Fresh and Exciting

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

This formidable movie based on Naomi Klein's mightily important book, explains how the financial 'elite' uses shocks (crises) for implementing its 'free market' gospel, or, better, to increase its economic power and concomitantly its own financial interests.Economics (general shocks) In his mightily important book 'The Secrets of the Federal Reserve', E. Mullins reveals how the financial 'elite' manipulated market prices and provoked the Wall Street Crash of 1929. What they didn't foresee was the gigantic economic slump and the massive unemployment that would follow the crash. The US government had to intervene in the economy with a 'New Deal': breaking up the banking system and impose regulations and governmental interventions in the economy. The 'New Deal' weakened significantly the grip of the financial oligarchy on the US economy. The 'free market' gospel propagated by the Chicago School of Economics (Milton Friedman) is nothing less than a frontal attack on the legislation provided by the New Deal. The gospel defends deregulation and privatization of the economy instead of regulation and governmental intervention (through its institutions and enterprises). The gospel tries to prove and to justify that free market policies (the old order) are far better than those imposed by a government. The implementation of a deregulated and privatized (by selling off government possessions) economy was first tested in Chile and Argentina after military coups (shocks). It didn't work. The deregulation of the US financial system ended in a worldwide financial collapse of the banking system, which had to be bailed out by governmental intervention (the people's money) at a staggering cost of thousand of billions of dollars worldwide, a mind-boggling anti-shock treatment. Psychiatrics, psychology (personal shocks) The movie starts with the experiments of Ewen Cameron on psychiatric patients in Canada. He tried to control (break) the minds and to reprogram (clear) the psyche of his patients with electroshocks and drugs. His methods are now used on political prisoners ('terrorists'). By creating shocks (heavy bombardments, grotesque lies, false flag operations) and also after 'natural' shocks (floods) the 'elite' tries to instill fear into the population in order to control their will, to implement their policies and, in fine, to prevent or to obstruct the establishment or the functioning of a real democracy.Reactions Reactions against 'elite' shock doctrine policies must come from 'below', from the people, whose money was squandered in order to bail out the reckless speculations of 'too big to fail' mentalities. The solution will not come from those who want to 'fight' climate change by commodifying the atmosphere (trading carbon dioxide emissions).This movie and its extras are a must see for all those who want to understand the world we live in.

Obviously, the opinions about this powerful documentary will be sharply divided. Liberals, and proudly I am one of them, will approve and cheer, and conservatives will call it communist propaganda and other such drivel. I lived in both communist and capitalist society. With the incredible youthful passion I fought communism and it's limits on free speech and artistic expression. And over 22 years ago I immigrated to the USA. And, it was a sobering experience. There is a freedom of speech, nobody limits the artistic expression( mostly because nobody gives a damn about art-the dying form). And there is the most troubling of all for me. The mighty dollar, the only pertinent thing. It really is all about money. Everything else takes the back seat. The extremes of socialism didn't work, because repression doesn't last forever, but, on the other hand, the extremes of ruthless, greedy capitalism, do not work either. The culture of ME,ME,ME is ultimately barren and lonely, and the impoverished will eventually rise up in arms, and who wants that. Nobody reads the dusty volumes of history books. If they were, we might be living in a different world.

The question on my mind after seeing The Shock Doctrine was whether ends justify means. Quite possibly, this is the question Klein wanted to be asked, because much of her case regards the distasteful means taken in order to further free market economics, tactics which the very proponents of these dogmas may feel they want to disassociate themselves with. However, my question was about Klein's/Winterbottom's own tactics.The film uses all methods that we've grown used to from modern politics: cherry-picked facts, "proofs" by emotionally-charged metaphors, hinted claims of guilt by association, sound-bite slogans that are repeated incessantly, and, of course, scare tactics. Sad to say, I've come to expect these things from political candidates that need to make their points in a 30-second TV appearance. I've even come to expect them in rating-seeking news programs. But have we stooped so low that these tactics are now par-for-the-course in documentaries, where a film-maker has 90 minutes of canvas to make a clear, compelling, and well-argued case? I happen to agree with Klein's stance that extreme capitalism is dangerous, and I think what we are seeing in both Europe and China in recent years (e.g. the collapse of Chinese nation-wide education and health policies) are just further proofs of the narrative Klein forwards. However, I don't see that there is a well-argued case here that would convince someone claiming that any change, good or bad, rarely happens in a peaceful way, or that the ultimate outcome of privatization is better than the alternative. In fact, only a handful of minutes of this film are devoted to the question of what the final outcome of extreme capitalism looks like, historically, and these minutes are full of unsubstantiated claims thrown into the air in what is exactly the tactic Klein warns against: shock a person for just over an hour, and suddenly that person becomes much more open to suggestion, at which point you can sprinkle some of your favorite dogmas on him.So, perhaps this film does a good job with all those who are willing to be convinced by visceral arguments, the likes of which have, unfortunately, come to dominate the public discourse, but I rather promote those who educate people to think. Scaring people to make the choices you think are right... well, that's what this film is all about. Isn't it?

I read all the other reviews about the film, not the book. The divergent opinions and points of view on the case Klein makes for the harmful principals of the Milton Friedman values of an outright free market system and the erroneous view that it promotes social freedoms and vice-versa even and especially by using Shock Programs to stimulate an economy into Free Market, is a view of the case I share with Naomi Klein. I don't however, at least no more, believe in the Keynesian economics principal as the unfolding of events in the global economy of today disprove its theory's conclusion; time has disproven that.The movie, if you listen carefully to the words and the message of Klein, is a challenge for all of us not to accept any theory that sounds like the words of a preacher. Instead we're to listen to our hearts and mostly our reason and then only, do something about it instead of contributing to our society's demise by doing nothing. The wisest advice any person can ever give, receive or act upon is learning from history and not allow it to be erased for the benefit of the few pariahs.