Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Tymon Sutton The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

JohnnyLee1 Worth watching but doco-maker too close to Armstrong. Watching the lying made me sick in the stomach.

supatube Nice insight into a controversial sport star that's filled with arrogance and a false sense of self worth. Breaking the film down component by component it would read as: a main character that is actually a social noob, athletes 'cheat', people still don't want to admit that athletes are fake, and money pours in without doubt until PR starts looking shady. The saddest part of the documentary is the spectators (even the director himself's) praise of a man while, firstly, he is faking his superiority in cycling and second, he is just a cyclist and maybe shouldn't be praised as such a hero. Sometimes the hype around Lance Armstrong was as if he cured cancer. Therefore his lie was such a scandal, not because doping is such a big deal in the world away from competitive sports but because the people wanted to believe he was a super human and they believed their own disillusionment until it shattered like fragile glass. South Africa is home to a sports hero that shattered the hope of many when murder charges were brought against him. I don't think doping is the worst thing a sportsman could do. So Armstongs lie was overshadowed by Pistorius' violence in the eyes of many but that does not mean that Lance is not a less than impressive human being. Interestingly enough it was not the cheating that gives him this label but his malicious nature that goes above and beyond the world of cycling.Putting the 'cheating' aside, the documentary managed to showcase Lance in the most alarming way; a man unrepentant of the people he hurt to conceal his lie. An arrogant man that proceeded to relentlessly debase people, ruining their credibility all to protect his secret of inadequacy. The film itself began as a puff piece about the hero that is Lance Armstrong. By the time that original idea hit the cutting room the Armstrong story had taken a turn - which was not surprising with all the allegations over the years - and needed to find a new foundation. The largest missed opportunity was the director himself. As a fan, a man who started shooting the cyclist before the drama, why did he not then turn the camera on himself? A scandal is only as big as the amount of people that believed the lie. So Alex Gibney totally believed the lie. Why not address the other party in the Armstong scandal, the people? Maybe because the person lied to always wants to blame the liar for their own gullibility? Yes, the lie is horrid but many people believed the doping allegations, are these 'nonbelievers/haters' hurt by the truth? Probably not.So by the end the documentary focuses on Armstrong's downfall and his own personal inabilities to be a decent human being and totally forgoes everything that makes the 'cheating' an option - to be the best, to be a star, to be rich and a hero, to live the American dream, which can't happen if nobody pays attention. It's an interesting viewing, doesn't touch on real issues regarding the drive to be a sports hero, showcases a pretty shameful human being but it was topical at the time of release. I wouldn't rank it up there as some of Gibney's past work nor would i put it next to a great sport biography like "Senna".

sammy-balamy To judge something in terms of how it's executed is all well and good but in a documentary such as this the message takes precedence. It seeks the truth and all the arguments aren't displayed for that to emerge. If it it simply allowed the viewer to make up his own mind then that would be o.k but the film displays a bias thereby becoming a vehicle and a misleading one at that.The fact that doping was prevalent in cycling and still plays a large factor is obvious. If Armstrong was racing on a level playing field of dopers then that to me would also have been acceptable. However this was far from the case.Non of Lance's team mates were caught doping whilst they were in his team. Meanwhile all his major competitors were absent from the start line at various points in time due to suspensions and had some key teammates missing from every tour for the same reason. Throughout all the disruptions, devastation, controversy and even a suicide Armstrong was always there with a full strength squad.The film touches on the importance of team mates and how on all of his wins Armstrong rode alone for only minutes at a time, but fails to take the next step and look at how the various disqualifications imposed on all other teams (apart from his own during his winning years) affected his competitors. Had the film done this Armstrong would never have agreed to be in it because he's still pushing the lie that he won those seven Tours fair and square once we accept as fact that they were all doping.The UCI had invested in him and were being invested in by a lot of the same sponsors, they allowed many cyclists to burn whilst protecting this man. The film doesn't touch on those aspects and the film maker remains a fan.I gave the film five stars because it is well shot and well put together. I am a cycling fan and it's view of the race was a pleasure to watch. There is stock footage obviously but the film does follow Armstrong and films the 2009 race independently. The film gives an insight into what it takes to be a professional rider and rider's relationships with one another and their team officials.Some of the people interviewed I've never seen interviewed i.e doctor Ferrari, which added another point of interest for me.The 2009 and other pre-'outed' interviews were interesting, giving an insight into Armstrong's mentality at the time and although there is marked contrast to his post-confessional ones it's by no means a transformation and a true repentance. His approach to people seems outwardly very different now, but his attitude towards his legacy and the morality of his actions remain to all intents and purposes unchanged. The exclusions of Paul Kimmage and Greg Lemond from the documentary also indicate this.I'd say watch the film but bear the other stuff in mind too.

Jesse Boland It is really mind boggling to me sometimes that a documentary film maker can take 4 years without releasing the film, and that those extra few years will change the entire story. This type of thing has been happening more, and more, and I am referring to the act of capturing the facts on film long before we even know the questions. "The Gibney version" of this movie is the image of an angry man who has been lied to, and has wasted so much time following a world class lair around the world, but who is strong enough to follow the truth, and pull as few punches as he throws. This is a good Enjoyable documentary, a great feeling of watching the ever present foreshadowing. You know already, but there is still doubt, and yet there isn't is the message in a nutshell. I recommend this one to Documentary fans, it has a real strong hand at the wheel, I did not actually realize what I was watching until it had started, and I was pulled in quickly.