Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Crwthod A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Maleeha Vincent It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

manuel-pestalozzi This movie claims, that the situation it presents the viewers with could occur anywhere in the world and that the takeover of closed factories by their workers is a recipe against the negative effect of world wide globalization.The first assertion is clearly wrong. Argentina is a specific place with a specific history. Its industry was created to serve the home market. Peron's and later the Peronist's power base were the industrial workers whose unions were brought into line with strong arm tactics. Industry has always been a highly politicized affair in that country, it was protected from international competition for a very long time. Therefore nobody invested in the renewal of machinery, in the 1980s they still produced the Ford Falcon model of the 1950s (maybe they still do?). Pepole could always be sure that the export of agricultural produce would support an industry which was neither very productive nor competitive. I think oil producing Venezuela and Iran are in a similar position today (in the way politics, economics and ideologies are mixed together). President Menem – incidentally a Peronist brought to power as the champion of the little man – lifted the protective shield and brought to light the frailty of the legal as well as the economical and social system of Argentina. No wonder many businesses collapsed, leaving huge debts behind.It defies belief that the adversaries of globalization just think that by putting the lid back on, returning to a protected market, everything will be well. This would neither create fairer conditions nor would it secure more equality or welfare for the future.For the second assertion the movie surprises with a disconcerting lack of proof. Very little is explained. How do these enterprises pay for raw materials? Where are their markets? How do they find customers? Do they make a profit? Most of these questions are not even addressed although they are essential if the „model" should work. And as much as one can understand the outrage of seeing people willing to work being forced from their place of employment, there are some legal issues which should have been considered. If I understood it right, the workers took the bankrupt factories lock, stock and barrel, leaving the accumulated debts – to who? Mustn't there be some losers around somewhere? Isn't this part of the time-honed Argentine tradition of eating the cake before having it? I regret to say that I found this movie overly romantic and simplistic. It fails to deliver what it promises to do at the outset.

coweatman the worker owned factories in argentina are one of the best developments in recent history. i think the most interesting part of it is that people who are not ostensibly "political" have responded to a crisis by instituting something, spontaneously, that looks like it is within spitting distance of anarchosyndicalism. joe hill would be proud. i saw this film as part of the touring show for the lost film festival, and it was easily the highlight of the show. I'm eagerly awaiting this to come to a local theater so i can see it again, and i'm going to try to get as many people as possible to go.

greenelephant888 The Take is perhaps one of the most inspirational films I had ever seen. It provides an example to all of us - in terms of what we could accomplish if only we came together, if only we joined hands like those grandmothers in the streets of Argentina, like those workers who took production and decision making into their own hands. True democracy has to start from the bottom up, it has to start in the family, in the school, in the workplace, in the neighborhood and expand outward from there. Only when decisions in *all of these* social settings are made democratically, based on majority vote, only then, can our society begin to call itself democratic. This is currently not the case in the United States. It is not the case in the US family, nor in US schools, and no where is it more untrue than in the US workplace. Currently in the United States practically all decisions are made by those in power, by those with the money, and enforced on those underneath. When somebody gets fired from a workplace, do all the workers get together and vote on whether the person should be kept or fired? Do the children in the US schools have any democratic power to decide how things are done and organized? Do wives have equal power with their husbands in the American family? So how can a society that is so undemocratic claim to be a model of democracy for others? It is unfortunate that in the US democratic participation is limited to electing individuals to power, and is never directly related to policy issues. Our society would be much more democratic if we voted like specifically on the questions at hand both at the national and at the local level: REFERENDUM: Should US troops remain in Iraq? Should gay marriage be legal? Etc. All the questions that are most important to us, why don't we just vote specifically on them? The movie about Argentine factory workers has a message about democracy: "We vote often, that way we get used to loosing". If we were to vote more often, and to vote specifically on the issues that are important to us, then we would have a true participatory democratic society. So the Take, in my opinion is *a very important* film, and is something that all workers around the world and all people should learn from. Some other comments I have about the Take are as follows. -By taking over Argentine factories, the workers are benefiting not only themselves and their families, but also their communities and Argentina as a whole, by contributing to economic recovery. I think this is a very important point. - It is unclear to me how the workers were able to make the factories profitable again, despite the economic crush. Because generally, when an economic collapse takes place and people lose jobs and savings, the demand for new goods declines, and that is probably why the factory owners were forced to shut down their factories in the first place. So how are the workers able to sell off their final products after taking over production? Is there some kind of barter system in place? Are the workers getting their inputs domestically instead of by importing them? I wish the film explained this. -The issue of private property is raised in the film. Should people really have the right to own stuff if they are not making good use of it? I mean, like if you are a kid with a toy, and you aren't playing with your toy, and the kids next to you want to borrow your toys because they actually want to play together, shouldn't you just give it to them, since you are not using it anyway? I mean why is the law on the side of those who want to keep their toys to themselves and do nothing with it?

dan_sprocket This movie helps progressive people address one of the main criticisms of the right and capitalists: what would you do differently if capitalism and globalization is so bad? Argentina was a country where public utilities had been sold off and money fled the country. Factories were left empty, owing millions of dollars in taxes to various levels of government. The workers thought: we don't have jobs, so we can't buy things for our families. There are no jobs, because people aren't buying things for their families. So they broke the cycle, and with government approval (eventually) occupied the factories and just started producing items for themselves and their neighbors. The co-operative/collectivist movement in Argentina flourished.The movie shows it was far from easy, and there are many hurdles left to overcome for this country and its people. But it's a hopeful message that if you buy locally, use locally produced services and products produced "locally", you create a viable economic cycle that enriches everybody. You may not have $40 microwaves produced someplace else on the other side of the world, but instead you get a quality product produced by your neighbour, that doesn't require the expense and waste of trans-global shipment. Then, the makers of cheap microwaves will be forced to pay their workers more in order to create a local/national market for their products, rather than using slave labour and shipping the products overseas to the "first world".Okay, I'm off my soap box. Well done movie with real emotion and appeal.