Framing John DeLorean

1. Margaret thatcher did not just "pull the plug" on DeLoreans factory in N. Ireland -- The UK taxpayers had already lost 100,000,000 Pounds (well over half a billion dollars today) and none of the built cars were selling. DeLorean was found to be siphoning off tens of millions form that factory to off-shore accounts, and then to his own personal accounts. there is evidence that he bribed Labor Party officials who had set up the original deal to massively fund the debacle. (if you want to know more google Ivan Fallon's piece "The man who fooled the world). 2. The Delorean was profoundly unsafe vehicle. It was not political machinations that produced those results but every government and independent testing group. It was also never a performance car as promised. It was mediocre in acceleration, cornering etc with a couple of bottled on "innovations" that were not really useful at all (gull wing doors). 3. DeLorean was not "framed." He was heavily involved in drugs including parties where he provided them for a very long time. He was aware of what hardcore drugs do -- his own father died from a narcotics addiction and overdose. He was attempting to profit from something he knew firsthand destroyed lives. 4. The GTO was not his invention, nor was the Firebird. They were created by teams of hundreds of engineers and marketing experts. The scene were he is seen promoting it to an incredulous and unsupportive board is part of the BS he spun. GM knew of Ford's Mustang project and wanted their own muscle car.

The part of this film that is actual documentary is quite good. There are plenty of interviews with people directly involved in the story, a good deal of archive footage, and some history of DeLorean's career before he founded of his own automobile company.

Then there's the reenactments. They take away from the film as a whole; they're by nature difficult to pull off effectively, and here they feel like they're interrupting an otherwise well done and interesting film. Another issue is the son, and too much of him. He doesn't add much substantial insight, just an overuse of F-bombs and whining.

There's enough good material in this film to keep you watching until the end, but it would have been better as a traditional documentary. Unfortunately the filmmakers used the format they did. It's as if they created an obstacle in the way their own film.

I remember when this was happening but at that point in my life, I was not interested in the whole affair. It was a good to see this documentary but I know there was so much more that should be in the story. It would been so much better without Baldwin. They should have used the time and money on more research and story telling.

Baldwin's make-up, particularly those horrendous eyebrows, is so badly done that I can't take pay attention to anything else during the reenactment scenes. Those eyebrows are halfway up his forehead! The real Delorean has quite low eyebrows. Baldwin looks like a freak. His make-up artist should, obviously, be shot. I just cannot comprehend how this was ok'd all the way up the line.

Excellent subject for a documentary, and in the right places, an absorbing film. That said, the reenactments are out of place and just don't mesh with the whole. Here I am, enjoying some unseen archival footage and the film grinds to a halt while the actors break the fourth wall. Alec Baldwin sits in a makeup chair and goes over how he'll play this character in a coming scene. This is actually part of the movie. I have no problem with Baldwin playing the titular character, just make it a full-on biopic.

Still, I have no regrets watching this, and I'd probably do it again. The interviews from everyone involved are worth seeing. Hey, it's an unusual approach to a mythic American drama, that's for sure. But does it work? Ehh . . . .