Reviews

The story in a nutshell, part one. A lifelong con artist named "Doc" Noss (not a real doctor) claims to have discovered piles of gold, a whole room full of Conquistador treasure. It is claimed that he showed solid gold bricks to many people and buried others. But the only evidence shown on camera is some old coins, costume jewelry and, inexplicably, a suit of armor (were the Conquistadors riding around New Mexico wearing plate armor?). Sadly, the gold room is lost in an explosion. Doc Noss gets all his friends to donate thousands of dollars for his excavation. He finds nothing and disappears one day abandoning his wife, who continues to believe in the treasure until her death.

Part two. An Army dentist claims that he met someone with some of Doc Noss's treasure. It was a literal treasure map, a yellow parchment showing the entrance of the cave and location of the gold room, which Doc Noss did not draw himself but found in the cave (figure that one out). It's claimed that the dentist wandered around the mountain after it became an Army base, walked straight into the gold room somehow and got his Army buddies to dig it up for him. The dentist is shown bankrupt and living in a trailer, but the descendants of Doc Noss insist that he was a rich man, because he donated money to his university.

This story is a massive hallucination, and this show tells it with a bit too straight a face. But it's also a fascinating story with many twists and turns. The production value is amazing, a great compilation of old interviews, new interviews, B-roll, and crappy footage of the 1993 excavation of the site seemingly filmed in Hi8.

This movie has a very particular story it wants to tell, and it's executed perfectly. When the crucial, harrowing moments come, the viewer understands that they come not just out of a specific cause, but also out of much larger causes involving the whole plot, the story of Mexico in the period, and the whole world. It's a very sad film at times but one that leaves you loving life, which is what a great movie ought to do.

This documentary is a total mess, much like the Narita struggle itself. It offers only a bare minimum of background on the student movement of the 1960s, then launches directly into the gritty details of Sanrizuka without a modicum of context. It can probably be best appreciated only as a sequel to the director's other film about Sanrizuka, but some knowledge of the student movement will also be necessary.

The main reason I give the film such high marks is mostly for its interview with a former Chukaku-ha leader who was personally responsible for preventing a peaceful resolution to the conflict in 1980 by intimidating farmers and seriously injuring many of his opponents, turning the joint struggle into a fractured civil war replete with mafia tactics. It was very nice of this horrible person to agree to appear on camera and offer the viewing public an attempt to reflect on his destructive, narcissistic terrorist ideology which differs from ISIS only in casualty rate, although he doesn't seem to regret it very much.

The gonzo direction is repetitive, but enjoyable and leaves a good impression the day after viewing -- this ain't Ken Burns. The rest of the content is so-so. Two of the three student guerrillas who smashed the Narita control tower are interviewed to great effect, but the director appears to recognize that this is the high point of the film, and he really hams it up for at least half an hour.

Some farming families are still continuing the struggle today. Never has a great outburst of energy ended in such a long, painful whimper.

This documentary is actually very funny. Stone recognizes from the outset that the fact that an entire doc is being done on him means that liberals are scared as hell. He's very open that "the evil guy who scares liberals" is simply a character he uses while doing his work, he even mocks the interviewer constantly for taking the character too seriously, but it appears that the thing must be done.

Stone is portrayed as a cunning political operative who "pioneered" the art of using tactics in the US, like false rumors and scaremongering, that the CIA had already used overseas for some decades, and indeed have often been part of American history. He doesn't really stand out as a genius tactician, but rather as someone who's very clever and learns through experience exactly what he can get away with. One fairly interesting fact is that he himself switched parties from Republican to Libertarian, which exposes him as a bit quirky.

The director, though, is clearly worse than quirky, as he deadpans the entire thing and paints Stone as a Grand Moff Tarkin or some Disney movie villain's assistant character. We hear from multiple people that Stone is evil personified, or whatever. I regret to inform the director that Harry Potter is just a story.

I rate this 2 stars because the purpose of the documentary is to make people anxious and scared. It's a product of a completely demented, senile liberal culture that's unable to do anything but rack up big psychiatrist bills. I have to condemn the movie for preying on American's weakest links, the liberals. Watch in the right frame of mind, though, and you'll be laughing quite frequently.

I like Mafia movies and I like Scorcese movies. Godfather was great, Casino was great. The direction and setting of this film were excellent, and the actors' performances were unimpeachable. All of that would seem to set me up for another great movie. However, I felt it lacked the character arc that's key to a film like this. The characters lacked a certain self-awareness that could have made the movie enjoyable -- most of the film is about enjoying the spoils of mafia life. Apparently most people think this is one of Scorcese's best, which is a little bemusing to me. Maybe I was just in a bad mood this evening but I found this movie altogether skippable. Would possibly rewatch with friends.

There are two things you need to be willing to embrace before you watch this film. First, the film is not going to make the connections between the characters easy for you. If you are a lazy viewer who is not paying close attention to the dialogue or you do not grasp the connections between the various dramas that are played out, you might be frustrated with what superficially appears to be a lack of direction and feel the film is "pointless". Second, the film is EXTREMELY Eastern European in character. If you want a Hollywood ending you will not find it here.

However, I simply love films like this that propel you into a difficult family situation and spend most of the film time there, allowing you to try to figure out for yourself what's going on. "The Godfather" is one example; I was also a huge fan of Roman Polanski's "Carnage". For people who like that kind of thing this film is a huge treat. It is only at the very end, after the slightly odd car monologue by the main character, that you really feel satisfied with what the film has accomplished and that you have come to understand a subtle coherence within the mess of individual failed narratives. Every character in this film is a self-actualized, 21st century individual who has come up with their own personal story about how the world works. The film's plot makes that obvious, but the remaining questions are up to you: where are the lies? Where is the truth? What happens to the main character at the end? This is a rather beautiful puzzle to behold.