An Exercise In Nonsense

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

While I praise this documentary for making us doubt about everything we know about HIV since its earlier cases in 1981, I recognize that despite the various authorities on the issue and their strange contributions with alarming facts, this is a one-sided portrayal perfect to match the opinion of the disease's denialists and their conspiracy theories. The director guides us and acts as if being a curious person like his viewers are to later become the paladin bearer of the ultimate truth. In his first (and as of now only) film he seems to a be dedicated researcher seeking the truth but only looking at one side of the matter (to deny AIDS existence). Doesn't convince for too long and neither does most of the interviewed people here.I liked it solely because of its good filmmaking, well-put together without making a giant mess with the information gathered (for a moment I almost trusted some of its false items) and above all because it makes us doubt, it raises deep and still unanswered questions and this can be good sometimes. Of course, he's gonna confuse many people and make a lot of disservice but prudent minds know how to see this in other perspective. I'm just worried with people who know little about the disease and will "buy" the theories presented. This is dangerous, offensive and cruel. The Wikipedia page is far more reliable than this movie, really.Who's here? The CDC team who investigated the first HIV cases (Doctors James Curran, Harold Jaffe and Don Francis); the controversial Robert Gallo, one of its discovers along with Luc Montagnier, another pioneer who is also here among other medical doctors, patients, regular people who know little about AIDS and "miracle" cases (awfully manipulated by making us see crying parents we're led to believe that the infected baby had died years ago when in fact she was alive as a teenager during the making of the film). Here's the destruction little by little, the best I could remember: according to what was shown HIV is not of easy transmission; there's always co-factors which are important to dictate if you'll get it or not like the use of poppers; reckless or poor lifestyle; heterosexual transmission is put into jeopardy, as inexistent or rare; if acquired it IS the thing that's gonna kill you (even with the use of medication which prevents its growth). The medication side effects, OK we'll give you that because is truth, AZT as villain (sure, back in the day alone and with no other helper it was a main issue); the inadequacy of tests - Western Blot is pointless, confusing. Who do we trust? The rapid method used in some African countries is ridiculous. And the "perks" of being infected - which I'm not sure if it was real, it was too optimistic - I mean, people were secured homes because they have AIDS? But the medicine is still expensive. One thing truly amazed me: the charts system used to describe the difference between having AIDS or having an occasional low in the immune system. Several diseases besides HIV/AIDS also causes failure in the immune system, low levels of CD-4 count (immune failure due to stress, most of us have and we get sick.) But according to the 1992 chart (still on use) those drops could be classified as having HIV/AIDS. The thin line used in this criterion is quite intriguing. It lost great potential when it skimmed the most frightening topic: the role of pharmaceutical companies in developing a cure. They don't want to find it. We'll never find a cure because of reasons. Another downer was an unflattering image of Brazil (and I doubt the man filmed those in here cause we have better places than what was shown. 5th economy of the world, we're not a country of just slums) focusing on poor conditions but the director failed to show our medical program widely acknowledged by the United Nations as an example to the world. It's reported everywhere that some of the doctors interviewed were taken out of context; one of them easily falls in contradiction three times in less than two minutes. As for the doctors who felt misinterpreted, it's your own fault. Educated, highly paid and cultured experts like you can't afford to not knowing how to explain facts and proofs. The worst was an impatient and snob doctor who refuses to create a image of the virus in a way to show how the virus mutates. "I have more important things to do than to teach you things" he says to which the director inter-cuts with dumbfounded reactions of other doctors who simply can't expose a new image of the virus as if to say all doctors in the world are led to believe such disease exists based on a 30 year-old image, and no new studies were made to corroborate that. But Luc Montagnier, tops it all, and managed to cause a significant damage. In no way he should have said that the body system of a healthy person in contact with someone infected has ways to expel the virus from itself. Watch it at your own risk but don't accept anything from it. It's not objective and it wants to sell a miracle that the disease doesn't exist. So what on Earth were those news images of people with KS? What about the casualties all these years? 6/10

No documentary is truly unbiased. This documentary seems to either get reviews of 10 or very low depending on how the reviewer's position is on the HIV/AIDS. I will give it high marks because:It is on a very relevant, topical subject with much fear around it that has not had much deep questioning on it by the media. The filmmaker interviews very knowledgeable scientists who were part of the history. When it came to the science, I didn't see any quack interviewed. There were very decorated scientists on both "sides".Even if you have a firm view that's not what the filmmaker concludes, it is a very well done film that makes you think. That's what a good documentary is all about.

On the plus side, it's a wonderful demonstration of how compelling blatantly incorrect theories can be, using misquoted experts and ignoring well-known contradictions.In addition to the glaring omissions that JC from the UK pointed out here on 3 March 2010, many more can be found on Wikipedia, which denialists shockingly don't seem to be keen on "correcting": See WikiPedia's "AIDS_denialism" and "Misconceptions_about_HIV_and_AIDS".For example, the film points to the theory that Poppers were the root cause of Kaposi's Sarcoma in the original US gay community, but those Wikipedia pages point to real studies that conclusively disprove that theory. The film does not mention this.Also, two of the interviewed experts (Constantine and Weiss) explain how they were completely misquoted and misrepresented: See google for "constantine and weiss pinpoint misrepresentations"The idea of inaccurate HIV testing seemed to play a large role in the film, even though studies show it is 99.9% accurate. (I'm not sure if this includes PCR tests, which perhaps are 100% conclusive?) The film does not mention this.Also, the film refers to Padian's study on HIV transmission, but completely misrepresents it, as she herself explains: (See: "HIV heterosexual transmission and the Padian paper myth". Basically, she says the study was specifically analyzing safe-sex interventions (condom usage in couples), and simply showed the effectiveness of condoms, not the non-transmissibility of the virus. The film deceptively hides this piece of information.)The film is highly deceptive, and outright false on most of it's critical points. But it was an entertaining and compelling narrative while it lasted.

I think that there's a lot of heated emotion related to this movie, which is understandable, since so many people are affected by HIV/AIDS. I, however, am apart of a small group of people who aren't as invested in this topic like many others are. I came into this movie intrigued and curious as to what the director would put out there. After watching it, I came out having a lot of questions myself. Are some of Brent's questions potentially misleading? Sure, you can take it that way, but I think that the point of the film can not be ignored. What is AIDS, and are we really taking our battle against it the right way? That's a fair question to ask, and one that Brent attempted to answer in a fair, respectful way.