Hated by reviewers, loved by viewers. A better movie than Fahrenheit 9/11, but that's a pretty low bar. It tries to give you what the Press didn't, the backstory and motivations of President Obama, from a right wing point of view. It shouldn't be taken too literally, but good background on Obama's sphere of influences: what his friends, family, mentor and Father believed. How much you think that shaped him, or how, is likely to be based on your political views. Slow, but informative, and it's up to you to decide what that all means.
Netflix produced a 20/20 style documentary series called Dirty Money. Only this show doesn't have the constraints of a John Stossel, who is likely to wakeup one day, and realize how unclean his Michael Moore style one-sided Marxist propaganda is.
So while the show is interesting, and watchable, it's completely dogmatic, one sided, and filled with lies of omission and commission. It reminds me of High School civics, history, social studies, all over again: though this is slightly more interesting.
Movie critics often have a leftward slant that makes them droll and predictable. It also means if a movie is at all political, has anything that's politically incorrect, or can be re-imagined that way, then reviewers will likely get out of touch with the audience. Since I lean towards the audience preferences and away from marxism as movie-reviews, this spread (or the inverse of the reviewers opinions) can be a better indicator of how much I'll like a film than their actual reviews.
Morgan Spurlock created a documentary that played on all the gullibilities of the left. People aren't responsible for their own actions, evil corporations that offer larger sodas and fries with their meals are why people get fat. (Not the lack of exercise or their own actions). In this case targeting an all MacDonalds diet. It was the perfect blend of anti-corporatism and dodging of personal responsibility -- and was an immediate hit. Only it was all a fraud, debunked by many others that ate exclusively and McD's and got healthier. And it turns out he left out a key omission all along: he was a chronic alcoholic (and sex offender) that likely went off the sauce, and his shakes, liver problems, and other symptoms were most likely due to alcohol withdrawal. But other than it being a complete fraud, by a drunk sex-offender, it was great.
CFACT's Marc Morano did his late retort to An Inconvenient Truth, in a one night replay of what they showed at the Paris Climate Summit, for $15/ticket. It basically goes through and tries to explain all the fallacies in the pro-Climate Change alarmism, from what are the forcing factors, how do they rank, how does CO2 rank in them, the fake Climate Consensus, the global cooling scare, and all the sensational claims made -- and then debunking them.
This is a documentary on how Facebook and Google turn your data into their profit, and manipulate you in the process. It was a bit sensational in parts, but did a worthy job in letting people know who and why their data was captured, and what they did to manipulate you. Generally, it was liked by viewers -- but far lefties didn't like that it attacked leftist icons, or showed how these organizations colluded with the Hillary (and Obama) campaigns to rig elections.
Michael Moore. The original movie (back in 2007 or 2009) was called "Shooting Michael Moore", an edgy title that played on him video shooting others. This somehow got repackaged in 2018 as an Amazon Original, "The Un American"... I think a little moore material was added (pun intended) -- the Internet was semi-scrubbed of the original release, so I'm not sure how much of the original project got trimmed and how much was added. But the latest cut is interesting and worthy of watching.
Dirty Money was fascinating. It interviews the key people involved, talks about the issue, how it happened, how the government stumbled on the truth, and in only 7 years, got around to doing their jobs (partly because of VW's stonewalling and distractions). It even accidentally mumbles that the other auto-makers were doing the same thing. The only thing it left out is "why?" Why would VW take this risk?
You're spoon-fed the ideas that it was just greed and arrogance that caused the callous disregard for the planet. And I'm sure greed and arrogance were part of it. But it forgets to hint at the truth: the regulations were unmitigated bullshit. The truth was it was because CARB and the EPA set unreasonable and unattainable standard, and so VW had a choice of surrender a market, or cheat. You might not agree with VW's decision, but if you don't know why they did it, then you don't understand what happened. This documentary (and most of the media) leaves you ignorant of why, while feeling like you know more than you do. It turns people into progressives: arrogant, ignorant and sanctimonious (or worse: willing to lie for their cause).