Change Your Image
dpmillerllc
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
The New York Times Presents: Broken Horses (2024)
interesting issue....advocacy film not invest journalism...predetermined opinion of issue....lacked of objectivity and omission of context was borderline dishonest
First off I just want to say I'm not an expert on this issue whatsoever but I did find the topic interesting. I've watched maybe a handful of horse races on TV in my life.
SPOILERS AHEAD-
It's unfortunate the filmmakers stuck to their predetermined narrative. (that systemically the horse racing industry was at fault for the recent spate of fatal injuries during nationally televised horse racing events)
Just using the stats, info and interviews used in the film, they make a much more convincing case that the real issue with horse racing and horse racing fatalities is a handful of immoral trainers not the industry as a whole. In the film it states that the winningest trainer, the face of horse racing today, has a horse fatality rate of 3 to 4 times the average. And I believe in the stats you cited it states he has a win percentage 10 points higher than the previous all-time leader. And there's a handful of current trainers with approximately the same fatality rate and win percentages as him... way above the industry averages in both fields. Secondly I believe another trainer states that the previous trainers I referenced keep their horse in a stall 6 months a year...
To me it looks like the industry is fine and is trying to do the right thing. Instead of focusing on whether a horse should have been allowed to race and getting two very biased veterinarians opinions that it shouldn't have been even though legally there was nothing structurally wrong with it and it didn't have any banned or controlled substances in its system is irrelevant. It's hindsight 20/20, Monday Morning Quarterback-ing.
Lastly the lack of objectivity and omission of any context was disturbing. To spend so much time on illegal drugs/doping, to never delineate what exactly that means and then the casually group everything together Under the Umbrella of illegal drug use / doping from the use of Advil corticosteroids and anti-inflammatories to the stamina drugs Lance Armstrong took and anabolic steroids was either disingenuous or ignorant.
Unknown: Cosmic Time Machine (2023)
Perfect introductory documentary to JWST (besides hearing aboutv launch no prev understanding or interest...different perspective now)
Other than hearing the name James Webb Telescope in the news I really didn't have a good idea what this was going to be about. And I'm not even that big into space it just for whatever reason doesn't interest me like it does other people. But I do have to say this was an amazing Mission and a very good introductory documentary that that is perfect for someone with little to zero previous knowledge of telescopes in space. I could see where some science nerds (I have immediate family that belong; I didn't get blessed with those genes) might be disappointed it was definitely not technical, but that wasn't the audience it was trying to reach.
And for the person who gave 2/10 stores and complained that it's 5 minutes of actual content did you read the description? I didn't think it had any filler. It was well balanced and I can go look at photos anytime it'll be producing them for the next decade plus... doc starts with some history of telescope program, the insane construction process and the insane 344 "single point failures" meaning that if any 1 of 344 processes failed it would essentially terminate the satellite effectiveness and its mission. And oh by the way they had to do about a quarter of the processes without visual confirmation when the satellite was a million miles away from Earth. Yes I said that right a million miles away from Earth. Anyways it was more than I expected and if anything I've gained a appreciation for the scientists and engineers the stress they were under and what impressive people they are.
Moochie, qui a tué Jill Halliburton? (2023)
Open and shut case...terrible true crime doc
There are plenty of miscarriages of justice and worthy criminal cases to make a docuseries the subject of, this is not one.
SPOILER BELOW
It's pretty obvious what happened...he was casing the neighborhood looking to burglarize a home. He saw the car leave and assumed no one was home. He broke in and was confronted after looking thru son's knife collection. He was startled, panicked and killed her. He then put her in the tub with the intention of diluting forensic evidence. Nothing was stolen because any item taken could potentially link him to the murder. If DNA was on 1 item, maaaybe its a coincidence. Two items, no way.
Dateline: Love And Race In South Africa (2022)
Painful to Watch... if you enjoy uncomfortable conversations between mixed race ext family members...watch
First off it starts out how she considers herself South African even though her parents moved and she never lived in South Africa. And tells an example of when her and her cousins couldn't swim at a beach one day and it was a extremely painful experience in childhood I quote.
She then goes on to pick interviewees and ask questions that confirm her bias & paints SA exactly the way she predetermined. It is not representing 2023 South Africa or reality one bit.
