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

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

david-sarkies The corporation itself is a dichotomy, namely because despite what is wrong with these entities (the film proves that they have all of the characteristics of a psychopath), these entities are responsible for the lifestyle that we currently have. To be honest, to remove the economic institutions and return to the era of the cottage industry and the local store owner is going to end up driving up prices and undermine our current lifestyles.That does not necessarily mean that it is good for us to live luxurious lifestyles that we are living in the west, particularly since our lifestyles are supported on the backs of slaves. While they may not be slaves in the literal sense, they are slaves in the economic sense, living on less that two dollars a day and working extra-ordinary hours in horrendous conditions. Despite the fact that many of the senior executives of these corporations (as well as the shareholders, which include any of us who have a pension fund) pretend that we don't know how these goods are being made, or the conditions that the workers are working in, in reality we wish to remain wilfully blind to the reality of what is going on.Granted, I may not own a car, and resist the temptation to buy things that are not needed, I still live a life of luxury, and the fact that I can jump on a plane and fly to Europe and back, is testament to that. There are people that I work with that to them such an adventure is little more than a pipe dream, and I am not even earning big bucks, however relatively speaking, because I have no dependants and no debt, I have a much higher disposable income than many other people that I work with, even those who hold higher positions than I do.There are a few things that come out of this movie that I wish to explore, and one of them is the corporation as the externalising machine. Externalising is the art of making something somebody else's problem, despite the fact that you are the cause of that problem. For example, when a corporation dumps all of its toxic waste into the river, and lets the government and the community deal with it, then it is externalising waste management. It is too expensive to actually deal with it properly, and the laws that prevent it from doing such things are weak, or even non-existent, that the most cost effective way to deal with waste is to externalise it.Labour is another thing that is externalised, and one way to do that is to contract out certain areas so that the corporation can cut back on labour costs and not have to feel responsible for how products are used. In fact, where in the past a corporation was defined by what it made and in turn sold, this is pretty much disappearing as we speak. Nike do not make shoes, they contract that out to some sweatshop in Indonesia which is not even owned by them. Instead, they buy the shoes, and then sell the shoes, either direct to the consumer or through an intermediary. As such Nike is no longer a manufacturer of shoes, they are simply a brand that makes money by being a middle man. However, it is not even that by contracting labour to the sweatshops that the product becomes cheaper. The price of the product actually stays the same, it is just the profit that the corporation makes increases (and even then there is no guarantee that the shareholders will ever see any of that profit. Instead they will keep the profits, which no doubt will result in an increased share price, and even then the shareholder must know when to sell (which is nigh impossible) to maximise their investment.What we need is not to get rid of the corporations, because at heart we need them to be able to maintain our extravagant lifestyles. However, what we do need is a paradigm shift, within ourselves and within our society. We have to begin to learn to be content with less. The Socialists are right when they say that even if we live in a country like Australia, we must still remain vigilant less the freedoms and the laws that we have here are undermined by corporate greed. However, how many of us live in houses with electricity, and how many of us watch television. Can we go without our laptops or our mobile devices, because it is our desire for these things that keep the corporations in control. Granted they make our lives easier, but at what cost? Even if climate change is not a man made phenomena, the pollution that is spewed into the air, and the toxins that are pumped into our water supply are having a significant impact upon the world in which we live, and to be honest with you, it is unsustainable.We may wonder if there has ever been a similar period in history like our own, and my answer is that on one hand there hasn't been one, but in another there has. The period I point to is that of the mid to later Roman Empire, where people were living such luxurious lives that they blinded themselves to the ecological destruction that they were causing. It is not simply that either, because inflation was running rampant, and while the rich were getting richer, the basic necessities of life were unreachable by the masses. Rome ended up collapsing, and with it creating a dark age of epic proportions, and that is something that even now we are also looking at.

Neddy Merrill "The Corporation" is a straight-forwarded documentary critique of what is arguably modern society's most powerful institutions -- incorporated business enterprises. What about governments? Well, yes, in some countries, notably Russia, corporations do as directed (just ask a Russian oil billionaire if the warden allows). However, the movie argues, the fairly self-evident point, that elected officials have little recourse but to swing their influence in the direction very large, very wealthy and very well connected people (corporations are legally persons) point. The movie recounts the mechanisms of this influence including congressional votes lobbied, tax codes rewritten and resistors silenced. At its most interesting the film covers the excesses of this power. According to the film, Mosanto, which makes an appearance in most material of this nature, boosts profits by selling seeds that produce non-reproducing plants so that another purchase needs to be made the following year and sues farmers who disagree with their practices. Another corporation buys all of the water rights in part of a South American country so that collecting rainwater becomes a form of stealing which the government enforces on the company's behalf. The examples in the film are many, frankly too many given this is a cinematic release rather than the PBS special it much more assuredly feels like with its multitude of title cards and talking heads most notably Noam Chomsky. Much like a PBS special, the tone is even-handed and civil and makes you understand why Michael Moore earns far more on his screaming, one-sided docs ("Fahrenheit 911") than he does on his more harmonious, balanced offerings ("Sicko"). In short, the movie lacks enough thematic elements to make for a particularly interesting film and the central premise that corporations are very powerful and are profit-driven will shock only the most naïve. As CNBC's Jim Cramer says: "it is government for the corporations, by the corporations and from an investor's standpoint, that is a good thing."

ERJD60657 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.

Robert W. The Corporation should be given kudos for being a massive nearly three hour length documentary and still remain mostly entertaining and keep you engaged in the material. However I also felt like they were simply like lawyers trying to prove a case. It would not be hard for them to convince me that corporations are evil and conducive to bringing down society and yet they really pour it on thick and go so far as to try to make us believe that a corporation is equivalent and fits all the qualifications for a medical diagnose of a psychopath. Director and creator Mark Achbar is obviously very passionate about this topic and kudos to him but I think where the film falters is in it's passion. All this information is presented in a very factual straight forward fashion and it just feels like it's being drilled into you for three straight hours. I think the film could have been far more effective given a smaller time frame and some serious trimming. Certainly the film isn't for the weak minded or someone who doesn't want to be intellectually challenged because the film will take some serious thought. I think in the future we will see some great things in documentary film making. Worth seeing if you're doing some studying into the politics of corporations. 6/10