The Red Pill Documentary Review


Written by William Rhys Wortham

Over the past few years the classic “war between the sexes” rose to new heights with more protests and feverish defending from both sides. One side screams that they are oppressed and the other cries even louder. Then nothing happens and it comes up a few years later, oh freaking joy. So, this decade, the Men’s Rights Activists have fully formed and bemoan about everything possible in this documentary.

I’ve always failed to see the blatant hatred for this group. They are not any different than the feminists, when you think about it. One person gets hurt and then swears off the opposite sex, or they think they need to take action in order to fix something. It’s odd that they don’t both wake up and realize the real enemy: terrible people. Cruelty knows no sex, age, race, or class. Their tragedies aren’t mutually exclusive! If they joined forces they might be able to find more workable solutions rather than jump to conclusions and fussing.

Sometimes it surprises me that a documentary needs to be made for some people to understand an opposing view. Most groups are very blunt about their needs. MRAs needs spell them out for you, just like many non-profit organizations. What they are about shouldn’t be perplexing. It’s easy to reach negative stereotypes of any group, including feminists, but denying peoples basic human needs, and understanding, is asinine. With that having been said this documentary did put most feminists in a bad light, because they ignored everything MRAs were saying at all the protests or issues brought up in the interviews. I’ll give them credit that some might not have been well informed. Regardless, they continually jumped to negative stereotypes that had nothing to do with the issues raised.

There were repeat times when MRAs would cite why they were angry and then interviewed feminists who relied off of old rhetoric, that wouldn’t be applicable to most modern people. Two feminists continually deferred to men being intimidated by women in the work place and they feared losing power. Its queer considering most issues that were talked about were about men being physically, sexually, socially, and financially abused. Two instances brought up involved a woman who blatantly baited their partner into having a child and told him that they would use the child against him. Also, I don’t know about any of you but the only people I’ve known that were distressed about “losing power” were politicians or psychopaths, and sometimes there isn’t that much of a difference between the two. Most relationships, of any kind, should be built upon communication, commitment, and compromise, not who’s ‘wearing the pants’, sane people realize this.

Eventually a feminist would bring up white nationalism seemingly out of nowhere. I don’t see how the MRAs are a white nationalist movement when it’s the name is MENS Rights Activists, not White Men Only Rights Activities. On top of that nowhere in their guidelines does it say they are about white supremacy. It’s a weak analysis and I would have appreciated if they applied themselves to doing some research.

Despite all the good points there was a lot that confused me about this documentary. They mentioned the death statistics for men during war and the work place; well there are only two choices, men and women. What do you expect? There isn’t much of a sample size, so it’s one or the other! Then it brings up Warren Farrel who mentions a social concept behind men sacrificing themselves (i.e. being sent off to war) to save women. This is a basic part of sociology, there is always a sacrifice to protect, and save, a civil society, I’m not sure what he expects. I don’t expect the average 5’2” woman to go up against a 6’5” enemy behind enemy lines. It should tell you something when 85% of women FAIL combat training. No offense to women, but it’s about the safety of everyone and during war times the military will need the best of the best. This brashness will exclude many physically inept men as well. Why they complain about ‘dying’ for their women and children is overly dramatic, when to quote George S. Patton “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.”

Eventually they threw in one of the crazier feminists named Jackson Katz. Some his theories are so obtuse it makes me wonder if he’s mentally ill. One of his worst theories is that horror films encourage men to murder women. It blatantly removes any kind of notion that men have a sense of self control, empathy, nor any kind of sense of right or wrong. Why they included someone as deluded as him, that didn’t add anything to the conversation, is beyond me.

It eventually seeped into global politics and they brought up Boko Haram. They mentioned a group who kidnapped boys, murdered them, and then groan about how the global news media didn’t report on it heavily. I’m not sure why the information is considered so shocking considering they don’t recognize where their news is coming from. Bad things happen in 3rd world countries. Yes, it should be a concern, but it should be less impactful considering the environment breeds heinous acts like these nearly all the time. They will not have the same values, or laws, in third world countries as they do in first world ones. You can’t expect to find good things in bad places.

The film concludes with a very stern message that men don’t have it so easy. The research was there and fleshed out, so I doubt it leaves much to the imagination. It does leave room for debate, considering there were many things left out, but its interesting nonetheless. I’d say see it if you are clueless about these issues or are just interested in what someone else says. If you hate politics, or the war between the sexes, then skip it.