The reporter highlighted a couple different situations and then basically extracted a young mixed race couples family members opinions on race. She's asking how each set of in-laws felt about their child marrying someone of A different race. And how they felt about that race before their marriage. Surprise! One mother-in-law said she didn't like that race before she met her new son-in-law. And then she goes back to the writing that took place when Zuma got arrested. She questions a Indian man who basically advocated for community self protection if he had blood on his hands because members of another race were killed. The country is 80% black and it's less than 10% white and Indian. And she makes sure not to explain how when things break down why minorities can feel overwhelmed. Then she goes to a mother of one of the people killed during the civil unrest and asks how she feels about Indian people now that one has killed her son. Really painful this woman had an agenda beforehand and is leaving each person she interviews more bitter and resentful than before the on camera questions.
Nova: Your Brain: Perception Deception (2023)
Super Disappointing
I was really looking forward to this episode and then the next one as well. I've only watched this one for now and it was really disappointing. It's basically a bunch of neuroscientists using illusory tricks that are meant to be deceptive in order to show you that you don't perceive the world the way you think you do. It's written for a 5-year-old. For example they explained that you only perceive a small bit of what your eyes see. And they go through some different tests showing how you can only perceive and comprehend where your eyes are focused. And that's about 1% of what you're actually seeing Through Your Eyes. I don't know it seems so ridiculously obvious yet the attitude of the presenter and scientist being interviewed behave like it's a major revelation.
Also, the assertions/assumptions made about the brain that the scientists make after analyzing the results of tests administered to patients, tests that were sometimes created by that scientist, are extremely bold and in some of the examples seem disconnected and unrelated to the actual probably they were trying to solve for example towards the end, a scientist asked a question about the exact physical location of Consciousness within the brain. They immediately jump to a test that will determine where Consciousness is. How they are so certain the test will actually highlight where Consciousness is? No explanation. Why this specific test? No explanation. A patient is put under an MRI machine or something very similar and when words are flashed on a screen in front of their eyes for a very short time period, not enough to consciously comprehend word...somehow this isolates/only stimulates the parts of the brain where Consciousness resides... they then jump to explaining how the Holy Grail would be to measure consciousness. And then compare measure consciousness, and how obtaining that ability could open so many doors, to before/afterthe ability to measure temperature
There is a self assuredness throughout the program that is disconcerting since we still don't really know how the brain works...
the little computer tests don't convince me that they are actually doing what the scientists say they are doing... at the best it seems semi speculative.
That Great British Documentary (2023)
Why is British in Title??? Also Not a Documentary AT ALL....Narcissists exploring a debilitating Identity Crisis
I refuse to call this a film or documentary it's really just a blog or video diary documenting random feelings thoughts and emotions on a daily basis. Also includes some revisionist / fabricated history. The title has nothing to do with the actual content of this video... it's very misleading. Every word of the title is either disingenuous or dishonest. There's nothing Great about this video. There is nothing inherently British about her black/white identity crisis. And it's definitely not a documentary it's more like the thoughts and emotions related to her half black / half white identity. Exploring what that means has nothing to do with the documentary field. It could have maybe been interesting if she explored and was honest about the film. Why half black and half white individuals have such a difficult time with their identity in both the United States and I guess in britain. Possibly, why these individuals go on to be the most militant, Pro black activists? Is it to compensate for half of their identity being white? And why is it in the West mixed individuals always identify black and not mixed? And why is the white half of their identity not recognized? It goes for public figures as well you never hear about Barack Obama's White mother. Anyways it could have been interesting but it was another boring piece of narcissistic video making that filmmakers of a previous generation would be absolutely ashamed and embarrassed to present. The thought of them turning the camera on themselves was inconceivable. Those are the true British documentarians. Not this confusing therapy session that should have been worked out one-on-one with a psychologist not over the BBC storyville medium.
Russia 1985-1999: TraumaZone (2022)
Misleading Narratives and chronology of Events; Footage compilation A+
First off let me say I'm a big fan of Adam Curtis. His previous docuseries about public relations was very interesting and enlightening. Unfortunately, his text providing descriptions of events throughout this series are somewhat misleading and simplify the issues.
