A movie should provide some sort of entertainment or if it's a documentary it should inform or educate the viewer. The director can't seem to figure out what he wants to do and it ends up giving us nothing. There are no dates or history for the viewer to follow along in the Ted K story and it just wanders aimlessly through scene after scene until it abruptly ends.
The entertainment value is really low, and if you've watched Unabomber then you know most if not all of the story and this adds nothing. Most of the film is an actor in the wilderness cursing a airplanes in the sky and loggers in the woods.
A one star review means that the film should never have been made. This is a good example. For anyone interested in the story, this gives very few details and just throws quotes at us hoping that they create mystery. For the rest of us who actually watched any of the previous shows they will be completely disappointed as this adds nothing new.
The question is, why would a director make a lackluster film about a person without any new information, 25 years after the incident? There is nothing of value here.
The entertainment value is really low, and if you've watched Unabomber then you know most if not all of the story and this adds nothing. Most of the film is an actor in the wilderness cursing a airplanes in the sky and loggers in the woods.
A one star review means that the film should never have been made. This is a good example. For anyone interested in the story, this gives very few details and just throws quotes at us hoping that they create mystery. For the rest of us who actually watched any of the previous shows they will be completely disappointed as this adds nothing new.
The question is, why would a director make a lackluster film about a person without any new information, 25 years after the incident? There is nothing of value here.