Fair to say that most 1/10 rarings should be dismissed on grounds that the reviewer is hyperbolic in her assessment.
When it comes to movies making false statements - often historical - it is, arguably acceptable. The movie format is primarily there for entertainment and a subtle rearrangement of facts often heightens the "movie experience". Documentaries are, and should be, held to a completely different standard. Mixing theory with fact is nothing less than a gross misconduct toward the audience.
A portion of overstating a theory is to be reckoned with. But blatantly claiming to be in possession of a solution or truth, without hearing "the other side", has nothing to do with facts or science. Any attempt to railroad a mere theory as facts automatically validates the 1/10 rating.
The claims made in "Nature's Fear Factory" are extraordinary yet it delivers no extraordinary proof to validate them. The fact that they have been allowed to implement their "loose theories" into an entire ecosystem is cause for massive concern and worthy of a critical documentary in itself. What Mr Murdock presents is nod-along rhetorics where the viewer is expected to nod along with each and every remarkable statement - regardless of lack of proof or validity.
The synopsis is that certain prey is, due to a lower count of predators, behaving differently; adopting a more daring a risky behaviour. A change in behaviour due to a change in the environment is what most scholars would call; evolution. But not Mr Murdock, oh no, he and his wannabe intellectuals apperntly hold the key to "correct behaviour". So now they are on a mission to "set nature back on track".
It's yet another exemple of some Goodie Two Shoes stating, matter of factually, that they hold the solution of how to "balance nature".
This time, apparently, "fear Is the key". Drawing the conclusion that prey, in their natural surroundings, apparently lack a regular dose of "fear for their life" due to "an Inadequate number of predators"; David Murdock and his merry bunch decide that they could do nature a humongous favour by inserting a large dose of ravaging predators.
People overriding Mother Nature have had a tendency to botch things up - there is no good reason to expect this escapade will be any different.
The fact that this rubbish passes as science, by many, is bewildering - bewildering and worrying. The solution to the mess nature has found itself in is, to a large extent, founded in human actions. What "nature needs" is, most likely, less interference - NOT more.
The chances that Murdock and his henchmen are doing any good appears minuscule. The chance that they are messing up nature in progress trying "trying to find balance" appears enormous. Not that that stops them from stating vague hypothesis as if they were facts.
View critically.
When it comes to movies making false statements - often historical - it is, arguably acceptable. The movie format is primarily there for entertainment and a subtle rearrangement of facts often heightens the "movie experience". Documentaries are, and should be, held to a completely different standard. Mixing theory with fact is nothing less than a gross misconduct toward the audience.
A portion of overstating a theory is to be reckoned with. But blatantly claiming to be in possession of a solution or truth, without hearing "the other side", has nothing to do with facts or science. Any attempt to railroad a mere theory as facts automatically validates the 1/10 rating.
The claims made in "Nature's Fear Factory" are extraordinary yet it delivers no extraordinary proof to validate them. The fact that they have been allowed to implement their "loose theories" into an entire ecosystem is cause for massive concern and worthy of a critical documentary in itself. What Mr Murdock presents is nod-along rhetorics where the viewer is expected to nod along with each and every remarkable statement - regardless of lack of proof or validity.
The synopsis is that certain prey is, due to a lower count of predators, behaving differently; adopting a more daring a risky behaviour. A change in behaviour due to a change in the environment is what most scholars would call; evolution. But not Mr Murdock, oh no, he and his wannabe intellectuals apperntly hold the key to "correct behaviour". So now they are on a mission to "set nature back on track".
It's yet another exemple of some Goodie Two Shoes stating, matter of factually, that they hold the solution of how to "balance nature".
This time, apparently, "fear Is the key". Drawing the conclusion that prey, in their natural surroundings, apparently lack a regular dose of "fear for their life" due to "an Inadequate number of predators"; David Murdock and his merry bunch decide that they could do nature a humongous favour by inserting a large dose of ravaging predators.
People overriding Mother Nature have had a tendency to botch things up - there is no good reason to expect this escapade will be any different.
The fact that this rubbish passes as science, by many, is bewildering - bewildering and worrying. The solution to the mess nature has found itself in is, to a large extent, founded in human actions. What "nature needs" is, most likely, less interference - NOT more.
The chances that Murdock and his henchmen are doing any good appears minuscule. The chance that they are messing up nature in progress trying "trying to find balance" appears enormous. Not that that stops them from stating vague hypothesis as if they were facts.
View critically.