He constantly criticizes leaders for campaigning to reform then once in power continuing the corruption. There was no blueprint to take a 100% Collective, state-owned economy and transition it to a free market. It's not as simple as applying reforms. The reforms could have potentially made a very bad situation worse. Nobody knows. One can theorize that's it. I'm not excusing the corruption but there wasn't a clear delineated path to reform the economy. And the term shock therapy is not necessarily accurate either. All the way up until 1995 the majority of the main industries, what Lennon called the commanding Heights of the economy, we're in the hands of the red directors. That doesn't equal shock therapy to me. And lastly, the 1996 election was very similar to the 1932 election in the Weimar Republic. The two largest opposing political parties the Communists and nationalists both advocated for the abolition of democracy and a return to State Control. With the huge Industries controlling much of the natural resources of Russia still in the hands of the public sector all the way up until a year before the election the motivation at the time for selling them to the Russian oligarchs was to entrench and solidify the free market before the election so that if the opposition one the presidential election they could not start deconstructing the privatization process that Gorbachev started in the late '80s. Was it fair? No. But what was the alternative? Sell the industries for market value to foreign multinational corporations. And that definitely wouldn't fly putting all of Russia's natural resources in the hands of foreigners and foreign companies. So the idea was to get the major industries into the private sector and keep them in Russian hands. The economists advocated this at the time it wasn't related to Russia's budget deficits and national debt. It was a strategic preemptive move to oust the red directors and remove any chance of communists/nationalists (if they won 1996 presidential election) being able to touch natural resources/giant industries of Russia again. Idk where he came up with their sale financed russias government. It's objectively not true. Giant industries sold to oligarchs- Nov/Dec 1995. Elections of 1996 were in June. IMF loan was in March 1996...4.3 billion. And the IMF loan wasn't taken out of the country immediately. If anything it was given to ensure Yeltsin would be able to win reelection. He obviously had to commit to reforms before getting the loan. The IMF and the Western countries saw the writing on the wall with the two opposition parties.
My point in writing all that is the situation wasn't as simple as corruption in lieu of implementing the proper unnecessary reforms. World renowned economists were assisting in the public to private transition and a lot of what they suggested was implemented. The situation was a lot more nuanced than the documentary led the viewer to believe.
The Dust Bowl (2012)
One of my all time favorites
Amazing information...and the interviews you assembled were fantastic. I had heard of this but was completely ignorant as to just how significant it was.
The stories told by the interviewees were both extremely sad and inspiring. I can't believe that families never left. The one fact that still sticks out is that during one dust storm, an extremely bad one, dirt from the Midwest ended up out on the deck of a ship in the Atlantic and in the White House amazing
And thank God you interviewed those people when you did. We need to be taking advantage of our elders and their experiences the way this documentary did.
The U.S. and the Holocaust (2022)
Overall Disappointing...Typically love his work
I typically like Mr Burns's content. Yes, he does have a left-leaning slant but compared to other historical documentaries produced today its slight and very
This revealed Burns's current stance on immigration policy more than it was history of the USA & Holocaust.
Comparing today's political discourse with societal attitudes and legislation passed (on immigration) in 1920s and 30s America is dishonest and anti intellectual... you're no better than the Bush campaign in 92 playing the prison furlough commercial. If you vote/advocate for this, then this could happen. Politics thru baseline emotions.
Lucy and Desi (2022)
Films topic is nearly irresistible; a pretty good film that lacks focus/substance
Lucy and Desi had a beautiful relationship and amazing life stories. And then in 5 year window they created and starred in one of the top five sitcoms in American history. I thought that the film lacked a couple key things but overall told the story well and was quite entertaining. First off, the decision to have Carol Burnett as a contributor was very thoughtful and prescient. Lucy and Carol Burnett are the top 2 women of physical comedy. And both of them or in the conversation for Best Physical comedians of all time, woman or man. Unfortunately you have two other apx 40 yr old contributors from some obscure comedy Museum whose credentials are from Academia. I'm not sure why they were chosen or there opinions were selected to be part of the film. It's obvious these two women have been in an academic setting for 50%+ of their lives. They perceive life (likely subconscious and unaware of major flaw in POV) in a way that frames everything and every person as either a victim or oppressor AND irresponsibly assume that because you; or a woman and live in a certain time you experienced misogynistic daily and existed in a social environment hostile to women. Two quick examples. One of these low IQ contributors stated...and this was back in the 50s. Can you believe how much mansplaining Lucy had to tolerate. She made the statement without any evidence. The other contributor stated that in Hollywood in the 50s and 60s women were pitted against each other and female tv / movie stars we're not friendly with each other and rarely had wolves like Ethel and Lucy and the I Love Lucy sitcom. Common sense says that television and movies are 10 and then 25 to 30 years old as an industry and people are just learning the craft and medium and figuring out what works. But no the contributor states the big studios in Hollywood in the 50s and 60s purposely pitted women against each other. Ethel and Lucy were the exception to the rule. And that was only because Lucy was married to the producer. So basically she was saying that Hollywood Studios actively pitted they're female actors against one another and more purposeful and creating and maintaining a hostile workplace environment where female actors we're discouraged from being courteous and friendly to one another. And then a couple minutes later you have either Bette Midler or Carol Burnett contributing and giving their opinion on different subjects on topics all pertaining to Desi and Lucy. To me it seemed disrespectful to those two legends and any other comedy professionals to have those to contribute.
