Reviews

I thought the first half hour was great and that the two leads were quite charming throughout, aside from being occasionally annoying. Unfortunately, it eventually becomes a generic road trip comedy that is only distinguished by its agenda, which can't be appreciated due to how heavy-handed it is and how it ultimately goes to contrived lengths to beat you over the head with it.

First off, there's a difference between thinking abortion should be legal and thinking that all states should allow a child to get one without their parents knowing. That's what this film is advocating, yet never really says why a kid should be allowed to get an abortion without their parents knowing. I'm not aware of any medical procedures that a minor can have done without their parents knowing. I'm not saying the filmmakers are wrong, but I'm saying reasoning should be given as to why something as drastic as an abortion should be the exception.

There's nothing in here that will make anyone change their mind, which I think is a missed opportunity. Instead of being insightful and empathetic towards all perspectives, it just acts like thinking children should be able to get abortions without parental permission is common sense that needs no elaboration, and depicts anyone with a different perspective as an idiotic creep. There are pro-life characters who are essentially villains straight out of a cartoon.

And I'm for abortion, but I also acknowledge the emotions involved and the common internal conflict. Not much of that is presented here, other than worrying about what her religious mom will think. It's about a girl who after finding out she's pregnant, instantly wants an abortion, and goes and gets one. And when getting one, it's heavy-handedly presented as this wonderfully blissful experience.

And the road trip elements are really generically executed. I think there's about seven montages. And they also throw in some really unnecessary cliches. A 17 year old character is seduced and kissed by a character who doesn't have their age disclosed, but is clearly much older and is played by an actress who is 28. I don't think it being between two females makes it any less weird and it serves no purpose because she is never seen or acknowledged again, other than being followed on Instagram.

To all the people proudly rating this a 10 who openly didn't think it deserved one or didn't even watch it, and just wanted to combat the ratings from pro-life people......you know you're essentially doing the same thing they're doing, right? It's a movie. Analyze it as a movie and how well-made it is. Don't just automatically give it a 10 because it supports an agenda you agree with. That's just as childish as automatically giving it a 1 because it supports an agenda you don't agree with.

I saw this film opening night and it's now Tuesday. I finally feel like I fully understand my feelings towards it. I didn't especially like or dislike it. First let me say that I have been a big fan of the show since it started, have seen every episode multiple times, have been to one of their live shows, and follow all four of them individually. I don't just think they're funny, but think they are all four very genuine people who are uncommonly humbled and deserve the support they've been given.

Now the easy way to criticize this film is to complain about the story and the scripted segments and claim they're bad actors. That's what all the negative reviews are doing, but I'm not going to do that. I was honestly dreading the scripted scenes, but I ended up enjoying seeing the guys in that format and thought those segments were funnier than I expected. Is the story pointless? Very. Is too much of the runtime scripted? Yes. But I don't think those scenes are the ultimate problem.

Shockingly, my problem with the film are the unscripted segments. Now don't get me wrong, they are funny, and most of them do have a larger scale than the show. But unlike the show, they are so heavily edited and cut so quickly to the next, it feels like you're missing out on a lot. Imagine if in the Jackass movies the segments only showed the stunts and cut to the next one once the stunt was done, without showing any of the banter or reactions between the guys. It wouldn't be the same at all. Well that's the equivalent of what happens here.

Let me give some examples. Spoilers ahead. There's a scene where Sal is trapped in a hotel room with a tiger. But unlike if this happened on the show, you don't see the guys beforehand talk about how excited they are, and you don't see how Sal acted towards them after getting out of the room. He's just pushed into the room, you see a minute or two of him being scared, and then the segment ends and cuts to something completely different while he is still in the room with the tiger.

Another example is when Sal is forced (although the editing doesn't make it look like he was forced) to get another Jaden Smith tattoo. Remember how hilarious his reaction was after the first one was revealed? Well here, they tell him it's happening, then boom it cuts to him getting it, they briefly show it, and the scene ends. You see none of his reluctancy or really any real response before or after.

Another example is the final punishment with the plane. Now admittedly, this looked really cool and was really well directed. But, it just cuts from a scripted scene to him on the plane, and then the film ends during the footage of it flying around. Remember the episode of the show where Murr had to sky dive? He ran away from everyone full speed, threatened to quit the show, and was eventually talked into it while essentially in tears. Here, he's doing something more dangerous, yet you get none of that. No footage of him leading up to it or footage of him after the plane landed, and not even any reactions from the other guys.

I hate being critical of the film since I have so much love for these guys and are really happy for them. It made an amazing amount of money this weekend for a film only in 357 screens. But my favorite part of the show has always been the genuine, authentic banter between these guys. Them getting mad at each other, taking digs at one another, and just simply saying stuff off the top of their heads beyond giving orders and laughing. The editing just made the unscripted segments feel too cinematic. I understand that it's a movie, but it being shown in theatres isn't a reason to change what the challenges and punishments are like on the show. I've already given Jackass as an example as to how no changes were made and it still worked perfectly on the big screen. I understand that this editing issue I'm addressing is probably partly due to trying to cram everything into the runtime, but if that's the case, then there should have been less scripted scenes. Because there are a lot.

And that's exactly what this is, combining a couple different bs theories. This shouldn't be seen, so I'm just going to spoil everything and explain why it's so wrong.

The film (and it pains me to even call it a film), depicts Glen Rogers as a man with a dissociated identity named Charlie that compels him to kill people. He paints Nicole's condo, has sex with her, develops a bloodlust for her, and then bumps into OJ shortly before the murders take place.

