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.
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.
Examples of reviewers vs viewers:
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 that, 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.
The first episode of 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 set an 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 understand what happened. And this documentary leaves you ignorant of why, while feeling like you know more than what you do. It turns people into progressives: arrogant, ignorant and sanctimonious (or worse: willing to lie for their cause).