Best Worst Movie Documentary Review

_1270593886In 1989 one of the worst films of all time was made: Troll 2. This documentary tells the journey of the film from being universally panned to a cult classic, and its fans. It explores the actors lives after the movie, what they went through, and their lives as they peruse other careers. The director, Claudio Fragasso, even makes frustrated comments during the documentary and shows that he truly wanted to make a good film and it wasn’t his intention to make a terrible one. It even tells various peoples opinions, mini-reviews, of the movie and how cult followings develop.

It’s truly hilarious to see the whole subculture of movie goers express their love for a terrible movie, even by showing up dressed as a goblin. The heart warming aspect of this documentary is that people can come together to appreciate a movie, regardless of what it actually is. Which is strange considering this has been rated as one of the worst movies of all time. IMDB has it currently sitting at number 98 out of 100 of their bottom 100 worst of all time. Also it starts out completely weird because the first 30 minutes of the movie are spent talking about George Hardy and how he’s the town’s dentist and class clown. They go as far as interviewing his ex-wife and even she likes the guy. Which is amazing for anyone who gets divorced. Now sure he’s a great guy, but they spend a lot of time on him.

After that they finally get into why they’re making the damn documentary. It sporadically jumps between the actors, the fans, and the director of the film. Most of the actors thought it was going to boost their career. Then they’d reel back old memories of receiving the VHS copy on Christmas day, and how it ruined Christmas day. The weird aspect of it all is that it seemed like many of the actors who signed on to do the movie had no idea how bad it was. Many of them said this through out the film and made me wonder if they read the script at all. Eventually it came to the point where some admitted it kills their career sometimes. One even tells a story how people would see this movie on their resume and they’d only pull them in to laugh at them. While one cast member says it’s comparable to Casablanca. The opinions between the fans even vary as well.

In the end Claudio Fragasso even kinda admits his movie was terrible. However, even though it didn’t make people scared, or whatever, he was still able to appreciate that they enjoyed it. To me that’s the true sign of a good artist. It doesn’t matter if someone understands something the way they do. The only thing that matters is that someone enjoy what was made in a positive way. I hope to see more from Claudio Fragasso and from the documentary crew in the future. This is truly what a documentary is suppose to be about: covering all grounds and piecing it all together without leaving a lopsided argument. If you want to see how a damn documentary is made, watch this. Either way I don’t see how someone won’t enjoy the show.

Please find this and watch it.


Super High Me Documentary Review


This documentary follows Doug Benson and marijuana usage in America. It takes time to experiment with Benson’s own usage, in multiple ways. They test him physically, mentally, and even spiritually when he’s high and sober. It even touches on the flipfop mentality of the marijuana laws in California and the DEA. Then they end it with how they are going to keep fighting for the right to smoke pot.

This was both hilarious and almost stereotypical. I kinda knew that if I watched a documentary about a pot smoker that he’d be in SUPPORT of it. Who would have thought, right? Half the documentary, is just that: rant and raves for support of pot growing/selling/etc. The other half is a almost warm support for people who are generally suffering, or are just trying to find ways to be happy, and their fight with law makers.

I was grateful they didn’t make any wild claims for pot use seeing as the scientific evidence presented was sparse. For the most part it was slightly flawed and probably the weakest part of the documentaries argument. They’d show him taking the same medical tests, mental tests, spiritual, etc. each and every time, both while he was high and sober. Now in my theory, and many others, you have to be somewhat intelligent to be a comedian. So I wouldn’t be surprised if the old phrase of “practice makes perfect” fell into this category. So he would take the same test and do better because he has the mental capacity for it, and it wouldn’t be restricted due to marijuana. Also he’s 1 guy verses the millions of probabilities out there. If they wanted to make a better argument they’d have some hundred thousand of two different races and do the same experiment with some modifications.

The times he did interview the doctors, or medical pot doctors, the interview was sparse or gave a very basic view point. The scientific evidence, or proof, was once again none existent. They’d basically give a opinion and move on to the next interviewee. The marijuana enthusiasts, and sellers, were given a brief lime light as well and they pretty much only stated that they were going to keep using the drug and selling it. None of them, including the celebrity guest appearances, didn’t provide any insightful information or positive stance for marijuana use. A lot of it almost range true to the mantra of “we’re going to fight the man” from the early 60s hippie movement. At the same time they only gave the anti-pot advocates little to not time and, again, they didn’t present any evidence as to why pot use is bad. The only evidence they displayed was that the DEA only seemed to bust random pot sellers with little to no reason other then the fact that they were relying off of federal law, despite the fact that states have the right to govern themselves. You know it was only one of the major factors of the Civil War. They seem to forget this, and often.

