as people. I'm mostly referring to Billy Mitchell. Seeing this "man" walk around with his Donna Price haircut and silly ties acting like he is God's answer to all the suffering that has been laid down upon mankind is at the very least, incredibly revolting. Its shocking that this man is looked up to as a role model by some sects of society. What is even more disturbing is how he and the people at Twin Galaxies did not accept a perfectly valid score from Steve Wiebe. It seems like there was a conspiracy to make it seem as though Billy Mitchell was the greatest Kong player, even though he clearly wasn't. Its also really pathetic seeing how Billy Mitchell is afraid to compete with Steve in any way throughout the movie; disgraceful.

The Twin Galaxies group comes off as a very corrupt group when watching the movie. It really seems as though they are a tight nit group of individuals that aren't interesting in competitive gaming, but in protecting their own. You can see Billy Mitchell's followers trying to trip Steve up and be extremely vindictive when he achieves the live record on the Kong machine.

But, by far the most revolting character in the movie is the guy who is in charge of testing whether scores are fraudulent. This man comes off as pedophile, homosexual, violent, slightly retarded sociopath. Its sick seeing him view Steve Wiebe's Kong tape. Its almost voyeuristic when you see this guy watching the tape. Added on to that the fact that he sneaks into his house when he's away and falsely claims his machine was tampered with, is really disgraceful.

So I guess if you are in the mood for a horror movie of sorts, check out some of the ghouls in this movie. I guarantee you will at least get goose pimples from it.

This movie really took my by surprise. I heard that it was a good movie from fellow wine drinkers. I was expecting them to have said that only because wine enthusiasm was a large portion of the movie. The film is also something of a small masterpiece as well.

I have never been a huge fan of Alexander Payne. But, it seems he has proved me wrong. I don't think many other directors would have been able to have the courage to make a movie with the same pacing and depth of a book. His direction and screenplay are a testament of what can be done if a director really wants to keep the all that is pleasurable within a book and make his movie. Certain scenes of more importance progress slowly, at the pace of life one might say. One scene that did this and had an extraordinary impact was when Miles was talking to Maya for their first date. I think this scene alone really spoke many more words about Miles and Maya as people and their connection together than could be done with any collage or montage or juxtaposition of many different scenes.

Aside from that the main feature about the movie (the character traits of Miles and Jack) was quite fascinating. Everyone knows someone that would fit into either personality. Some people have too much of a lust for life, others have too little. I suppose there is no such thing as a middle ground in this regard. We always have to make decisions and we always have to alienate people. The film comes down pretty hard on this point, almost to the level of nihilism. At the end we get a glimmer of hope and maybe don't feel so bad about ourselves while we're at it.

This film reminds me of a song I once wrote. It only had one word as the lyrics and that word was the same as the title, "Marijuana." The word was purposely pronounced incorrectly to sound like "Marriage you wanna?". The idea of the song was to take a swipe at marriage by comparing it to the quick high and long thereafter of a good toke. This film seems to take the same opinion on the subject.

We see the silly celebrations taking place in an attempt at formality. Usually something goes wrong or something embarrassing happens at the time. This leaves a kind of skepticism about the holiness and correctness of marriage. This idea comes out more firmly when the main character asks his love to not marry him under and circumstances. She ironically replies, "I do".

The film has some funny scenes in it, and it was quite watchable. I would recommend it for those that like to relive past experiences at weddings or other social occasions.

Looking at the cover of this film I was expecting to see something very sleazy, gory, and scary. This film had none of those three. Instead what I got was a classy kind of horror movie with some very atmospheric shots and amateurish production. I'm sure some people are going to down vote me for that last statement (which I honestly could care less about) but just hear me out. The melodrama in this movie was really something else. The main character would stare at the camera with her buggy eyes for 30 seconds or so for no apparent reason after someone was talking to her. I'm not sure what the point of this was. During one of the chase scenes the suspenseful music stops and the girl trips when stacking suitcases by a window. Neither of these added to the mood, they detracted from it. There is little left to say besides these scenes being amateurish.

