critiques of the film and facts it presents. Rather what you've done is
collect the filmmaker's opinions without offering a reason for doing so.
I've not seen the movie yet, but I wonder if this is because the film does,
actually, tell the truth? Were there so few criticisms of the work to levy
that you had to go after the man? Is it just to show that the film comes
from a certain perspective? Is there somebody, anybody that thinks this
film is in any way a balanced accounting?
All of these statements are opinions. None have enough depth to draw any of
the conclusions you have (so I would say that the answer to all your
questions is "there's not enough information here to answer your question").
Jim Davis
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
