I have to agree with most of the commenters about how disappointing this so-called documentary is. I have a theory about it, though. William Friedkin was a gigantically talented man, a man of great intelligence and taste. Look at his art collection. Look at his wives (Jeanne Moreau and Sherry Lansing). Look at his work! (French Connection is a film that I can watch whenever it's and never tire of.) But I think Mr. Friedkin was also a vain and controlling individual, not surprising in one of his Olympian gifts. I think he felt extremely parsimonious in the presence of the makers of this film. He did not trust or respect them enough to reveal his true self. So he deflected his blessings to Damien Chazelle, Kathryn Bigelow and the city of Venice. Too late now. Maybe someone with more perspicacity with do a full bio on the man. He (and we) sure deserve it.

Iconic Hollywood director William Friedkin recently died. This documentary does have the late director talking about his works and presumably a lot of help from him. To be sure, this is a fawning film for the famed filmmaker. It has his friends and colleagues singing his praises. There are plenty of big names. The man is big time Hollywood and everybody has something good to say about him. First, it's weird that this starts with Friedkin talking about Hitler. It's a good entry point into good and evil, and thereby introduces The Exorcist (1973). This is really only an entry level course into the man, but the names are so big. This is DVD extras for people who love the movies but know little BTS.

Friedkin's 2.4 films from the 70s cemented his reputation as a talent; tangible drama, risk taking, determined and shocking. To expect a film about that man to be as urgent or relevant is too much. Instead it's a 2 hour long infomercial about his best 2.4 films and Cruising. Talking heads gush about his talent and generosity while the man himself waffles endlessly about the state of cinema, Hitler being complicated, Jesus and the endless list of "greats" he name drops with nauseating regularity. Including convicted gangsters who "didn't do anything wrong". Big name stars smile uncomfortably as they recall humourless anecdotes that fall flat as private jokes or sound like they're at job interviews. An incoherent mess that serves as puff. It begins to resemble This Is Spinal Tap as he's hired to direct an opera offering insight such as "the composer is the most important thing even though they are dead." Despite his faux modesty his reputation as a megalomaniac begins to show as he begins to resemble a man obsessed with posthumous recognition among the greats, which is fine so long as no one mentions The Guardian or Jade. Unfortunately at no point do the filmmakers explore the politics or beliefs that permeate the man or his movies or ask any tough questions, like watching Grandad being interviewed by his grandchildren. Where Friedkin himself interviewed Fritz Lang who had a story to tell, one which permeates his career, you get no such impression from Friedkin who's only insight into his work appears to be his observation that he makes things "real" and is unable to transcend reality the same way an Antonioni or Argento does, that being the only revelation in this examination of his work.

source: Friedkin Uncut

I don't want to say that I was disappointed in "Friedkin Uncut" but I kind of was. William Friedkin is a Hall of Famer and he deserves a proper documentary. Unfortunately, "Friedkin Uncut" is not it. There are some good stories in this movie but mostly it's a lot pats on the back. This movie would have been better if they didn't interview William Freidkin at all. That way the filmmakers would have been the ones "Uncut". "Freidkin Uncut" plays more like a tribute movie than an actual documentary. I wish it was better.

Documentary exploring the work and views of William Friedkin. Interesting insight into a man who is clearly very highly regarded by his peers and others who have worked with / for him. This is made all the more interesting because of his relatively small output and limited financial and critical success apart from The French Connection and The Exorcist. He is though clearly worshipped despite a very strong, outspoken and confident persona that is certainly appealing. Three points of note: 1) His house looks extravagant but does not looked lived in. 2) Little or no mention is made of The Boys in the Band 3) He seems to have trouble finding trousers that fit.

If they had just cut down on some of the shots of him standing and posing in front of signs, or maybe some of the film festival stuff, they could have, I dunno COVERED MORE OF HIS CAREER than just 5 movies? Like I get it, French Connection, Exorcist, Sorcerer, To Live and Die in LA, and Killer Joe were his best but it would have still been nice to hear about the rest, at least a bit. I did appreciate his wearing his pants like a grandpa (high up on the gut) though. And he's totally unfiltered, but this was way too slight to be a career overview. More like a conversation.

I'm not sure what I expected, but this surely wasn't "Friedkin Uncut." There are very little insights into who he is and why he does what he does and if there is any rhyme or reason to it. It's a bunch of head shots of people whp have been in his films or helped him create them and everyone loves him. OK. But that's not worth the time.

source: Friedkin Uncut

I don't want to say that I was disappointed in "Friedkin Uncut" but I kind of was. William Friedkin is a Hall of Famer and he deserves a proper documentary. Unfortunately, "Friedkin Uncut" is not it. There are some good stories in this movie but mostly it's a lot pats on the back. This movie would have been better if they didn't interview William Freidkin at all. That way the filmmakers would have been the ones "Uncut". "Freidkin Uncut" plays more like a tribute movie than an actual documentary. I wish it was better.