Plastic Fantastic is the fourth documentary by German director Isa Willinger, whose introduction begins with the sentence: "There are five hundred more plastic particles in the sea than stars in our galaxy". Although the focus in the film is primarily environmental, there is also a serious question of political influence on the right of freedom to be informed, if it exists today at all. 

 The world of plastic is presented through two opposing sides, lobbyists and activists. In contrast to two representatives of industry lobbyists, we are presented with environmental activists of different professions from around the world. The testimonials come from three countries and six different cities. From lawyers, professors, pensioners to a local journalist, we get a colorful mixture of problems. In Kenya, monkeys eat the remains of plastic bottles, in Hawaii there is no sand without microplastics, the city of St. Louis is a racially oriented cancer center under construction, a concerned environmental lawyer is reporting from Washington, a retired lobbyist from Virginia who has changed sides, and in Germany they have discovered that they are living a lie and that recycling is a great deception of friends (foes) on the other side. In contrast to the mentioned activists, the role of devil's advocates is played by the two aforementioned lobbyists positioned in Frankfurt and Washington, who convincingly defend its use (abuse). 

On the one hand, repetition, on the other hand, temporary solution. It is mass-produced, difficult to hide, if you create it, it will outlive you and your ten descendants, what is it? Correct answer to the riddle, plastic. The interlocutors clearly confirm that it has become a global problem. Ubiquitous, does not choose the victim and does not differentiate, but at the same time does not cause the same obstacles and distractions everywhere it appears, and this is exactly the key distinction that is missing in the approach in this film. Although the simultaneous monitoring of several of these flows justifies a unified topic, a uniform approach to each of the selected stories loses its meaning, especially when considering that they are not emotionally equal.  

Such established narration with parallel testimonies on the broad topic of excessive saturation and the inevitability of plastics also directed the approach of information distribution. 

Extremely emotional confessions, which require time and space for the viewer to connect with them, interrupt the stories with a completely opposite flow. On the one hand, life confessions about losses and personal struggles are intertwined by the stories with the extremely educational tone of representatives from the scientific world, while on the other hand, they are opposed by the aforementioned antagonists. Testimonials from Kenya and St. James and colonized Hawaii are more emotional and distressing, especially when considering the presence of racially oriented targeting factors and general impotence in the fight against bureaucracy, as opposed to the situation in Germany and the rest of the United States, but regardless of that, they were deprived of space for elaboration. Such a concept makes following the flow of the film exhausting, not only because of the selected narrative flow of intertwined stories, but also because of the accompanying shallow scenes of purely observational wide shots and location details. Although the excessive concentration of information can certainly be explained by the general misinformation that prevails, the amount and distribution of information that this film provides consumes the viewer faster than plastic. 

Our right to know everything may be just a mere proclamation in today's world, but it definitely takes its place in the chosen directorial approach, which simultaneously sets too many points of focus and sheds light on many issues that do not relate to each other, except that their common theme is plastic. Although the approach is taken to reflect its course of life, from creation to disappearance, it is done from too many different angles, which gives the impression that this is a film without an ultimate, rounded thought, and with several communicated essential topics. The approach lacks conciseness and concretisation, especially since this is a problem that reaches us through selective knowledge.