This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

The acting in this movie is really good.

Today bashing big business is increasingly appealing. Specifically, the mismanagement of government is blamed on multinational corporate takeovers. A case in point is the privatization of the water supply in Banzer Suàrez's authoritarian Bolivia presented as evidence of this argument in 2004's The Corporation, where Noam Chomsky compared the entity of the modern multinational corporation to the slaving enterprise of a former age.That Banzer's rule led to such a dire financial situation where, in order to appease foreign creditors and continue receiving World Bank loans, he was forced to concede and privatize Bolivia's national water supply in La Paz/El Alto in 1997, and then Cochabamba in 1999, is not mentioned. We are to interpret the 'water wars' that then took place in 2000 and 2005, respectively, as solely the result of Suez, and Biwater/Bechtel's inherent greed.In this documentary the much-maligned Export Processing Zones (EPZs) are also the subject of inflammatory rhetoric. Naomi Klein emphatically points to these largely tax-free areas in low-cost, labour-abundant cities around the globe in which large multinational corporations are enticed to operate, where "the workers rarely make enough to buy three meals a day let alone feed their local economy".If we consider basic economic trade theory, we know that, in the real world, national wage rates do, in fact, reflect differences in productivity. In 1975 South Korea was a low-wage-rate low-productivity country, where workers earned 5% of what they did in the US; by 2007 its productivity was around 50% that of the US and its wages had, accordingly, risen.Where, then, does the blame for the appalling living conditions of labourers in certain Central American and Southeast Asian countries lie? In the corruption of their governments, the weakness of their financial sectors, capital markets, judiciary – in short: the inefficiency of their institutions. That poor people in rich countries should be subsidizing rich people in corrupt poor countries, to paraphrase the late Sir James Goldsmith, is not the result of the liberalization of trade. Rather, it is the fruit of systemic problems in less-developed societies.I would advise anyone who wishes to watch this documentary to do so with an open mind (i.e. remember that it is very skewed to a particular viewpoint). Because of that, and the fact that it doesn't really offer an objective analysis, I give it 5.

It makes a number of worthy points about corporate abuses. I'm certainly happy there are people in the world who raise red flags and push back against these abuses.On the other hand, the film-makers weaken their legitimate arguments with many questionable conclusions. And, for a film that is so hysterical over corporate propaganda, it is shameless in its use of emotionally manipulative techniques in support of its own biases.I suggest watching on your computer so you can stop the movie at any time and do quick web search to verify questionable claims and seek out background material on the anecdotes presented in the film.For instance, a quick search for "2000 Cochabamba protests" took me to a Wikipedia article with a somewhat more nuanced account. The conclusions drawn by the film are not so neatly supported by the actual events.

If you're gonna watch this, prepare for two and a half hours of ominous music, meaningless anecdotes, poisoning the well, confirmation bias, hasty generalizations, proof by verbosity, Michael Moore etc.The gist of the movie: corporations are responsible for every plight of the world, therefore capitalism is bad, therefore let's nationalize everything.The only thing this movie is good for, is to study bad propaganda and make a list of logical fallacies.The core issue is the legal construct of the corporation and it is a legitimate issue, but the movie goes against the wrong target, with the wrong methods.

I base this review on the shareware version, currently available for free on YouTube, under the user machbar. It is between 2 and two and a half hours long. This goes into all the damage corporations do, the fact that they are granted rights as if they were individuals(!) and the general callous nature of them. Sounds one-sided? Well, Michael Moore isn't in this for nothing. It is somewhat like propaganda, but at the same time, I can't come up with any real arguments for the other side. I will say that it would be good to have someone from there come in so we could see just how weak their position is, and how based on personal greed it is. It's not difficult to shred their claims with actual facts, and I suppose the choice to not do so was a fear that there might be people who weren't compelled into action by this. With that said, this is a well-done documentary. It is interesting throughout in spite of the running time, and the personal anecdotes, investigative journalism and editing(if it is a tad manipulative at times) all make a convincing case. There is quite a bit of disturbing content in this, and it is effective not only on account of it being real. I recommend this to everyone, though I fear that it is preaching to the converted more than changing any minds. 8/10