shieldspt

After listening to Tucker Carlson's interview with director Jenner Furst, I was intrigued enough to subscribe to the Tucker Carlson Network solely to watch the documentary. If you've also heard the interview, save yourself the trouble-I made the mistake so you don't have to!

Tucker's interview not only covered everything the documentary attempted to, but did so with greater depth, clarity, and context.

Given the title, you'd expect the documentary's principal focus to be Dr. Fauci. Instead, the bulk of the screen time-by a significant margin-was devoted to Jenner Furst himself. Approximately 20% (if not more) of the runtime consists of Furst earnestly typing at his laptop, earnestly speaking into his phone, or earnestly chatting with two producer friends. Why their opinions are supposed to matter is never explained.

The scientists, researchers, insiders, and whistleblowers whose testimonies I was eager to hear were relegated to brief, contextless soundbites and bullet points. Rather than presenting substantive prima facie evidence, the film leans heavily on unsubstantiated assertions.

To make matters worse, the first 10 minutes felt like an extended trailer. I had anticipated a forensic, in-depth investigation-something that treated the audience as adults. Instead, I got what can only be described as "cappuccino journalism": 20% content, 80% froth. Even the limited substance offered was unsatisfying and left me wanting far more.

Documentaries intended for adult audiences were once expected to engage with complex ideas and expansive vocabulary. Now it seems that dropping a few F-bombs is supposed to pass for sophistication-a weak attempt to mask the lack of real substance.

If you've already listened to Tucker's interview, there's no need to watch the documentary-it will only disappoint. And if you haven't heard the interview yet, skip the film altogether and invest the time reading primary sources or more thorough investigative jounalistic articles.

I would love to express how truly dreadful this film is in words, but words fail me! We wondered if it might have been intended to be a spoof, but then it lacks any humour.

Even my 8 year old daughter who loves anything to do with fairies or princesses lost interest after 15 minutes and started playing a game instead.

Acting - dire. (And we were absolutely gobsmacked to find Simon Callow making an appearance. No wonder he didn't want to be credited). Only the horse was believable!

Story line - primary school children have written better plots with more well developed characters.

Everything - absolutely everything about this film sucks: the cinematography, the special effects, the music, the acting, the casting.

You can see from my review history that I really hate leaving negative reviews. But if I can spare any other parents or children the ordeal of having to watch even 2 minutes of this then I feel it is my duty.

Easter family film night - the obvious choice really.

Still remains the best adaptation of the Gospels if you ask me. Highly accurate, and the characterisations & the narrative blank filling are all plausibly done. Even the reference to Sepphoris at the beginning is an interesting inclusion ... I never realised it's existence 'til one of my college lecturers asked the question "Could Jesus have been alluding to Sepphoris when he talked about a city on a hill?"

My children all had lots of relevant questions which showed they were comprehending what was going on and attempting to make it relate to what they already know. And the crucial Passion week events are all done superbly for a child audience.

Still kind of amazing that film 4 were involved with this production - can't imagine them doing such a straight Biblical interpretation now.