This was a enjoyable documentary, but it is all sounded by the pot culture and has a lopsided argument. The jokes were funny, as well as seeing Doug Benson stoned off his gourd, but it will still be a hard sell to some. They don’t make much of a leeway on scientific evidence. Also they only briefly touch on the positive effects of its medical use. The only hard sell was that the government employees, and some law makers don’t seem to know what their doing and have laws that easily over lap each other.

Watch it one night for some brief entertainment rather then a focused documentary on pot usage. If anything this is ‘the pot argument’ basics.


Miss Representation Documentary Review


Miss Representation is a exploratory documentary about negative imagery of women in American’s movies and media. It interviews various women in the media, like comedians and actresses. Periodically they’ll pull up disturbing statistics of women who have various problems and it’s insinuated that its due to peer pressure from the media. Other times they discuss various amounts of pressure put on women in the news room or politics and the comments people make on them rather then the political topic at hand.

This documentary does point out some good points about blatant sexism in the media, but anyone with half a brain can notice it without the help of this documentary. On top of that all of the arguments found in this documentary are sometimes considerably lopsided, consist of too many variables, or just factually flawed. Other times they bring in the most subjective examples possible that would only make logical sense if all women were, well, batshit crazy and let the media influence their thoughts all the time.

There are randomly displayed facts during the documentary are distracting and many consist of too many variables. One fact that randomly came on the screen was that “17% of teens engage in cutting and self-injurious behavior.” OK, fine. This happens. But it doesn’t necessarily mean that it has any relation to the media negative portrayal of women. Besides for some people this is a sign of a growing mental problem.

Another example was that a girls sister was being bullied in school for not having the ‘perfect body’ and cuts herself because of the bullying. This has nothing to do with the media. Kids who bandwagon ideals and bully early in life are going to continue to continue to do it into adulthood. The problem there isn’t the media. There is something wrong with her damn class, the parents who have failed to teach their children better, and she needs to be removed from it.

Then they commented on the advertising and how tons of women have a ‘more desirable body.’ I’ll have to kinda agree with them on that. It is a forced image that has been around since the model Twiggy came to America in the 60s. However, the only reason they keep things that was is that sex sells and the celebrities keep their bodies that way because 50% of their job is to keep their image. So they’re going to be scrawny or whatever. Should it change? Yes and it slowly is thanks to the internet and some media is helping change the way people think about the female image. However this, like most things, people need to realize is just fantasy. Most people will get this.

One of the biggest things they hit on is the sexualization of many female characters. It seemed that in many of the movies they played clips of the analysts still thought that woman was being objectified despite being seen as fighting equals in whatever action movie it is. Well guess what? The same thing can be said about men in all movies. You rarely see people who aren’t ripped and have less then 3% body fat. They are rarely ‘ugly’ or short (that being under 5’11). If they are either the media always play to the stereotypes. In many movies men go shirtless and are sexually objectified for women in the audience. Like in the original Thor movie Chris Hemsworth was nearly naked for half the movie.

This is one of my biggest problems with the documentary itself. They sound like they were the only ones being objectified by the media when in reality: everyone is being objectified in some way. Asians are always nerds in movies or ninjas, or assumed ninjas. Blacks are either thugs or side characters. White guys are often the serial rapist murderer bad guy of the movie who’s going to sacrifice babies to Satan or the one dressing up as Captain America and telling people to eat their fucking Wheaties. The bottom line is that everyone is being objectified in some way or that may be just other peoples interpretation of it.

Also some of this seems to pit men as the bad guy who are controlling the media to oppress women. This is just bloody wrong. The mass medias goal is to make money. That is their #1 priority. News isn’t news anymore and the media isn’t censored like it use to be because they want to make MORE MONEY.  They don’t give a shit if something hurts your feelings or you miss your sons ball game because you’re worrying about some stupid shit you saw on a trash soap opera. They are going to use whatever exploitation method(s) available, within legal means, to make fucking MONEY.

The major factor they didn’t bring up that bugged the hell out of me the most was the fact that they didn’t mention any parental involvement at all. If you want STABLE damn people you should encourage the parents to, simply put, do their job. You know guide their kids, all that jazz. Hell it even ENDS with the narrator of the film, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, says she isn’t going to let the media influence her daughter. So at least she learned what to do: be a parent and not let other people to raise her kid.