The atmosphere of the film is very strange. And how the viewer is supposed to interpret it is kind of ambiguous. We are constantly hearing screaming noises and flashing green and red lights throughout the movie. The characters don't seem to notice these things, but they are not the least bit subtle. I didn't really go for this too much. I'm sure people with disagree, but they are probably fans of the director (apparently he has a cult following of sorts) and don't appreciate reason. The film did have some good suspenseful scenes. The way the music builds up and interleaves with the characters' actions in climatic scenes is mostly well done.

All in all you should see this if you like ballerina's and maggots.

Can't remember the last time I saw a money that could only fit in the Comedy genre that did not once make me laugh. This movie is testicles in your face and semen in your mouth.

The "jokes" in this movie are so stupid and unfunny that it would take someone as dumb as the lead character to crack a smile. Speaking of which, he is probably one of the worst comedic stars to appear in any film. His whole shtick is apparently that he has a Midwestern accent. And that he is stupid. If you think a movie about a character like that would make you crack up, then maybe they ought to stick you in the insane asylum.

The apparent "funny" scenes with this character are when he gets in situations he isn't ready to deal with. This would include S&M parties, in a tent with a naked woman, and on drugs. There are not actual jokes that take place in these scenes. Its just the main character acting like an ass with his dumb accent.

This movie has some strange fetish with showing paralyzed people. They play off the joke of the paralyzed only able to utter monotonic sounds like "uuuuuuuuurgh" and the main character is somehow able to decipher this into 30 second statements. The joke is so stupid I feel like I've dropped a couple IQ points just describing it. But, this jokes occurs at least 5 times in the movie without variation.

The only other things I remember are the main character running through the town naked with his junk out. I'm assuming this was a fake thing he was wearing, but I wasn't really looking close enough to tell. The color composition is similar to one of the classic horror movie remakes. Everything is high contrast and usually has some yellowish or blue tint to it. I guess this is the only good and honest thing about the film. This is of course because the film would probably do better as putting itself in the horror genre than the comedy genre. Not only because of some of the disgusting scenes in the movie, but the pain that the viewer has to go through to get through this 78 minute epoch of pain.

If you made a movie about the abuses of a meat packing industry and your audience was the owners of several meat packing firms, you wouldn't get good reviews. That mostly explains the unusually low score for this movie. Its not likely to bring glee to the eyes of those that usually adorn the walls of the local multiplex.

The film is pretty good satire. Its satire not only comes from the situation, but the foreboding mood that lurks throughout the film. It takes on multiple dysfunctions in American life. These would include corporations, Oprah Winfrey, Junk Food, Televangelists, Suburban Households, Materialism, etc.

The film does this all pretty well. There are some occasional flat notes; this would include Zach Galifianakis going into overly long star offs. Most of the staring he does is within bounds, but sometimes he crosses the line. Some of the satire was lacking any subtlety; I'm thinking of the life coach who tries to cure Zach.

Many people have compared this to Brazil, its a fair comparison. In terms of quality, this movie is light years away from Brazil; that is very important however. The one plot point that greatly diverges with Brazil is the ending. I liked the ending to this and thought it fit very well with the rest of the movie. If it ended another way, the film may have come off to much as a wet rag.

I was not expecting that a Ballet movie would be one of the most disturbing horror movies I've seen in a while. Its quite intentional that the film gives off this impression. Just look at all the shots of the mirrors in the film. How many times do scissors and knives appear? There are multiple broken finger and toe nails throughout the movie. And, seeing the ballerinas on their tippy toes has a always made me a little queasy. But I'm digressing to some extent, since the point of all the suspense and horror is completely essential to the movie.

Like many Aronofsky films, things start out nice and simple. Then disorder comes in as the second law of thermodynamics predicts and things all go to hell. The movie takes place in only a few places (probably 4 or 5 locations). There are few characters in the movie of consequence. It feels a lot like a play adapted to film. Or perhaps even a ballet? I was not very taken with the Ballet shots earlier in the movie, as I'm not a fan. But, I quickly was drawn in to how the dances Natalie Portman performs reflects on the psychological and professional state of her character. Soon, I was at the edge of my seat hoping she would not fall or something bad would happen. The dancing scenes become extremely intense. A lot of this has to do with Natalie Portman's acting. I was never a big fan of hers. After seeing this, I think she is a really gifted actress. She plays the part of the white swan so well. She is always at the teetering edge completely scared and hopelessly trying to forestall any type of failure. After reading a little bit of her biography, she may not be acting at all in the movie.