The real Glen Rogers once claimed to have killed Nicole Brown, but he has also claimed to have killed around 70 women while evidence has only been found regarding a few. Regardless of what his moron brother says, investigators have confirmed that he was not in a location at the time where he could have been the murderer of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.

Now Charlie is the name of OJ's non-existent friend that assists him with the murder in the hypothetical chapter of the book If I Did It. The book never got published, but the entire thing is online. I've read that chapter and it depicts a friend of OJ's named Charlie driving over to his place to tell him about Nicole and Faye Resnick's behavior, the two going over to Bundy together to check things out, and Charlie handing him the knife right before the murders.

OJ was asked about this chapter of the book in an interview and he summarized what it says. At the end of the film, this idiot director shows brief clips of it, taken completely out of context, to make it look like the bs you just saw is supported.

On top of how ridiculous and offensive this all is, the film is also horribly made on every basic technical level. And while there was obviously zero care given regarding being factual, I was still amazed with how off everything was. Felt like the director was the one person who didn't follow the case. The condo looks nothing like the real condo aside from having a gated door, her dog isn't even the right breed, it drastically exaggerates how much of a friendship her and Goldman had, and I could go on forever but it's not worth it. Do not watch this.

Let me put it this way. I had little to no knowledge regarding this case before watching the film, and it still left me strongly convinced of Knox's guilt. It gave me the feeling that it wasn't telling us everything, but I didn't know or get the impression that the filmmakers thought she was innocent, and were trying to portray her as such. Like already mentioned, I knew next to nothing about the case and I was still very easily convinced that Knox had at least some form of involvement. I found out after watching it that the directors think she's innocent.

The problem is the film leaves out multiple pieces of incriminating evidence, yet has convinced some people that Knox is innocent. The film claims itself to be neutral, and for a while it is. But it eventually puts too much emphasis on a supposed lack of Knox's DNA found in Kercher's room, and leaves out forms of DNA evidence against both of them, a number of different testimonies from the night of the murder and the following morning, as well as many other things INCLUDING what I think might be the strongest piece of evidence against Knox and Sollecito; what happened when authorities first arrived to the crime scene.

The film makes it look like they phoned authorities who then quickly arrived, and then the odd behavior began with Knox and Sollecito noticeably expressing a suspicious amount of affection towards each other directly outside the murder scene. But clear reasoning to suspect Knox's guilt actually started even before that. The postal police ironically arrived first, due to having found both of Kercher's phones. Knox and Sollecito then show no concern for Meredith's safety and make no mention of her door being locked. Eventually Knox claims that it was normal for Kercher to leave her door locked, which has been refuted by all of the other roommates.

Now, that may not seem like much at first, but think about what her story is. She claims that before phoning police and anyone else arriving, she began to panic, knocked multiple times on Kercher's door, eventually climbing the balcony to try to see into her window, and even getting Sollecito to try to kick the door down. So we're trying as hard as possible to peak into windows and bust the door down to make sure she's okay, but when authorities suddenly arrive due to finding her phones in a random backyard, they don't freak the hell out? Or even mention her door being locked?! It was mentioned in the phone call! The phone call to police that oddly did not happen until after the postal police had arrived. They claimed otherwise, but the full timeline for that morning has been established based on several different testimonies and phone records.

If they were innocent, there's no doubt that they would have instantly entered a stronger state of panic when realizing her phones had been ditched, and directed the postal police's attention to the locked door. Instead, Knox diverts their attention away from the door after it's discovered to be locked, with the flat-out lie that Kercher commonly left it that way. Everybody else claims that she had never once left her door locked before. You may ask, well why would Amanda do this? It's pretty simple. Cold feet. Authorities arrived even quicker than they had planned, before they phoned them themselves, and reality set in. Knox got nervous and wasn't ready for authorities to find the body, so she tried to buy more time and shift their attention away from her room.

Unlike a lot of users who are convinced of Knox's guilt, I would still recommend the film. It really upsets me that it has convinced people that she's innocent, but due to the scale of her role, believing Knox is guilty makes it an even creepier and more memorably haunting experience. Imagine how amazing of a documentary this would have been if it had actually been a neutral exploration that presented allllll of the significant evidence and allowed the viewer to decide on their own. It feels like a rare opportunity to make a documentary that very largely features new interviews from two people convicted twice of murder (that many people still believe are guilty). Their footage should have given everyone that haunting, at least suspicious sensation that it gave me, but I see now how the filmmakers irresponsibly structured the film to have you ultimately be on their side and feel sympathy for them. I'd still recommend it. It's creepy, gorgeous, and quite thought-provoking in many aspects. But I stress that you go to themurderofmeredithkercher.com afterwards and read into all of the evidence. Knowing what the film leaves out, makes it more enjoyable and less enjoyable at the same time.

I don't know why the directors are convinced of Knox's innocence, but there is significantly more to the case than what the film shows. And that is an understatement. With all things considered, the idea that Knox and Sollecito had zero involvement is absolute insanity. Unsavory qualities you may see in a journalist or detective are irrelevant. Yes, the media acted ridiculous. I don't disagree. But at the end of the day, that really changes none of the hard evidence. Ultimately, a technically proficient documentary that exploits very interesting and personal aspects, but without giving you the whole story. It's cool that Knox is in it, but all forms of significantly incriminating evidence against her and Sollecito still should have been provided, and that clearly isn't what they did. It still serves as an essential fact that Guede did not act alone and that a lot of evidence (including eye-witness testimonies that the film excludes) points to three people being involved. I would love to know who the directors think the other two are.