In the end I hated this documentary. Yes they made valid points and many times I was right their with them on how appalling the way people talk about female politicians. Other clips they brought up of a female news anchor who wants to talk actual news and instead they’d talk about Paris Hilton who has as much appeal as a dumpster full of aborted fetuses. I was right there with them on that too. That was stupid. However, as said before anyone with half a brain would realize that if you’re anywhere rational or logical you shouldn’t worry about what hoes do on reality shows, or in the media. People watch that, just like the Jerry Springer show, because they know it’s trash. Its ‘fun trash.’ Whoever takes that shit seriously should seek mental help.

If you are completely oblivious to anything the media puts out and how it affects female kids/teens/etc., or lack guidance, then watch this documentary. If you’ve already realized that some of the best people don’t look like they walked out of Hollywood, then skip this.


The War On Kids Documentary Review


This rather inclusive documentary is based upon the overly fanatical status of the US governments approach to ‘securing’ schools and making them safer. It covers obvious logical flaws in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual while diagnosing kids with ADD. It talks about common police practices, even in elementary schools…which the documentary ends on police arresting a 5 year old black girl. It even proposed that much of school isn’t about education as it is to ‘mold’ citizens into ‘respecting’ authority and basically oppresses right of children in order to basically gain a form of masochistic control over them. As well as asserting control it does show how much of the school systems deflect all responsibility of failing grades, or behavioral problems, to the children. I do agree with the documentary that a lot of this is just paranoia of faculty/parents/whoever thinking that children will go berserk and kill everyone. With my experience the education system is more or less set up to control behavior rather then educate. It points out in lots of ways how a martial law form of discipline is beyond counter productive and only creates more problems.

This documentary stuck home with a lot of what they were saying. For years I have been saying that all of what was covered in the documentary was happening in schools, and more, for years. In turn I was threatened, censored, and even abused in lots of ways by various faculty, school members, police, and even parents. This documentary was refreshing to hear that other people feared for the over specialization of children’s behavior, and how beyond counter productive it is. They do a decent approach and give both sides of the debate to talk, but more often then not the kids, and those with degrees, have a better argument due to the comparisons they give between what is being done in highschools and those who have their civil liberties taken away in prisons.

I will say that the zero-tolerance policy has opened doors to bullies, faculty of the school, and even the police to harass others to the point of breaking without any negative consequences for them. Even a few teachers speak out in the documentary and pretty much say the same thing. One goes to the length of saying that Prozac is a bullying mechanism to only further abuse children in order to subdue a problem and not fix it, which is arguably a good debate for most medication for mental disorders. It’s basically to stop them from ‘arguing’ with teacher (‘the source of wisdom’ as one teacher put it) and make them complacent. So it’s to appease the teachers rather then to look at what’s really going on. It is stated that the medication makes the patients (i.e. the kids) more likely to be chronically disabled and become much worse in the long run.

Yes there is a lot of doomsaying in this documentary, but a lot of it is logically correct. This is a must see for anyone concerned about the US’s school systems.


IMDB – 7.5/10

Note: This has no tags, because I couldn’t find the cast/appearance list.

Religulous Review

Bill Marh, being one of the better political comedians of this society, made a rather lengthy documentary about the ‘dangers’ of religion. He’s made a impressive amount of interviews to fill this 2 hour film while traveling the world. Some are rather entertaining, like when he discusses the Christian religion with a cynical Vatican priest. Then some leave ya worried if someone will leave the interview alive, like when he was interviewing some very religious Muslims. The documentary goes into the questioning if God exists and if questions many of the stories found in the bible.

Marh did a decent job interviewing most people, but there were a few segments where it looked like he was verbally attacking them too much. It’s like he forgot this wasn’t his show. There he CAN verbally attack the celebrities and political pundits that come on and push buttons, because they are use to it and trained to deal with other peoples shit. Like there was this one segment where he was interviewing a man in a green t-shirt who ran some Jesus store and he’d get a answer from a guy and he’d instantly chim back with something. That isn’t a bad thing, but with the first few answers the guy gave it was obvious he wasn’t going to change his answer, despite Marh‘s questioning. Like the guys posture he later gave was very withdrawn and almost on a defensive side, it was beyond obvious that Marh was slowly insulting him, but the guy was too polite to say anything about it. Then a few phrase did intrigue me about Marh. Like the one he said at the end of his film:

“To doubt is humble” – Bill Marh

Well, yes. That’s very astute of him, but with the well placed bits in between interviews it makes me wonder if he was trying to have people at least question their religion or just tare them a new one. Like it wasn’t good enough to make them doubt, but to belittle some of their beliefs.

