Thursday, March 3, 2016


Nice film with reasonably good performances put in by almost everyone. A good watch.

Liev Schreiber – I usually do not enjoy watching this actor. This film was no exception. There was hardly anything for the character to do and whatever little there was, seemed rather lazy (in my view).

There was this part in the film that made me roll my eyes. The bit about taking the 6% statistic to be an absolute FACT because the researcher says it’s his estimate. I am not saying that the researcher’s study has no merit. I am simply saying that accepting an estimated statistic to be a fact without ANY investigation is … well that’s just stupid. Of course, the estimated percentage does hold true in the film, but it would’ve made a much better sequence IF the journalists did the leg-work / grunt work themselves and THEN used Richard Sipe’s work as support for their findings - As opposed to doing the reverse (which was done in the film).

For an investigator, it packs MORE of a punch if the facts/incidents are supported by a relevant research/study. NOT the other way around.

Also, the same bit of the film - It just seemed idiotic that they didn’t think of identifying the Sick Leave mentions in the directories at the very start of their investigation (it does seem like a logical and OBVIOUS course of action from just about ANY competent investigation team) and only came up with that idea after another chit chat session with Richard Sipe.

Barring that bit, the film was rather well-made.

0 Opinions: