Hating Breitbart (2012) Reviews

• Poorly made documentary about some guy I had never heard of...

  bltc752014-01-27

  (this review might contain spoiler information) I've been a fan of documentaries for all of my adult life. And judging it on those merits alone, this one is poorly made. I was shocked to see that this film has a higher IMDb average than some of the best movies that have come out in the last couple of decades. Then I remembered something I saw in another documentary (a much better one by the way) about how there was a speaker at a Tea Party convention who was telling people to go on movie sights and give five-star reviews to all the "conservative" films and one-star reviews to all the "liberal" films. The result is what you see when you look up this terrible documentary on IMDb. Now back to the film. Yes, it is watchable (many bad movies are). And in some ways you could say it's entertaining. But it's entertaining the way watching a train wreck is supposed to be entertaining. The filmmakers were good enough to make a good piece of propaganda(so were the Nazis), but if their intention was to make an objective and informative film that showed various sides of a complicated and interesting individual, they failed miserably. Documentaries are one of the original film genres. They are a branch of journalism and reporting. The best documentaries are the ones that present you with new ways of looking at the world and at complicated issues, people, and cultural phenomenon. I came across this film by accident on Netflix. I was looking to kill some time before going out to dinner. The opening tries to be in-your-face and it got my attention. But the entire time I'm thinking, "Who is this idiot? Where are his facts? He's saying a bunch of emotional rhetoric and seems to be portraying himself as an intellectual, but where are his facts?" If this were a true documentary, and not some propaganda piece, there would have been a lot more information about who this guy was, what shaped his views, and what his contributions to society were. I just saw some fat guy making a living from telling a bunch of people what they want to hear. You want to see some compelling documentaries about complex people, check out Collapse and The Fog of War. I am frightened to think that there might be people out there that truly believe this is a great documentary.

  More

• Don't hate the player, hate the crooked, biased, lethal, unrelenting, oppressive, predictable, unfair, and unbecoming game

  StevePulaski2013-05-19

  If you don't know Andrew Breitbart and why he's so controversial you'll find out why in the first few minutes of Andrew Marcus's Hating Breitbart, a breakneck documentary that profiles the left-wing whistleblower and documents just a few of the number of cases he took on in his career. The film begins by addressing the controversy that surrounded the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) when two conservative activists secretly filmed themselves posing as a prostitute and a pimp and discovering the organization offers advice on how to evade paying taxes and keep their prostitution career discreet. From there on out, we see just how big of an impact Breitbart had on exposing organizational lies and media bias through the use of his own tactics using the "new media," such as cell phones, computers, and video cameras. Some will call Breitbart blatantly hypocritical for addressing and slandering the apparent media bias in the news and then opening up several websites with larger-than-life names boasting an unmissable conservative bias. I must admit the truth and say this is precisely what I thought going in. But the more time you see Breitbart on screen and the more time you listen to his lectures, it becomes clear that himself, personally, having a bias isn't contradictory to his philosophy at all. He despises the idea that the "left wing" media proclaims to be balanced and objective when they hold a bias that fits their agenda. Breitbart's several websites holding a conservative bias is the main point of the argument; he has a bias and he admits to it. Hating Breitbart takes a rather questionable look at the title-figure because instead of giving a biographical take on the man, they judge him solely on his methods of activism, his fans and detractors, and his fiery debates held with those he doesn't agree with photographed and observed by a countless slew of people. I would've preferred a focus conducted in a more linear, "rise to fame" style, but unlike most documentaries this one seems to be brewing its own suspense, especially for someone like me who didn't foresee the outcome to many of these cases (I was ignorant to most news until around 2011). Consider the segment Marcus devotes to Breitbart trying to prove the mainstream media wrong when they claimed that racial epithets were shouted at Congressman John Lewis by Tea Party protesters when he walked through the nation's Capital. Breitbart, who analyzed several videos taken from protesters from several different angles, offered $100,000 to the United Negro College Fund if they could provide that this was true. It never came to fruition and this, if anything, woke people up to the thought that Breitbart was more than a self-proclaimed "biased ***hole,* but a man driven to dig up the real, indispensable truth. I suppose another reason why he obtained such a large cult following was just the commonality he shared with so many of his followers. He didn't seem like a well-to-do man who put himself on the frontline to make a buck first and expose an institution second. He states in a casually-conducted interview that he has "two car payments and a mortgage he can't pay." It didn't seem to people that he was in it for the fame and wealth but the fact that he believed that a transparent government was what the people needed and deserved. I couldn't agree more. Hating Breitbart is a good documentary that, while neglecting the critical side of Breitbart like we kind of expected, illustrates terrifically why he was so controversial, loved, adored, hated, and talked about. The film plays like one of the most exciting journalistic crime dramas ever to hit the screen. It shows the fiery and unmistakably brutal routes the first amendment granted the American people with, and the extreme controversy that surrounded whistleblowing journalism. Regardless whether it's a conservative, religious school or a creative-minded, liberal arts institution, I'd call this documentary a must in English courses just for the value in its depictions of bravery and deviance. I always thought that if the conservatives wanted to put themselves ahead in the game in terms of getting their ideology out in a catchy way, rather than hiring the interchangeable talking head on Fox News, they could find someone like Bill Maher, who can recite talking points with not just a spin but a witty sense of humor. It turns out that, up until 2012, the conservatives had their guy, only he went a lot further. Rather than joking and making sly remarks on his TV show, he went out to try and prove that what he was saying was correct and what we were being fed was categorically wrong. In a way, both men are just trying to show the same country a set of "new rules." Starring: Andrew Breitbart. Directed by: Andrew Marcus.

