Instead of an actual movie review I almost chose to tackle this flick in an editorial, but there just isn’t enough to be said that hasn’t already been said, and that is the fundamental problem with Morgan Spurlock’s Where in the World is Osama bin Laden?: He’s preaching to the choir.
The people that agree with him are going to tune in and ultimately be bored, because the whole time you are like, “Yup, the war is bad and we aren’t really achieving anything. Look at all that suffering.” On the other hand, the folks that think the “war on terror” is a good thing aren’t even going to watch. So who wins? No one.
Is the film good? Actually it’s very effective; effective at making open-minded viewers miserable as you lay witness to the tragedy that is Morocco, Saudi Arabia and everywhere in between. You realize who is to blame, but does it really matter in this case? No, for the reasons I laid out above.
We all know Spurlock didn’t find Bin Laden and it shocked me to see around the Net that the question is still out there. Does anyone actually think anymore? Wouldn’t that have made major news?
It is not to say that Where in the World is Osama bin Laden? is necessarily a bad film, it is to say it is a film wasted on deaf ears because the folks that should watch it won’t. I blame a lot of it on the title and the corny marketing campaign. To look at the poster you would almost think this is a joke, but when you see Spurlock getting a myriad of shots and prescriptions to go to places in the world where people actually live without such medicine it is a tragedy and nothing at all to joke about.
