Too many fans seem to be blown away

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

There is definitely an excellent idea hidden in the background of the film. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find it.

I'm dual nationality US & UK, I've spent half my life across each nation and have always been far prouder of my American heritage but by that I mean the country, it's people but not it's government.Let me clarify, the British government is atrocious and highly corrupt but the leaders over the pond have taken it to the next level ever since their creation.This fantastic piece by British journalist John Pilger is about Americas direct influence into Latin American countries such as Chile and Venezuala and the atrocities they have caused to better their own interests.Heartbreaking, powerful and eye opening if you aren't aware of the steps the US go to further their economy this is essential viewing.The USA for anyone with any awareness is the proverbial boy who cried wolf. They manipulate their people using the media to such an extent with their lies that every time a new story comes out you do have to question it.They've been lying about the middle east for decades and still are. At time of writing how much of what we are told about North Korea is true? And how much is to sway public opinion to their own personal agendas?The Good: Professionaly made Great interview segments Essential viewingThe Bad: Doesn't make for the easiest watch Things I Learnt From This Movie: The US has attempted to overthrow 50 governments, more than I had originally believed

Using the recent action in Venezuela and the ongoing tensions with the US as his focal point, journalist John Pilger looks at the role of Washington in the control and manipulation of Governments and politics in Latin America. What he finds is elected Presidents removed with the support and perhaps connivance of the US, resulting in suffering, massacres and poverty for the indigenous populations left to face the consequences of US foreign policy.It helps to be fairly liberal in your views to watch this film because Pilger does not hide his colours for even a second here. And this is a weakness of the film because it is so heavily delivered that it is likely to put off the very sections of the audience that it should be looking to win over. At times it is so clearly leaning that even a liberal, middle-class white person like myself will feel like Pilger is standing 30cm from them, shouting and ranting for two hours. It is a shame because otherwise the material is really well put together, convincing and impacting. If Pilger had delivered this same material with a colder air of fact and journalistic detachment then the film might have done a better job of making non-liberals having their opinions changed or at least challenged.The film uses Chavez to put the topic in the present and make sure the viewer understands that this is not a history film but rather a relevant and topical documentary that draws on the past to back up the present. From here it takes us through Guatemala, Bolivia and so on and the case is built in such a way that it is hard to argue with the basic points made and accusations levelled. It is a very well researched film that I found fascinating throughout. I'm repeating myself here but again this is why it is frustrating to see Pilger take away from his own film by having the presentation subtlety of Michael Moore at his worst. His point is that the US preaches democracy but will go to bloody ends to remove any democratically elected Government that does not suit US interests; so in essence the crux of the film is "democracy" and he does not need to defend the people put in power but merely point to the fact that they were put in power by the people they represent by way of elections and people power. This point could have been made while still also recognising that Chavez, Morales etc are not perfect leaders. Instead of doing this, Pilger feels that having them be elected is not enough and so he presents them as near-perfect leaders who should be the ideal. This may well be his opinion but it is not the truth and by simplifying and spinning it is likely that he will lose viewers who ignore his message and assume that this liberal "nut" cannot be trusted.This is a real weakness in the film but it is still worth seeing if you can cope with it. The liberal "choir" will lap it up regardless, while those very much in the same camp as former CIA man Duane on the right will not even think of watching it. The material is strong enough to win over those in the middle but Pilger's presentation is so heavy and slanted that he risks losing viewers before the material gets to work. Well worth seeing and impacting stuff but while Pilger deserves credit for pulling it together as writer/director, his presentation and style is also a real liability.

Democracy is one of the old-fashioned goods the U.S. have exported to developing countries. To quote President Bush: "America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others to find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way." Can it be so? Absolutely not. The reality has usually been the other way round. Democracy made in the U.S. is like Pandora box for tiny countries.The War On Democracy filmed by John Pilger shows well the falsity of the U.S. through the revelation of the hidden, suppressed history in Latin America.Don't be embarrassed at the fact that The U.S has tried to turn over democratic governments under the guise of democracy. Especially, many countries in Latin America have been attacked with the loss of countless lives, and their leaders became the victims of an injustice; Jacobo Arbenz, a democratically elected Guatemalan president in 1950, was forced into exile being stripped naked and photographed; In 1973 Salvador Allende of Chile took his life against the bombing led by General Pinochet, an America's man.By what right, has the U.S. played the leading role in destroying the democratic governments and the dreams of the people? Who gives the U.S. the right? Let's listen to the pretext of Duane Clarridge, head of the CIA's Latin American division in the early 1980s in Chile. "We'll intervene whenever we decide it's in our national security interests to intervene, and if you don't like it, lump it. Get used to it, world -we're not gonna put up with nonsense. If our interests are threatened, we're gonna do it." Philip Agee, C.I.A. agent 1967-68, also back up the Clarridge's excuse. "In the CIA, we didn't give a hoot about democracy. I mean, it was fine if a government was elected and would cooperate with us, but, if it didn't, then democracy didn't mean a thing to us, and I don't think it means a thing today." Like pilger's saying, it's evident no country has a right to go its own way, unless that way coincides with the interests of the United States.However, the U.S. tasted the bitterness of defeat on April, 2002 in Venezuela. The joint work of Washington and the wealthy of Caracas to get rid of President Chavez ended up failing due to people power demanding the return of their president. In spite of the planned coup, Chavez was put in the bosom of the people in 48 hours after being abducted.The people power was also brilliant in Bolivia. In 2000, to take backs the valuable resources like water, Bolivian people fought against a foreign consortium dominated by the American corporation Bechtel, and accomplished their hope. Furthermore, in 2005, the indigenous person, Evo Morales, was elected president for the first time ever.Of course, there sure is another plot of empire still going in Latin America, Middle East, Afghanistan, and Africa. However, the rising up against empire will never stop as long as the people power exists. As Hugo Chavez says, the world should be governed by the rule of law, equality, justice and fraternity, not by empire's greed.

I thought the scenes looked too set up for the camera. For example, the ladies learning to read and write. It seemed that thousands were missing out and only a few are getting any lessons 10 years into the Chavez regime. The shots of Pilger in the interview with the CIA guy - which are usually done when the interviewee has left the scene were really bad. Pilger used the shot of Chavez justifying why millions people live in barrios in such a rich country as "well they don't want to be millionaires - like Americans" and I was left thinking, Well if they educated them they might want more than what they have now" I couldn't see any advantages in sight for these people rely on populist dictators. It is no wonder they escape to Australia and America whenever they can. The film was basically a lot of anti-American slanging off with no hope of change, i.e. sharing the wealth, in store for the people. The countries in the film all go from one dictator to another much like Africa does these days since the end of colonialism and the people just survive. I would prefer to see a film on the subject made by a film maker from one of the countries mentioned. Pilger was very condescending, agreeing with anything the current dictator said. As it didn't include any comedy it only rates a 1 out of 10 from me.