This is How Movies Should Be Made

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

...for anyone interested in the nature of our current planetary economic malaise, and what we might actually be able to do about it. "The Corporation," which illustrates and expands upon writer Joel Bakan's concurrently-written book, makes strong argument for the complicity of that economic entity known as the corporation and its inherent psychotic nature, and remains as trenchant now as it was nearly a decade ago when first made and exhibited/published, perhaps even more so in the light of the current swell of OWS demonstrations and other manifestations of global stress. It ought to be required viewing in high school classes across the land.Presented in a chapter format, this fascinating (often akin to the hypnotic lure of viewing the aftermath of an automobile accident) documentary details the rise of the modern corporation from its beginnings as a state-sanctified entity intended to fulfill specific public functions, which is to say serve the public good, to its current domination of the global economic engine, i.e. the oligarchical behemoth that President Eisenhower warned us about decades ago. Through the extremely well-edited use of interviews and pointed visuals, the film presents an unnerving canvas of institutionalized rapacity, fecklessness, callousness, perfidy and prevarication, all in the name of the holy grail of maximizing profits; in short, institutionalized psychopathy. It's chilling stuff, quite thought-provoking.A number of the "usual suspects" are a part of this dissection of trans-national corporatocracy: Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Naomi Klein, Michael Moore, and Vandana Shiva; still, a fair representation of corporate interests are represented as well. Beyond that, it's a cast of multitudes, befitting the subject matter, which ranges across a broad swath of corporate malfeasance: pollution, market manipulation, complicity in war crimes, exploitation of workers, sheer greed, the shrugging off of "economic externalities" on the public, and much else. Anyone who's paid even cursory attention to the politico-socio-economic scene over the past decades will be at least passingly familiar with these topics, but "The Corporation" does a nice job of bringing everything together under one roof, so to speak.The deluxe DVD edition, which I found at the library, is chock full of additional interviews, commentary, and the like. It's almost a bit of overkill, but then again, it's hard to ignore as well. Like the saying goes, "hold your friends close, but your enemies closer." Need I also say, highly recommended.

Joel Bakan, who served as a clerk for Chief Justice Brian Dickson and advocated for human rights against governments, now takes aim at corporations in this documentary. On the way he gets a little help from friends like Naomi Klein and Michael Moore. The stuff exposed in the final product can be shocking and hits home even if the presentation is fairly one-sided. From stuff little-known like businessmen trying to overthrow Franklin Roosevelt and aiding Nazi death camps, to a reminder of Kathy Lee Gifford's sweatshops. It questions the ethics of applying patents on life and rain water. This is a story that needs to be heard, even if it needs to be balanced.I first saw most of the movie as part of a sociology course. We considered the concept of a corporation as a person, and how if it were a person it can fit the definition of a psychopath. While it may sound extreme to apply that label to men running businesses, sadly there is some truth to it. Even if this movie doesn't convince me corporations should be banned, it demonstrates why they should not have absolute power and personhood. The stuff about Bolivia having a revolt shows people being pushed can push back, and raises questions of how we may see more of that which is alarming from a security perspective. All of this is helped by use of metaphors and pop culture and the calm, female voice of the narrator. Everyone shaping a national economy should see this movie.

We live in a suicidal world. Instead of finding ways to enhance peace and try to save this unfortunate planet, the most mortal of all deadly sins, GREED is winning. Why??? Well this excellent documentary film manages to explain it all. Many horrific examples of corporate irresponsibility and complete lunacy,are frightening enough, but the scariest thing in the whole movie,for me, was the young college kid who somehow got the corporation to cover his tuition. This "beacon of intelligence and human integrity", said that corporations will be around, so we have to believe in them or it wouldn't be good. !!! Well that was wasted money on education. This level of stupidity can not be neither helped, no corrected. The trouble is that this selfish and cowardly way of living and thinking is prevalent in the USA, and enables this madness to run unchecked and destroy everything around us. Brilliant movie-making, but who , but the ardent supporters, watches this?

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.