This movie is awful.

The fact that the OP was look for a plot in this should tell you everything.

It's not eligible for Oscars since it had its first public exhibition over the internet.

What an idiotic comment.

http://www.imdb.com/user/ur5447903/ratings

There seems to be a 'Kevin MacDonald is pretentious' campaign going on on IMDB.

It was perfect, you need to open your eyes and see its true beauty and celebration of life.

I really couldn't disagree more. And here I'm only talking about the parts of your argument that are cogent. I reply here presuming you are not a troll.

'Its execution here is severely limited by the poverty of imagination, creativity, and honesty and the lack of unbiased open-mindedness. Technology outpaces, out-reaches, content and truth.'
– I don't need to go over the basic premise of the film. Whose poverty of imagination, exactly? The contributors - all (as far as we know) relative amateurs, just deciding to show an aspect of their lives? The filmmakers, in deciding who or what they show, or don't show?

Later you speak of the 'immaculately self-righteous, sanctimonious, politically-correct youth crowd'(again, who?) finding 'nothing wrong with little monkeys being caged in tiny pens, led around by tight chains around their necks, and trained to beg for money by wearing masks in the roadway pollution of heavy Malaysian traffic.' Does showing something like this in a documentary on 'real life' indicate that it is condoning the activity? Do you not think they trust us to make our own judgement on a given scene.

'Technology outpaces, out-reaches, content and truth.'
Technology, which allows large portions of the world's population access to machinery to record their own lives is somehow counterproductive to truth? So only qualified, utterly truthful filmmakers may wield a camera?

You say it is like 'a voyeur gawking at a house burning down or a bloody car accident'.
Presumably, the filmmakers could have included a lot more of the very activities you describe if they wanted to appease this 'continually distracted, 12 year old audience' you imagine are their sole target. But they didn't.

'If cameras are everywhere and their images subject to limitless manipulation, then their witness is dilute and robbed of meaning.'
This surely applies to every film, and every documentary ever made. The very act of editing is manipulation... you seem to see it as a personal betrayal.

Not sure what the 'glib, superficial and predictable worldview of YouTube' you allude to is, in the context of this film. You might have expanded on what YOU might have liked to see (but then that would have entailed some degree of prediction on your part – God forbid). I might disagree with the U.S. army wife's description of her man 'fighting for our country' in a land half way across the world the U.S. has little or no business being in, but I take her view on board, and even understand it. The filmmakers counterbalance this (though only partly, it could be argued, if balance was being rabidly sought for everything) by showing us a window into Afghani life, through the teenager. And I, for one, found what he showed quite surprising, refreshing and certainly an aspect under-reported over the years in the world media.

I found this to be a fairly well judged, sometimes beautiful film – not perfect – but successful in what it sought out to do (a simpler aim, I think than you are imagining), and true to it's many contributors.

You really do seem to be scrambling in every possible direction to find an agenda, even if it means contradicting yourself.

You leave us with the lovely mental picture of you freeze-framing the army wife's face, searching for tears. That's an insight into your own world-view, really. If the film makers were interested in 'absolute truth' and someone was lucky enough to be in the room with you filming, they might have chosen to include this little cameo of yours. For me, whatever about truth, that would have been one part of 'real life' I would have happily done without in this particular film.