Experimental film or narcissistic project? Who knows.

Sometimes it's a documentary. Sometimes it's a movie. Mostly it's a lot of non-cohesive very disparate scenes that make you go 'huh?'

I'm not sure if it's an experimental film or what, and I can't say it's not interesting to watch, but I still don't quite get the point. It needs a stronger narrative to run through the center of it an hold it together. The film comes across as if it has something to say, but it's like listening to an elderly person telling a rambling, circuitous story wherein the facts change every few minutes and breaks are made for looking at pictures of their dog who died in 1947.

Editing to add this:

It is actually quite interesting to watch, and is worth the time. Some of the conspiracy stuff is a bit out there, but that doesn't mean it isn't compelling. My complaints above are just about the structuring of the film itself. A lot of fascinating bits and pieces but I wish it were a bit more cohesive.




Movies are IQ tests; the IMDB boards are how people broadcast their score.