An intriguing yet compromised documentary that delves into the issue of ballot harvesting during the 2020 American presidential election, 2000 Mules fails to provide a convincing argument that illegal votes led to the Biden presidency, while once again confirming how a corrupt media landscape has led to the throes of an information war.

Directed by conservative political writer and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza, 2000 Mules uses information provided by conservative voter monitoring organisation True the Vote to present its claim that widespread voter harvesting in the key battleground states of Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, led to the election of Joe Biden to the presidency.

Said information was attained through Geo-Tracking data via phone signals pinging off apps, creating a digital footprint. Using this data, it is claimed that “mules” took multiple trips to multiple drop boxes to deposit illegal ballots for the Biden presidency. Also, non-profit organisations linked to the Democrat Party are the ones responsible.

While an intriguing theory, the presentation of this conspiracy in 2000 Mules is not nearly as compelling. Although five films into his documentary filmmaking career, D’Souza has yet to decipher how to present his ideas and theories in a compelling fashion, especially when the “evidence” itself is circumstantial at best.

2000 Mules is split between two set-pieces: the first is in a bunker of sorts in which D’Souza – and we the viewer – is briefed by True the Vote representative Catherine Englebrecht and her chief data analyst Gregg Phillips; the second is a meeting room featuring a “knights of conservative media” of sorts in Eric Maxteas, Sebastian Gorka, Charlie Kirk, Larry Elder, and Dennis Prager.

As D’Souza and the True the Vote team present their “evidence” in the form of digital tracking and video surveillance, Prager and company react in shock horror at the supposed grift done upon the American people. We the audience are expected to follow suit, however unless already inclined to do so, it is hard to buy what D’Souza is selling.

For a documentary to make such big claims as 2000 Mules does, the evidence presented is eyebrow raising at best. The cell phone tracking data does little to distinguish the motives and actions of these supposed “mules”, D’Souza often filling the gaps with his own conclusions that are extremely biased.

Video surveillance that was supposed to back the films’ claims is also dubious at best. Not only is D’Souza unable to provide video of the same individuals voting at different drop boxes, he also cannot confirm who the individuals on video are voting for and or on whose behalf.

What 2000 Mules does confirm is that we are indeed in the throes of an information war. Outside of the 2000 Mules documentary, D’Souza has his own online platform in which continues to propagate the films claims, as well as combating the widespread factcheckers that have discredited the film.

Considering trust in mainstream media is at a new low (and who can blame the public?), now more than ever there is a buffet-style attitude regarding news and information: eat what suits your taste and leave the rest. 2000 Mules proves to be a serving both stale and cold and worth avoiding.