In Dispute: Lively v Baldoni

This "documentary" if you can even call it that...more like mocumentary...is so incredibly biased! Another bought and paid for biased review just like the NYT article. You could tell the Buzzfeed editor, the guy from on The Ankler, Dina Doll and Emily Bergh are very biased or just terrified of kaleesi and her dragons.

I give this show 2 stars for having Perez Hilton and Kiersti Flaa. However, where is Candace Owens, Zack Peters or Stephanie Tleiji. They have all gone into minute details, sifted and read documents, spoken to multiple people who were on set and those who have worked with both Blake and Justin. They absolutely should have been interviewed if you really wanted to be truly unbiased!

I've never been a huge fan of Blake Lively but I have liked a few of the movies she's been in. I had never heard of Justin Baldoni before this movie. I know for a fact Coleen Hoover had a 'morals clause' in her contract with Justin that stated if Baldoni was found guilty she would get her movie rights back. This should be proof to everyone! She's been on camera ADMITTING she wishes she had the rights back bc she would love for Blake to have the movie rights NOT Justin. Further evidence for me personally.... I had been in a DV relationship before my husband and I have been harassed quite a few times in places I've worked (I waitressed and bartended thru college). He would NEVER and I mean NEVER joke about it! Ryan made jokes in his movie (Deadpool v Wolverine) and he made jokes during the SNL skit. I don't believe for a moment any loving husband would ever make light of or joke about their wife/mother of their children being harassed or abused if they honestly believed it happened and was traumatic. That should be a clear sign to everyone her claim is garbage!

Great to see Perez and Kjersti they did get the truth out but this is 110% one sided. Absolutely hilarious. It's wild to see the producers walked straight up to the line of truth and still missed it by miles. I have his lawsuit memorized so it was obvious and no shock that their "experts" (?) didn't read it. I was dying laughing listening to their impressions of both sides, well one to be honest. The 17 point list had "no more, no more, no more!" so it must all true" was the quote from the blogger from Buzzfeed. Or, could it be that was the name of the charity he donated to? Possibly but now that is up to a jury in 2026. The attorney and buzzfeed chick seem to both agree that the studio will hand editing to the bigger star because it wants to make money and that it's not a crime to do so and who is to say that his edit of the film was even better? Yeah, who is to say? It's not like they had any screenings for test audience's. So, is this Shapiro's way to justify what she did by feeding it to the public she was justified in what she did? Same as how Ryan was justified in all he did because he believed it was true and even if it wasn't it was just his opinion? It could have been better and come clean about what they were trying to do here. Clean up her image and trash his. All anyone wants is authenticity. If you want to be a horrible person just be authentic about it.

Save yourself 45 minutes, go check out something Perez or Kjersti posted this week. Will be so much better than this.

Unless you want a chuckle at ludicrousness and there's nothing else on. Knock yourself out and get ready for some jokes at inappropriate times. Still isnt worth the wasted time.

Very very biased. Missing critical information. Clearly Lively's team has their hand in the pot with this one. It's quite pathetic. 0/10. Wouldn't recommend. It seems like her CIA public relations management has been working overtime with this one. Very very biased. Missing critical information. Clearly Lively's team has their hand in the pot with this one. It's quite pathetic. 0/10. Wouldn't recommend. It seems like her CIA public relations management has been working overtime with this one. Very very biased. Missing critical information. Clearly Lively's team has their hand in the pot with this one. It's quite pathetic. 0/10. Wouldn't recommend. It seems like her CIA public relations management has been working overtime with this one.

This coverage was one-sided and unfairly favored Blake Lively. It only highlighted details that support her claims without looking at the full context. A balanced report should include all the facts, not just selected ones.

For a more complete and fair breakdown, check out Candace Owens on YouTube or BeBetter on TikTok. They review both sides and all the evidence, which shows Justin Baldoni is not guilty of what she claims. In fact, it seems like Lively is the one trying to smear him to take control of this film and future projects.

Good reporting should present both sides so people can make their own informed opinions.

No facts and biased. I wouldn't be surprised if a 7 grader made this for a school project on her favorite female celebrity drama they've been apart of. This is what it feels like. Why would someone take time and money (based off what I watched I doubt any real money was put into this, unless it was bought by the star bully protagonist herself) to put this together? This in itself seems like a smear campaign and tactic to sway the public, unfortunately we can read, research, and have critical thinking skills. I wish the director actually took time to read the lawsuit on both ends before putting out such garbage.