Top critical review
The interviewer evidently put this "documentary" as an expose- like a scandal and failed to show the genuine struggle ...
September 29, 2017
The interviewer started out with her bias, grilled a vulnerable young man who just left home, and asked youth highly personal questions. Seeing sacred underwear on people on camera was highly offensive. If people said it is sacred, then treat it as your own. That is the meaning of respect. The interviewer evidently put this "documentary" as an expose- like a scandal and failed to show the genuine struggle of a young man who did the thing and why. This young man has strong conviction enough to put himself on the path to do a mission, fully aware that it is not a popular opinion. The filmmaker showed constant rejection after constant rejection but failed to show why they did it even with a long stream of rejection. As a watcher, I came off, being uneasy and disgusted. Yep, the film is full of bias- all within how the filmmaker edited the movie, how this filmmaker asked questions, and how invasive this filmmaker was. The minders- they all did great job! They can see filmmaker's bias very clearly and moved in immediately to protect those young men. Don't resent their role- after all- all famous personages have their own agents- soccer players, actors/actresses, etc intended to protect them from the villains. As I see in this documentary- filmmaker attempted to create an expose but ended up making herself a villain of the story.