The film is extremely consistent and the ending has the payoff you would expect. Before the end happens you are wondering what will actually happen. The film does a very good job at keeping what possible scary outcomes always under some sense of skepticism.

Before I saw this movie, I went to Quizno's to grab a bite. The cashier struck up a conversation with me and it led to me telling him I was about to head out and see True Grit. He said something to the effect of recent remakes always being inferior counterparts to the originals. I was kind of puzzled by this. I was under the impression that most people watching this movie were watching it because it was the next Coen Bros movie. I have been shocked to find out that this is a widespread sentiment. I'm not sure if these people are not very familiar with the Coen Bros, or if there are way more John Wayne fans than I expected.

Nevertheless, this is a great Coen Bros Movie. It has great writing. That is probably 90% of the reason to see this movie. Coen Bros have had top notch clever writing in most of their movies. This certainly is not an exception. The acting is also top notch. Jeff Bridges greatly redeems himself from his Tron Legacy performance. He is fun to watch and great to see acting. I usually don't go for the smart ass kid character in these kind of films, but Hailee Steinfeld really pulls it off well in this movie. There are just so many great lines in this.

If you are a Coen Bros fan, make sure to see it. If you are a John Wayne fan, maybe you can give some honor to the chicken-hawk's memory by fighting in Afghanistan in his place.

This film is really funny. Perhaps that is because it is about a dark and funny subject. I'm of course talking about politics. I wonder if anyone doubts that this is about how things were going in Washington/London before and during the Iraq War. There is little I can say to do this film justice. It had such a hilarious tenor throughout the whole movie.

I do have a few observations. I really liked how the "good" characters in the movie are shown to be frauds. Like how the peace loving General decides not to resign in order to be with the soldiers. I guess he's supposed to be Colin Powell. The inept and foolish House Secretary acts and looks like Tony Blair, but has little in common with him. He is a bumbling idiot in this movie, but was one of the people leading war policy with the neoconservatives in the United States shortly before the Iraq War.

The guy who really steals the show is Peter Capaldi. He comes out with one line after another. Its funny how the characters have either succumbed to his intellectual maiming or are completely petrified of him. He is in the movie a lot and for good reason.

The movie isn't very good. In fact its quite disappointing. I was eager to see this after looking at the trailer. I knew it wouldn't be very faithful to the original in terms of pacing and mood, but I didn't think that was a problem. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a problem and not the only one.

I'll go over some of the things I had problems with the film briefly: The main character was written poorly and lacked any sensible motivation. He's the Owner of the company and he jumps off buildings after uploading software from the company he owns to the public for free. Seemed kind of 1 dimensional.

Jeff Bridges character isn't in the movie very much. When he is in, he acts out incarnations of "the Dude" from the Big Lebowski. I guess he knew the quality of this movie as well.

The CGI Jeff Bridges just looked kind of creepy. They could have done something else instead.

There isn't any huge philosophical point about the combination of man and machine. There aren't any discussions of future computational discoveries that may or may not occur. All we get are flashy action sequences interleaved with poor acting.

The one good note is the world looks quite cool. I would almost say its a nice reboot to the original to match the visual appeal of today.

I was expecting to give this a lower score than the average IMDb score. I was pleasantly surprised to have not. This movie is really a joy to watch. Sure the plot is pretty silly (and we get the hint the writer's know that as well {koala's are 8's}). But, that doesn't really kill the movie.

The film really works on its own as a set of different short stories. Each time you see one playing out, you get hooked in. This happens three times in the movie. Its also nice that all of the stories do get put together in a somewhat clever way in the end (although not too clever). In a way, the film works the same way that Donnie Darko works. It has some really great scenes interlinked by an interesting (but not too clever) science fiction premise. Its a really good formula and is executed well here.

The other thing great about the movie structure is we get to see the actors play out multiple roles in the same movie. Its kind of an out of viewer experience when this happens. This makes it more apparent that you aren't watching real people, only a movie. I kind of like that feeling every once in a while.