The Zionist Idea (2015)
(Non-Jew, AmerIcan Opinion) NOT PERFECT, BEST OBJECTIVE DOC I'VE SEEN
As someone who has no conflict of interest AND who is very familiar w the topic (watched every israel/Palestine doc I know of; from highly partisan borderline propaganda docs on both POVS to every PBS frontline on the issue to docuseries from the 50s and 60s) this is the most balanced documentary I've seen by far. Contributors are all impressive ppl and both sober/thoughtful in their commentary. Also, as the history of zionism/Jewish immigration to Palestine is chronologically told from both POV relevant impartial context accompanies each major event/conflict. Context extremely important to understanding decisions made (and how simultaneously occurring global events/attitudes influenced those decisions)
EXAMPLE
1948 War and David Ben Gurions decision not to let Palestinians back to their homes who fled country.
At first glance from today's perspective that seems extremely harsh and inhumane. But, when the context is added that it's only a couple years after World War II and in Europe at the same time millions of people are forcibly migrated into the new post World War II nation state borders. For example, Germans who previously lived in Poland on the Danzig corridor or in Czechoslovakia in the sudetenland all we're forced to migrate into Germany. And non-germans no longer feel comfortable being minorities in other Nations.
It doesn't justify or rationalize not letting 700,000 people back to their homes after a war that last few weeks but it does give very necessary concurrently occurring Global events that give some substantiation as to why such a seemingly harsh policy was enacted. Because it was occurring at the same time in Europe with other ethnicities and because of the enormous trauma the Jewish population just endured and their understandable reaction to want to only be around other Jews.
Fire in the Night (2013)
Excellent and Informative
I forget where I saw this and as an American I had never heard of this incident. That being said this was a perfect example of what a documentary should be.
The Putin Interviews (2017)
Unbelievable Opportunity - Emberrassing Outcome
Stone, whose outside of the box thinking and content I respect and admire, seemed dishevelled and unprofessional. He seemed ill preparedand unfamiliar w his research. He was unfocused and jumped from topic to topic spontaneously. This made the interviews appear more like a casual conversation. His unpreparedness led to a lack of confidence with his no it's an overall knowledge about the interviewee which other fortunately in my opinion led to an abbreviated exploration of Topix that if explored in depth could have provided substantial Revelations. Thus, it was not to be. And 99% of the interviews essentially reaffirmed information that could have been previously found in other Putin documentaries and interviews. I will say the last episode was Extremely disappointing and uncomfortable at times. Stone insists on pestering Putin with a series of questions that are worded differently but whose meaning is the same, did you help Trump in winning the election or do you have any prior relationship. The whole conspiracy hoax over Trump and Putin working together to get him elected was never legitimate...it was domestic interparty political spin/strategy from the beginning. Anyone who bought into trump&russia is a hardened ideologue or lacks adequate skepticism in their digestion of information from the mainstream media . If anything Putin would have preferred Clinton...not because of policy or party rather simply because she's a known entity and a predictable politician... whereas Trumps a hyperbolic salesman nonpolitician w no track record and the unpredictability he would bring contrasted with Clinton is absolutely not preferable from the perspective of any non-ally...NK and Iran would agree as well. How do you strategize against uncertainty?
Way off subject there. Anyways, to finish I was disappointed to see Stone buy into the Conspiracy Theory that there was something between putin and Trump... especially when he had this golden opportunity and there is so much misunderstanding between our country and Russia. ultimately I didn't feel like stones heart was in this project and to me it definitely came across that way I was disappointed overall