ThiefHott Too much of everything

VividSimon Simply Perfect

Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Boba_Fett1138 The foremost thing that can let a documentary work out as a good and interesting one is its subject. And let me just say, I could barely finish watching this documentary! There were several issues I was having with this documentary. The first is the most obvious one, that this documentary is focusing on four unrelated persons and completely different subjects. You could say that they are all connected through their passion for their work but there are millions of people out there with a passion for something. I mean, what makes these guys so special and worthy of featuring them in a documentary? And that brings me to the other problem of that the documentary just doesn't ever manage to get deep or involving with anything. The way it's set up, is that it just lets its subjects talk about their work but it doesn't tell you anything about the person itself, or what drives and motivates him. You were supposed to take all of this out of the way they were talking about their work I suppose but it just didn't worked out too well for me.It might had worked out for me if the different subjects were being a bit more interesting ones. But one involves a gardener, the other a robotics designer and the other a guy who is fascinated by mole rats. The one interesting subject involves a lion tamer but because every different subjects take up about as much screen time as the other, the documentary just doesn't ever find the time or space to let any of them work out as something good and interesting enough. It was really lacking some depth, which was due to the combination of its concepts and the approach to all of it. It actually became a very repetitive documentary after a while, since nothing in it ever felt as if it was progressing and going anywhere interesting or surprising. The style also became repetitive and predictable after a short while. The style actually seemed to be the foremost thing that was supposed to keep this documentary together and provide it with pace and visual splendor (with the help of acclaimed cinematographer Robert Richardson) as well but it really started to work against the documentary after a while. It actually helped to prevent this documentary from ever becoming a well enough focused one.I'm not exaggerating when I'm saying that, about half way through the documentary, I already got fed up with it and lost all interest. I really had a hard time finish watching it and when it finally did, I was glad it was all over with. It's not like I hated watching it but it just was a documentary I got absolutely nothing out of!5/10 http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

nick hadeen this movie was a little hard for me to get interested in. the way it was filmed, and how the information was presented was very entertaining, but the information itself was rather boring in my opinion. it's not a movie i would rush to the nearest rental store to get by any means. But if i saw it was on TV i might flip to it and watch it for a few minutes, then would become bored and find something a little more entertaining. All in all this is not a movie i would want to watch more than once, which is a major contribution in how i rate movies. if it entertains me enough to watch it more than once, i would give it a semi good or good rating, but if don't enjoy it enough to watch it more than once, it automatically becomes a pass in my book.

bob the moo Four men are interviewed separately. One man studies hairless mole rats. One man is a topiary gardener. One man is a retired lion tamer. One is a robotics designer. Each has a passion (or an obsession) with their chosen subject but have seemingly little in common. With the collection of their interviews, Errol Morris explores the themes of growth, development and evolution of species.My plot summary suggests that I "got" what Morris was trying to do but really this is my guess. If that was his intension though then he has fallen short of it because rather than coming together to form a documentary, the film feels like it is all over the place with no real direction or control over the subject matter. Each of the men are reasonably interesting by themselves and the topics are unusual enough to hold the interest. However the way Morris uses them is poor and the film is cluttered with archive movie footage and a terrible musical score. I'm not totally sure how he was trying to get to where he wanted to be, maybe at one point he just decided to revel in the "weirdness" of his subjects and give up on pulling it all together.The men are mostly interesting even if their subjects aren't particularly. The gardener was probably the only one that I actively found pretty dull, the others had a bit of character and passion that endeared them to me. Maybe if Morris had tried to do more with the men themselves he could have done something interesting, but by going for the bigger theme he loses his way and ultimately his film shows it consistently throughout.Overall then a disappointing film from start to finish. Die-hard fans of Morris might find enough of his style and interest to carry them through but for me I found it to be a real mess of a documentary that doesn't seem to have any design or structure about and left me wondering what I was watching and why I was bothering.

FlickMan Hiding within this movie are four fairly interesting mini-documentaries about four men, each with a vision - perhaps even an obsession - about one particular facet of life. The common thread uniting them is that each of the four is fascinated by the ways in which animals, men, plants, and even machines evolve, learn, and grow. A recurring theme is training or control.Unfortunately, these four interesting stories are chopped up and interwoven in ways that often seem arbitrary and pointless. Plus, about 25% of the movie is made up of clips from other, mostly bad, movies... and the soundtrack music is often intrusive and annoying. So I'm mystified why a number of critics thought this was the best documentary of 1997. Maybe there were just a lot of bad documentaries that year! Worth watching if you have nothing else to do, but nowhere near great.