I only made it through the first half and wasn't really that impressed. My criticisms would be:
-- Needs to start with a bold statement of "the problem" or your hypothesis/conclusion. At the moment, the nearest thing to this is a statement along the lines of "looks matter more than people think they do". Not exactly revolutionary.
-- Ideas are briefly introduced and not really elaborated on. The 15 minutes or so I watched moved from a 1950s-ish description of someone feeling socially isolated, to a statement that looks matter more than we think, to something about the 80/20 rule, to some material on low fertility ratios in the West. No evidence is provided in what I saw for looks mattering more than people think. The 80/20 rule -- okay, this is important, but what is the significance of it. The stats relate to online dating, and someone could easily say "well, online dating is shallow and superficial -- I agree" whilst still being bluepilled. Also, the obvious counter is that men outside the top 20% still have sex, date, and marry. What's your counter to that? Lowering fertility rates have a complex interlocking web of causes that are different in different cultures and range from the sociological to the economic to the psychological. Not really something you can just cover in three minutes and be done with.
-- Lack of connecting tissue between the different ideas introduced. The guy in the 50s social isolation doc clip, or whatever it is, is good looking, so what's the link from that to the idea that looks matter a lot. You then move from that to something about 80/20 rule on OKCupid. Since you haven't established that these top 20% of men are the best looking (they could be the smartest, or richest, or those with the best Magic the Gathering decks) what is the link there? Then you move to TFR. Is fertility declining because men are uglier? The viewer can't be sure what your argument is.
-- The talking heads are not named or even given credentials or identities. If I wanted to hear random people give their opinions on whatever, I could just browse Reddit.
-- You haven't used personal case studies of individual incel talking heads to help illustrate your point. To me the personal and psychological aspects of inceldom are the most interesting, so I thought that was disappointing. Maybe you see the documentary as more like a SCIENCE-laden argument for the blackpill. I suppose that's fine, though I think the flaws I mention above present it from working in that way effectively at the moment. I also wonder whether a documentary is the best format for things like the OKCupid studies, Tinder experiments, and summaries of blackpill-related academic articles. Seems like that kind of stuff is best in an infographic form with explanatory tests, or as blog posts or whatever. Summarising an academic paper or quantitative study in a documentary feels dry.
-- Feels kind of slow and visually unarresting at the moment.
