"Voyeur," a documentary purportedly about an infamous voyeur, should really be titled "Pseudo-Journalist," since what it really demonstrates is what a terrible writer Gay Talese is. It's not "true crime," since so many of the claims in it are debatable or demonstrably false.

Talese correctly notes that it's dangerous to rely on just once source, but never bothers to check on important alleged facts of this story himself. He seems unfamiliar with Google, only learning from his daughter and others about details readily available online. He never checks property records central to the story and does a sloppy job checking on a crime mentioned by the voyeur, Gerald Foos. He unconvincingly brushes aside key discrepancies on dates.

At one point, when Foos claims that his Mickey Mantle baseball card is worth a huge sum, Talese laments, "How am I supposed to know if he is lying?" How about looking it up online? Or asking someone knowledgable? His methods are so shoddy, one has to wonder about the rest of his books.

At another point, explaining why he participated in group sex as part of his research for a book on sex in America, Talese explains that, as a reporter you can't just observe, you have to experience. Really? Did he have to kill anyone as part of his reporting on the mob? Can no one write about war, space exploration, professional sports, medical research, or anything else without being an active participant?

The documentary begins with him talking about his townhouse in Manhattan and his impeccably tailored suits. He should have spent some of his apparent wealth hiring a research assistant to ensure that what he wrote wasn't garbage. "Voyeur" reveals him wearing the emperor's clothes.

This documentary is not about the fact that Foos was a peeping tom, it actually covers very little about this and does not even discuss the fact that there are 1000s of people victim to this horrible little man. It is 90 mins of 2 narcissists, that should have been in Jail, trying to prove to themselves that they are the best, you just need to look at the fact that both men are surrounded by their own pictures. There is no journalism here, no proper research, no explanations given for timelines. Complete waste of time.

This film makes one wonder how many times your own privacy has possibly been breached Oh, we all know right now we're in a new era where we all can be potentially intruded upon just by using our computer and cell phones. But before all of that there may have been some very driven individuals that made it their obsession to spy on random people. At least there was one, Gerald Foos.

Foos made himself into the ultimate voyeur by creating his own honeytrap. He bought a small motor lodge and made it where he could spy on all tenants. This went on for just under two decades. Gerald had notes regarding what he saw and, what he saw was mostly sex. That, apparently was what he primarily desired. He claims he saw more and that included a murder he may have been partly responsible for in that he tampered with the contents of a tenants room which resulted in violence…and death. This is so he claims. The motel was ultimately bulldozed prior to the publication of both a pre-book huge New Yorker magazine article and the book thereafter. It makes it hard to substantiate much of what Foos claims. Is he a writer of fiction himself or was he, at least, a big portion of what he claimed?

The other part of the story is Gay Talese who Gerald picked to tell his story to. Gay is no stranger to titillation. He has a history of written articles and books that substantiate this. Is this a intersection of two great writers or, a man bearing his other life to a writer who isn't afraid to go out on a limb for a story? This film visits all of this. It's a strange bird indeed. There is one big question hovering over all of this. Why did Foos want to put out what he claims is his true story, a really seedy and unsavory one? Was it for fame or money? Was it for a kind of late life plea for some kind of transparency for things he either wants to be remembered for or forgiven for? Watching the man himself one gets the idea he's still wanting more voyeurism only he's turning it on himself for some lasting fame and some kind of payday. He's a cagey criminal as far as the surface appears. Power and money are often the two things that drive most criminals. That's not to say many aren't also sociopaths. In the end Foos was a man pursuing his own dark desires. He felt he'd done something few, if any, others had done and got away with.

Many years past feeding his sick inner needs Foos is empty and he's found one last way to feed his voyeurism again. He found the right vehicle in Talese who likes to marry hard journalism with, often, the worst of human nature. Can we believe either Foos or Talese? You'll have to decide.

Talese always takes a pass as saying he's only a reporter but, that is not as clear-cut as it seems. It seems, after publication of the book, there's enough actual discrepancies to which Talese has cooked his cover of being a serious reporter. Is this a disaster for the writer? It may just be more fuel on the fire to make people want to read what all the fuss is about. Since that didn't exactly work initial book sales were much poorer than expected Gay Talese immediately separates himself in a knee-jerk reaction. But, wait, there's this documentary so is this a dead story? Truth or fiction we all get one thing out of this: privacy is part of our right of freedom and good traits are to be celebrated, bad to be exposed. Foos isn't a star in the end, just a bad apple. Talese just got played somewhat even if most of the book got more facts right than fiction. It's a big cluster of a book about a cluster of a man. In that there is some truth. Most will pass, likely, on the book….the documentary, well, maybe not? This strange story is worth a watch in a way not unlike the strangeness of the story itself. I can't rate it above a six because there's no way to separate fact from fiction even if the story is definitely sensational.