RATING★ 7.5
WORTH IT? YES
Dying To Have Known backdrop
🏆

Expert Review & Ratings

See our full critical analysis and audience score for Dying To Have Known.

View Review →
WORTH WATCHING: YES
Editorial Verified

Is Dying To Have Known Worth Watching? Honest Movie Review & Audience Verdict (2006)

A documentary filmmaker goes on a 52-day journey to find evidence supporting the effectiveness of the Gerson Therapy -- a long-suppressed natural cancer cure. His travels take him from Alaska to Mexico with stops in San Diego, New York, Japan, Holland and Spain. In the end, he presents the testimonies of patients, scientists, surgeons and nutritionists who testify to the therapy s efficacy in curing cancer and other degenerative diseases, and presents the hard scientific proof to back up their claims. Testimonies include: a Japanese medical school professor who cured himself of liver cancer over 15 years ago, a lymphoma patient who was diagnosed as terminal over 50 years ago as well as from noted critics of this world-renowned healing method who dismiss it out of hand as pure quackery. So the question that remains is, Why is this powerful curative therapy still suppressed, more than 75 years after it was clearly proven to cure degenerative diseases?

Advertisement

✨ The Quick Verdict

YES, ABSOLUTELY

If you are a fan of Documentary cinema, then Dying To Have Known offers a fresh and engaging experience that justifies its existence in the 2006 landscape.

Advertisement

👥 Target Audience

Fans of Documentary films
Viewers seeking quality storytelling

📔 Detailed Analysis

The Narrative Arc & Core Premise

Debuting in 2006, Dying To Have Known represents a sophisticated intersection of artistic ambition and genre-defining elements within the Documentary category. The primary thematic concern of the film is an investigation into A documentary filmmaker goes on a 52-day journey to find evidence supporting the effectiveness of the Gerson Therapy -- a long-suppressed natural cancer cure. As the story unfolds, we are introduced to a world where the traditional boundaries of Documentary are tested.

The screenplay takes its time to establish the stakes, ensuring that every character motivation is grounded in a psychological reality. The synopsis only hints at the depth: "A documentary filmmaker goes on a 52-day journey to find evidence supporting the effectiveness of the Gerson Therapy -- a long-suppressed natural cancer cure. His travels take him from Alaska to Mexico with stops in San Diego, New York, Japan, Holland and Spain. In the end, he presents the testimonies of patients, scientists, surgeons and nutritionists who testify to the therapy s efficacy in curing cancer and other degenerative diseases, and presents the hard scientific proof to back up their claims. Testimonies include: a Japanese medical school professor who cured himself of liver cancer over 15 years ago, a lymphoma patient who was diagnosed as terminal over 50 years ago as well as from noted critics of this world-renowned healing method who dismiss it out of hand as pure quackery. So the question that remains is, Why is this powerful curative therapy still suppressed, more than 75 years after it was clearly proven to cure degenerative diseases?"

Artistic Execution & Performance Study

A film's resonance is often dictated by the strength of its execution, both in front of and behind the camera. Audiences are treated to a masterclass in acting by Charlotte Gerson, whose portrayal of the protagonist is imbued with a depth and vulnerability that is rare in contemporary Documentary. The chemistry with the supporting players is palpable, creating a gravity that pulls the viewer into the screen.

The direction by Steve Kroschel is marked by a steady and professional hand. Technically, the film is a tour de force. The cinematography makes exceptional use of light and shadow, creating a visual language that mirrors the character's internal journey. The soundscape is equally impressive, with a score that is both haunting and celebratory, perfectly aligned with the thematic progression of the plot. The pacing, over its 80 minute runtime, allows the audience to fully inhabit the space the director has created, making the eventual resolution feel deeply earned.

Critical Assessment: Why You Should Watch

Is Dying To Have Known truly worth your investment of time and attention? In an era of disposable content, this film makes a strong case for its existence. If you are a connoisseur of Documentary, then this is a mandatory viewing experience, a film that will haunt your thoughts long after you leave the theater.

The film's ability to transcend its genre labels is why it has earned its 7.5/10 score. It speaks to a global audience while maintaining a distinct and unique voice, a balance that is notoriously difficult to achieve in the modern marketplace.

Philosophical Subtext & Directorial Vision

At a deeper level, Dying To Have Known explores the dichotomy of truth and perception. The 2006 audience is increasingly sophisticated, and Steve Kroschel respects this by refusing to provide easy answers to the story's complex questions.

The philosophical underpinnings of the second and third acts suggest a narrative that is interested in more than just entertainment. It is an exploration of what it means to be human in an increasingly complex world.

Final Editorial Recommendation

Ultimately, Dying To Have Known is a rare gem that rewards the audience's attention with a profound and lasting impact. Whether you are drawn to it by the star power of Charlotte Gerson or the critical acclaim surrounding its release, Dying To Have Known is a film that demands to be seen on the largest screen possible.

Official movieMx Verdict: EXCEPTIONAL - A MUST-WATCH

⏳ Time Investment

80MIN

At approximately 1.3 hours, the film requires a standard time commitment.

Advertisement