It’s a movie starring his nephew in the lead role, approved by his estate, and by all accounts it just feels like an attempt to whitewash him. This is a man who was accused of being a serial child molester, settled with a family out of court for $25 million just to avoid a trial (Chandler), and openly admitted he slept in the same bed as kids while he was an adult (Bashir interview), among other things. I don’t really see what there is to debate.
Anything pointing this out gets backlash on movie-related subreddits, which I find wild. It makes me wonder, if Epstein could sing and dance, would he have gotten a biopic too? Would people be defending him like this?
Ok but it’s easy for a documentary to make you go insert shocked gif here if they just lie about things
True. So are they lying? I don’t think so.
bro, there’s so many docs about aliens constructing the pyramids. do i think they did? hell no. Docs are made to make money.
Mm. And the Enron doc? Also lying? Fog of War? Made for the money? If all documentaries are to be dismissed for being documentaries, thats fucked up, but ok. If not, this one is a “real” one.
The other commenter pointed out a pretty major inconsistency in what I assume is one of the main points of the documentary, so if they’re correct, then yes.
There’s a LOT of testimony in the doc. Which is being contested?
Macaulay Culkin’s experience
Well, he’s like a postscript to the doc. He’s only on it for like two minutes.
The doc is about the two boys before Culkin, not the entire group of boys he collected, so dismissing 98% of the movie, and the corroborating accounts Culkin has made seems disingenuous.
I understand people don’t want to believe it. But these two guys are direct and their stories match in many ways and they are eminently believable. If it didn’t happen to Culkin, he’d be an outlier, but - good.