Spoilers Ahead : My prior review allowed for a 9/10 rating based on my level of interest in the story of the film makers's journey to do what he could to right the wrongs suffered by his mother in the course of her treatments stemming from a broken hip operation.
My prior review made note of the shortcomings in the clarity and objectivity I found throughout the ten year story however I did enjoy the presentation and gave it high marks for its entertainment value.
After futher thought I believe the director is as guilty as the medical system that " managed " his mother's care in not doing his job honestly and properly.
The film is chock a block with moments that caused me to think . what happened here ? Moments such as his doctor uncle turning against him or the removal of several key defendants from the case at the last moment. The director plays fast and loose with how much money he spent to help mom or how the law suit was funded.
Most tellingly the suit was lost with a jury finding the defendants being found not guilty of negligence in the blink of an eye. The director never presented the defendants' arguments or told viewer's if any jurors voted for the plaintiff.
Mom should have taken vitamin D and have been forty pounds lighter. Maybe her hips would have been stronger. The son , who directs comedy projects, probably smelled a film being made as well as a court room payday. That would explain his efforts .
I am left with a sense that the health care system was dealing with a problem patient who was highly likely to present difficulties. I know that the film maker produced a propaganda piece rather than an objective documentary.