  More

• Why do they hate him so?

  reberscott2012-10-24

  Extremely informative. I was fortunate enough to be at the premiere in DC. It was a great event and I got to speak to many people in the film afterwards at the reception. This made it all the more memorable since I was able to ask about their associations with Breitbart. This film touches on some powerful issues with new media and how Breitbart managed to destroy ACORN, union leaders and Congressman Weiner. He also manages to show the liberal media bias, and it shows how they misrepresent his every word. Keith Oberman's loathing for him surprised me. There were moments in the film where Breitbart seemed extreme and this compromised his image, but by sticking to straightforward truths and his accomplishments his credibility was preserved. The film shows us that he will leave a legacy, that many will aspire to fill in new media. It's a shame we lost him when we did because someone always needs to stir the pot, and he was quite good at it.

  More

• Who hated him, exactly ?

  nazztrader2013-10-21

  I'm older than Breitbart and was a supporter of Reagan in 1980. Then I saw attacks against unions, the poor, various minorities, women, etc. over the years and you couldn't pay me enough to vote for a Republican now! I have seen right wingers target people like Michael Moore or George Soros yet they either don't explain why or don't provide any sensible explanations. If you believe we should all walk around with an AK-47 on our backs, so be it. I hate that idea but I don't hate you. The same is true if you want to force women to have invasive procedures simply because they want to exercise their rights (decided and upheld by the Supreme Court since 1973). If you don't think "ObamaCare" makes sense, despite it being THE Republican way to deal with the health care issues in the US (and being successful in Massachusetts), then go ahead and make your point, and supply us with an alternative plan that makes sense. Don't gripe about being "locked out of the process" when in fact you locked yourself out by not coming to the table when negotiations were occurring and suggesting reasonable things to include. Instead, you whine about being excluded because you didn't want there to be any health care law at all. You wanted people to continue to use the emergency room as their originating point, when in fact that is much more expensive and the taxpayer (probably you) eventually pays this much higher price because the patients go bankrupt or don't have enough to be worth pursing by collection agencies. Get you head out the right wing "bubble" and look at the reality of the situation; stop making everything a personal insult to your fine character (do you really think Mr. Breitbart was that nice of a guy in any case?). And what about all the obnoxious theatrics against the President? Why aren't supporters of Breitbart outraged about those things? Is it that they are most likely the ones involved, such as those waving Confederate flags around? And why was he so against Operation Wall Street? They made their point, which was verified by statements made by Romney himself (when he didn't think anyone outside the room would hear) . They have a right to demonstrate. They are gone now, whereas the "Tea Party" is still in existence, with their leaders saying all kinds of crazy things, such as a medical doctor saying he no longer believes in embryology. Does he now believe that storks bring children into the world? I don't hate him, but I do fear such people obtaining political power. Would you like to be led by an insane person? Do you not know anything about the history of nations that were led by such people? Instead, we hear all kinds of things from people like Breitbart about Obama that are clearly false: he's a Muslim, he's an atheist, he's a community organizing thug, he's a haughty Ivy Leaguer who looks down on little people, he's a socialist, he's in the pocket of the big banks, he's a friend of all the bad guys in the world, etc. Lastly, why not study some history? In many ways, Obama is mostly to the right of Reagan! I was in college at the time and the joke being told back then was that Reagan seemed to want to destroy socialist ideas by being the greatest socialist President in US history (while saying he was against it and talking the talk of the right wing crazies). Go back and see what Reagan actually did as President. Don't listen to what people like Breitbart tell you simply because they are good at "playing the victim" whenever they can't actually articulate a reasonable policy position on whatever they happen to be acting outraged about on a given day. Tell those of us who are independent-minded how you plan on solving major problems (many if not most of which were caused by Republican administrations, especially the budget deficit). Remember that the original "Tea Party" was against taxation without representation and think about whether trying to stop people from voting is the opposite of what those Founding Fathers held so dear! However, if you do things like denounce the CBO as part of "commie conspiracy" because their calculations conflict with your ideology, all I can do is suggest a brand of tin foil for you to use when you create your protective hats. In politics, you hardly ever get everything you want. Negotiations and compromise are necessary. It is the "art of the possible." By gerrymandering Congressional districts in the most crude ways imaginable, Tea Party types have assured that history is not going to proceed in directions they think they prefer. Why not give the Republican idea, now called ObamaCare, a chance? If it fails, you can then run a Presidential candidate against it. If so, perhaps this candidate will actually have an alternative plan that makes some amount of sense. Whining, playing the victim, retreating to your "bubble" for some reason (an inability to deal with diverse opinions?), advancing conspiracy theories, grossly mischaracterizing the ideas of those with whom you disagree, etc. is just not sensible. Perhaps this is best characterized as the art of the impossible. Is that really where you want to be? Can you even entertain the thought that this is all about keeping people like Limbaugh and Hannity rich, and little if anything else?

  More

• Super Good Film - A Must See!

  jakeberrys112013-05-23

  What a great film. It is a must see documentary. This doc kept your attention like no other from the first frame to the last second. Andrew Breitbart was a polarizing figure like few we have ever seen. Love him or HATE him...he fought vigorously for what he believed in. To rate this film anything less than an 8 would be on a moral par with Al Gore selling currentTV to the Qatar oil tycoons. I recommend you watch this film and see for yourself...then write a review as I have! A great watch for any doc fan. Well worth the time. I hope to see all of the director's next films. The only let down is that we will not be able to see any of Andrew's other films he undoubtedly would of made.

  More