With being a comic, sometimes you have to challenge society and do it in a interesting fashion in order WHILE preserving the peace. This, I assure you, is beyond difficult. So I wouldn’t doubt that that is what Marh was trying to do, but it came off as a little aggressive in some areas and ruined the jokes.

While I do applaud his efforts to thin out some of the religious zeal in the world, but I got tired of this documentary due to the fact that:

(A) it isn’t anything I haven’t heard already and

(B) I’m super tired of the whole discussion about religion in America. I honestly think it shouldn’t be that big of a deal, just like the gay issue. This subject is so incredibly worn on me that I couldn’t give a flip if the nation became HP Lovecraft-ians and worshiped Cthulhu. Because the simplest answer for most of this is just to stay away from those over zealous ridiculous groups, like the Westboro Baptist Church, and enjoy life. It even happened in the film. A elderly fat man whom he was interviewing pretty much said he didn’t care to have someone challenge his beliefs for the billionth time and got up and left.

Also (C ) a lot of this was all subjective due to the fact that there are a million or so interpretations about anything and he was looking for one SINGLE answer in that mess. It isn’t like Joe-schome, which is what he primarily interviewed, was going to have the answer. It’s something humanity has asked itself since the beginning of time. Or better yet after the years of disgusting abuse that we’ve (the entire human race) has done to each other: Why would a omnipotent being want to contact us? If I was God I know I sure as fuck wouldn’t want to.

This subject matter isn’t for me, but I do hope Marh makes more documentaries in the future.


IMDB – 7.7

The People v. George Lucas


In this strange analytical documentary of the re-releases of Star Wars the fans of the of the original series speak out against George Lucas. Not only do they go out of their way to interview as many fans as possible, but even some of the original producers of the films. It touches on how film, through out the world, has become so important that changing even little things can impact people and the story. However, it slowly drowns down to the over zealousness of the ‘fan’ bases. They say their forgiving, but they’ve made this documentary to bitch for more then half the film. So it leaves the view wondering what the hell?

I think I have a few good conclusions. A part of psychology is learning about repeat behavior. So naturally people like the same things, the same kinds of things, and similar forms of entertainment. It’s a bit of a comfort thing. People like to live in a constant state of comfort, so when something changes they usually get upset. It’s like what one of the writers, I think, said, “That what fans want. They like that thing you did. They’d like another one of those please.”

Anyway, since the development of things like internet, and large development of global communication, everyone can voice their opinion. So when they do others will bandwagon in order to feel apart of the experience or, well, I guess some perceive it as fun. So I think a good bit of this ‘documentary’ is just bandwagon behavior, like in politics. They only lightly touch on this subject, but I don’t think dove too much into it.

The thing I don’t understand about some of this is they compare the originals to the new versions and complain that the original were so moving and blah blah blah. Although most of the themes, in my opinion, are identically the same. BOTH have obnoxious characters in them. Originally it was 3CPO and R2D2. Back in the day some people even would say that they were the homosexual couple in the movie(s). The newer films have Jar-Jar. The older films had goofs that would get most directors FIRED now-a-days. The new ones had various graphical glitches. BOTH had things that weren’t explained too well, or required the audience to read/buy/watch the cartoon/comics/games/whatever else to make sense. BOTH have a series of events that help someone discover who they really are. So they really needed to calm down when it comes to review the movie.

EVERYONE has that one little thing about their favorite movie that they HATED. Again it’s just now, thanks to the internet, and large development of global communication was everyone able to collaborate and talk freely about what they did and didn’t like. So the rage against the films probably isn’t that big. In the beginning of the documentary they even debated over the changes George Lucas‘s changes to the older films. Paul Yates, director of The Trial of Han Solo, probably said it best. “Art is never finished, it’s just abandoned…and….however, it’s abandoned then shown, and those things with their flaws are what affect people.“ So I agree with some of the points they made, but this segment was more analytical and had more of a conscience argument, but it wasn’t enough to save the documentary from the rest of the continuous whining and complaining.

It’s really hard to recommend this considering it started out SO well and got commentary from well informed people to others who would pretty much say “LUCAS YOU FUCKED UP” and be completely unable to explain as to why. It essentially became a terrible argument like the picture(s) below.



IMDB – 6.8