The bad things about the movie are the special effects and the acting of some the characters (as well as some bad lines).

Even though it isn't a 9, it made an 8. And that is as good as a koala, which is a compliment no matter which way you turn it.

I've always wanted to see movies along these lines. It would seem nowadays that American audiences would be more energetic to see movies about genetic alteration. There still seems to be very few movies. And because of this, we are only left with flawed movies. Much like the movie Splice.

The movie is very 2 dimensional and the rhythm of the scenes is quite shoddy. A lot of times Brody is acting very melodramatic, while the rest of the cast seems passive. We also have some other scenes where its vice versa (for good measure, I suppose).

The movie does have some very powerful scenes and it does get into the dilemmas with genetic research. Some of the scenes that bring out these points are the man made animals that kill each other instead of copulating. Or just about any scene with the human hybrid animal that Brody and Sarah Polley create. This is the good part of the movie.

Although, the movie does go way too heavily on the side of not tampering with "god's genes" and all the rest. The film doesn't really confront any real life ethical dilemmas. I guess that isn't really the point of the movie though. It seems like its more catered towards being a horror sci-fi flick. See why I call it 2 dimensional.

I suppose I should say a word about the sex scene (that is the reason most people watched the movie). There is indeed sex. And it may give you a hard on. The actress playing the mutant thing looks pretty good from the thighs up (aside from the wings). Watching it makes you ponder whether or not you'd violate the creature if given the chance. I suppose you'd never know unless you were given the opportunity. I wouldn't put a stick in the ground either way.

Almost in every way the firm shodding of Lee Marvin is purveyed through the celluloid. Though, he is just the catalyst for the manliness in this film. The masculinity is throughout the whole picture and finds its way in almost everything. Its hard to forget Marvin briskly grabbing his wife and throwing her to the floor as he pounces into the bedroom to open fire at the bed with a .45 magnum. Or how Angie Dickenson tries to assault Marvin with little success. Most men were at least a little aroused seeing her vulnerable spread out across the floor in her high heel shoes, expending her breaths in an attempt at a slow vulnerable recovery.

Aside from this, there is a lot of great stuff going along with the color composition in the movie. We start out with drab greys. We go through several primary and secondary colors and end up with warm browns and reds at the end. For really good cinematic flair, just look at the green office with the green business dressed in green with green ties. Needless to say the film is aesthetically and visually pleasing.

The film also takes on some other edgy aspects. The editing is quite creative; sometimes lending itself to the realm of the obtuse. But it works.

This film is really a great accomplishment. It has started its own movement and some lackluster mock offs (see Chumscrubber). I think the film is best taken in as its constituent parts. There are some scenes in this movie that really have a bite to them. They really stick out as these great little vignettes. I'm thinking for instance of the first dining room scene with the Darko family. Or perhaps when Donnie is first hypnotized by his therapist.

The ebb and flow of the movie works great as well. The whole time travel bit really fits in and gives the movie a spooky theme throughout.

Even more importantly may be the theme and impact of the movie. Sometimes to put yourself in someone elses (or a type of person's) shoes, you need to break out of the element of both you and that person. In this case we're breaking out of our element into the movie and out of the element of a troubled teen into one of a young man faced with the issue of the fate of those around him and the paradoxes of time travel. In a spooky kind of way this gives us the feel of what it feels like to go through the early years of high school. Although it doesn't look like it at points, it certainly feels like it. And unlike many other movies, this really places us in that universe.

I'm not a real baseball or sports fan. I did like this movie though. I think just about any movie starring Robert Redford will at least be OK. This movie is no exception.

The film is kind of melodramatic though. It seems like every scene there is a woman dressed in black poisoning Redford. Or there is a woman in white inspiring him to hit the ball out of the park. And speaking of which, there are probably half a dozen scenes where Redford is down two balls and he hits it out of the park.

Putting that aside, the movie still has a lot to offer. The acting (besides Bassinger) is very well done. We also have Duvall, Brimley, Prosky, and Farnesworth giving stellar performances. This is probably the best part of the film, with a close second being the cinematography. All the shots are great eye candy. The glare of the sun, the farmland, the fields (with great color composition). This is really something to see.

