Alexis Bloom’s documentary presents a critical examination of the personality that has shaped Israel’s leadership over four terms as Prime Minister. It should be noted upfront that anyone supportive of this man, his beliefs, or his methods is unlikely to enjoy it; throughout its two-hour length, few positive comments about him are offered. While a neutral observer might find this acceptable, the lack of balance and what feels like an overtly biased character assassination ultimately weakens the film after roughly thirty minutes. It’s true that he once projected charm and charisma, frequently appearing on British television as a representative of a nation seemingly under constant threat. Now, he is forced to confront his own actions. Questions are raised about whether desired outcomes can ever justify questionable methods, and what “total victory” for his people might entail – perpetual conflict, the destruction of adversaries, or territorial expansion? The film shows him alongside Trump and Putin, addressing a Congress in Washington D.C., yet the obvious bias undermines its credibility, prompting questions about the integrity of all our "democratic" leaders. Instead of a formal inquiry into alleged corruption, we witness seemingly casual exchanges between a man in a suit and those in uniform; there’s no mediator, no sense of gravity to the discussions. The issues extend beyond minor offenses like cars or champagne, involving the misuse of political power for personal gain. Nicholas Sarkozy faces a corruption trial currently, Donald Trump is dealing with almost half a billion dollars in fines and compensation – this isn't unique to Israel; neither Germany nor Canada are safe havens for terrorist groups or missile launchers. Power inevitably leads to corruption. It’s undeniable! Is he attempting to establish a political dynasty? Shielding himself from scrutiny through his office? Undermining the Supreme Court? Does his wife, Sara, wield significant influence? Perhaps, likely – even almost certainly; however, the absence of perspectives from his supporters suggests this is simply a partisan attack by those traditionally claiming moral superiority, without offering a genuine critical assessment of a leader presiding over a deeply divided nation. The film implies he's a despot, but demonstrating a country in that region where power isn’t concentrated in one person, family, or group proves difficult. The ability for citizens to protest freely is something worth acknowledging. The final twenty minutes borders on suggesting he secured funds to support regimes he now opposes, and that other nations are involved in this regional political game. This could have sparked a worthwhile discussion if presented more thoughtfully. Ultimately, you won’t find any definitive answers here regarding whether he's the cause or effect of events—or both—or neither.

Source on TMDB