Change Your Image
ERJD60657
Reviews
The Corporation (2003)
Despite heavy bias and misguided message, still very entertaining
As you can read from the other posts, most viewers will fall into one of two camps. Either they are business sensitive and thus are repulsed by the slant of the documentary/propaganda, or they are frustrated by the sense of lack of control over the undesired consequences of some business activity and thus cheer the big business-bashing. But what can centrists get out of the film, and can a productive message be derived from this stylish, intensive work of art with its overly ambitious agenda and misguided message? First, be forewarned that the filmmakers at numerous instances were either naively uninformed or willfully attempting to deceive their audience. Unless you are knowledgeable of terms such as deregulation, public-private partnerships, corporate and other business entities, privatization and above all, externalities, this film will try to force-feed you a limited, self-serving definition.
Second, the film is spread too thin. It tries to cover monopolies, sustainability, child labor laws, consumer protection, racism and military collateral damage, to name just a few subjects, in only the first twenty minutes! Each a fascinating subject worthy of discussion, but more focus would have produced a higher quality documentary and not left it feeling more like a slick rally cry for the left.
Third, the film is misnamed. It is primarily about activities of big business (which essentially means publicly-traded corporations, but not necessarily). The film does not explain what a corporation is and makes only a superficial effort to describe how it developed historically.
High points. Raising issues, such as 1) are fines large enough to deter undesirable consequences, thus insuring long-term balance in the drive to raise quality of life?, 2) are virgin materials priced correctly to insure sustainability?, and 3) how do companies market products subliminally (the "nagging" angle)?; Noam Chomsky, who although described by some as the ultimate leftist, is always lucid, intelligent, and not necessarily political; and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, who must have a soft spot for the producers.
Low points. The "boxes" ('layoffs', 'union busting', "sweatshops'); the psychopath analogy; the overseas sweatshops; the Bolivian water episode; US businesses in Nazi Germany; the glorification of ignorance (the WTO protests); and Michael Moore. Although I personally find Mr. Moore's films entertaining and thought-provoking on public policy issues, he is simply out of his league when it comes to economics. He appears awkward and is utterly dead wrong in a number of his statements.
This film could have been about raising the standard of living by generating enthusiasm at a grass-roots level for better government with which to manage the externalities generated by prosperous business. In that way, it would have still become a "message" film, as it had intended, but in a more productive, realistic and honest fashion. Instead, it spits on the word "externality" and launches a frontal attack on the principal means of producing goods and services. Nonetheless, I give it some credit for looking good and titillating the senses.
Random Hearts (1999)
Can I have my money back, please?
Poor pacing and a weak script doom an excellent cast. If Sydney Pollack weren't actually in the film, I'd think someone was trying to smear his name by calling him the director.
Good aspects: cinematography is enjoyable. Cast is strong. Story points are promising.
Bad aspects: the script is simply too unrealistic to be believable. Does a man who really loves his wife sleep with someone cold and cranky a mere five days later? Come on! Does a piano twinkling in the high octaves have to grace the soundtrack of every scene? Would these people really have any chemistry at all? Did the movie really require 133 minutes to tell its story? Can I have my money back, please?
The Amateur (1981)
Weak for the genre
Fun, but often not believable. The opening act (of terrorism) is captivating. Christopher Plummer's portrayal as the Czech detective is a pleasure. But in the end, the film gets a little too ahead of itself. It would have been better toned down and with a few twists snipped out.
For a realistic look at what was involved in sending one lightly-trained man behind the Iron Curtain to accomplish one simple task (not the ridiculous mission undertaken in this film), check out "The Looking Glass War." And compare to much better films like "MacIntosh Man", "Smiley's People", or especially "The Spy Who Came in from the Cold." And as hard as John Savage tried, he could not hope to equal Richard Burton, Paul Newman, Anthony Hopkins or Alec Guinness.