The review title is offensive? Well, you might have the same opinion if you view the film with an analytical mind. I know and have read about all the fans of this film that are fans of the Beale's as well. That is all well and good, but its beside the point.

The Mayles Bros are not slouches and have a very good nack for cinematography and documentation (otherwise they would have not been involved in so many major documentaries). This film does itself justice by showing off that gift. What it doesn't do itself justice with is its exploitation of its subjects.

I know I won't get a lot of fans for saying such (true) statements, but it has to be said. Perhaps you'll understand my rational and frame of mind for my two controversial statements thus far by considering a few questions.

Why did the Maysles take footage of little Edie prancing around the house like a child? Why were these shots often in extreme close ups? Did these shots make you feel uncomfortable? Did the Beales seem in a clear frame of mind? Would you claim the Beales to be in a healthy mental condition? Were there shots of the Beales getting close to undressing or undressing? If the questions didn't get you thinking, my basic point is the Maysles knew better than to exploit a psychologically troubled mother and child. Framing it as an empathetic slice of life is a cover for compassion trolling and humiliation porn.

This is a fun little documentary made by the child actor star of the film Troll 2. Not quite sure why the movie is getting all the praise that it is getting. I'm assuming this has to do with the cult following that Troll 2 has. Maybe people felt warmer feelings towards the father character in the Troll 2 than I did (or the director for that matter).

The best parts in this movie come in small chunks. My favorite being the interview with the shopkeeper (the extras on the DVD have some more here) and the interview with the mother from Troll 2. Regarding the former, he is a very strange man. But, he has a great narrative quality that makes it so you have to keep listening to him. His stories are very well spoken and what he says has a twinkle of a hidden meaning and a deeper truth. Its also refreshing to hear is uncompromising honesty about himself and his part in the film. Regarding the latter, she is a very troubled woman. She acted strange in the Troll 2 as well, but I thought that mainly had to do with the director's inadequacies. The movie clearly shows that is not the case. She claims she wants to get back in acting, but as you can see in her IMDb credits she hasn't. She seems very unhappy living alone with here very old mother (who is grumpy). This part of the movie I found really spooky and disturbing. Its kind of like one of the Goblins from Troll 2 being left in a small cave to wallow in its misery.

As for the rest of the movie, it takes on a meh blah mediocre sub par quality found in too many documentaries now a days. Still worth watching though. I don't think I would have been motivated to see Troll 2 without seeing this movie, and that's saying something.

When I was watching the troll 2 documentary (best worst movie), one of the fans of the movie claimed that it appeared as though it was made by aliens. I couldn't agree more. This is probably most evident in the dialog. The characters say things that make little to no sense. The also say things that make sense but are completely strange. This is has a very good comedic effect.

Besides the poorly written dialog, the movie is pretty trashy and boring. There are a couple stand out appearances that are funny because of the actor or because of the acting. I'm referring to the shopkeeper and the daughter in the movie.

The film is quite incoherent. The editing and flow is really terrible. This doesn't really carry a comedic effect like the other flaws, its just bad. The camera-work isn't too bad. Not sure why this gets complaints. I guess people just like to complain about every possible thing there is to complain about in a bad movie.

I did not know much about Daniel Ellsberg before watching this movie. I think Daniel Ellsberg is more remembered because of the fact that the plumbers broke into his psychiatrist's office. The story of the Pentagon Papers is also known, but not as much. As can be seen in the film, the release of them did not have the kind of large impact one would expect.

I never knew that Ellsberg had such a large influence of the implementation of the Vietnam War. I was always under the impression he had just been a pen pusher not making logistical decisions. I would have never guessed that he served in that country as a civilian.

We see some other interesting facts about Ellsberg. I never knew that he was participating in peace rallies with Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. I didn't know he had an emotional sea change in his life after he heard about individuals going to prison to protest the war. It is a very interesting story.

Besides that, the documentary is well put together. There aren't any interesting or outlandish cinematographic choices. The film is very basic in this respect. I think subject of the documentary carries more that the people involved in making it.