Roy Hart
If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.
Kinley
This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows
Bob
This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.
JohnnyLee1
Worth watching but doco-maker too close to Armstrong. Watching the lying made me sick in the stomach.
Martin Bradley
In 2009 Alex Gibney set out to make a documentary about Lance Armstrong's return to the racing circuit. Armstrong had won the Tour De France seven times and had beaten cancer. He was a winner in every respect until finally the allegations that had dogged him for years, that he had used performance enhancing drugs, caught up with him and on Oprah Winfrey's television show he finally admitted to cheating and Gibney's film, originally designed to celebrate Armstrong, became "The Armstrong Lie", as Gibney searched for reasons for his behaviour. Could it be that he simply had to become a winner whatever the cost? Gibney felt that Armstrong owed him since Armstrong had lied to him in 2009 when Gibney set out to celebrate Armstrong's career, so he continued with his film forcing Armstrong to confront his duplicitous past, (though even now Armstrong is holding some things back), and the result is this extraordinary film. "The Armstrong Lie" is the kind of film that pays tribute, not just to its subject, (though, perhaps, tribute isn't quite the right word in this case), but to the genre itself, (it's as exciting as any fictional thriller). Gibney already has an Oscar under his belt; in a just world he would have added another for this brilliant movie.
MtnShelby
This is an interesting documentary and well worth watching. I knew absolutely nothing about the world of cycling--nothing--and very little about Armstrong other than as a celebrity and household name. I had heard about the scandal attached to him over the years, but didn't pay much attention. This documentary was thoroughly informative, but I must agree with reviewers who say the director could have gone for the jugular at some point, but didn't. At the end of the documentary, the Oprah interview excepted, Lance is still rationalizing his behavior, and it almost seems as if he can't believe those 7 years will stand without a Tour De France winner.. . as if he inevitably MUST be re-instated at some point in the future because he "still won" . . . regardless of the how, why, and the final outcome. A fascinating inquiry into the cult of the ego, and our willingness to believe.
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.
