I thought that this movie was pretty good. It opened my eyes to problems with the U.N. but did not make me think it was a completely useless organization. It was entertaining and informative and probably should be shown in University if you are taking a class specifically on the U.N. (which I did many moons ago). If after watching the preview you would want to see it then you will not be disappointed. I also liked the main guy interviewer in the film, sometimes I find them so off putting that even when I agree with the message (like with Michael Moore) I find the way they do things so annoying that I cannot watch the film and happily this was not the case here.
7 Reviews
UN Me highlights the inept corrupt nature of the UN. What a quagmire!
joenyc554330 December 2009
With "human rights council" and Security Council members from the likes of Syria, Lybia and Iran on the human rights and Security Councils, how can we hope for legitimacy? In the ashes of World War II, the UN was created to foster human rights and democracy; instead we have allowed any nation at all to join regardless of their own respect, or lack of respect, for human rights and democracy. So sad.
Every despot has his own agenda in the UN, its a quagmire of bureaucracy and corruption.
UN Me is fun to watch and eye opening. Its well done, fast paced, and nicely documents some aspects of the problems at the United Nations.
Every despot has his own agenda in the UN, its a quagmire of bureaucracy and corruption.
UN Me is fun to watch and eye opening. Its well done, fast paced, and nicely documents some aspects of the problems at the United Nations.
A great companion piece to Armando Iannucci's "In the Loop"
AhavatSratim14 June 2012
As someone who saw the film two years ago and loved it, I've noticed two kinds of responses: actual film reviews, which are generally favorable, and pieces attacking the filmmakers' perceived politics and intentions, which say more about what the reviewer brings to the film than what s/he sees on screen.
As I said, I loved the movie, or at least the version I saw then when it was on tour (I haven't seen the new edit). As others have observed, it's a perfect companion piece to Armando Ionucci's "In the Loop": at times hysterically absurd, and at other times, just painfully tragic. I'm not kidding when I say I laughed and I cried, often all at once.
I highly recommend this imperfectly brilliant film. In the tradition of Michael Moore, but more clever by half, and more resonant.
As I said, I loved the movie, or at least the version I saw then when it was on tour (I haven't seen the new edit). As others have observed, it's a perfect companion piece to Armando Ionucci's "In the Loop": at times hysterically absurd, and at other times, just painfully tragic. I'm not kidding when I say I laughed and I cried, often all at once.
I highly recommend this imperfectly brilliant film. In the tradition of Michael Moore, but more clever by half, and more resonant.
My favorite DVD of all time
bestresums3 February 2014
This DVD made me laugh at the same time it made me cry and made my blood boil. This is Toto pulling the curtain exposing the Wizard of Oz! You just have to gasp when you see the pathetic baseness of the esteemed diplomats and plutocrats who are running the U.N. and the world. This is a DVD you can never forget! You get a very good idea of the DVD from watching the trailer. Avi Horowitz and his camera crew gain access to U.N. dignitaries, and capture on film their responses to questions that perhaps no one else has asked them. Equally interesting is his portrait of U.N. "blue helmets" collecting big salaries while enjoying the beach, and "the locals." After seeing this DVD, you will want to pull the plug on the farce and waste of money called the United Nations.
No, it's NOT a mockumentary
SnoopyDogDog13 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This is a shameless hatchet job on the UN, its only goal is to fully and utterly discredit that organisation.
It highlights two recent cases, the Food For Oil scandal, and the mass murders in Rwanda. On the backs of the victims of these cases it tries, but bitterly fails to make the following point: The UN is an Evil Organisation And Thou Shalt Never Give Them Any Money. And one should discredit all the good work it's done based on it's failure to act in these two instances. We should completely stop caring about the good work the UN has done in Eritrea, Bosnia and other places because it's an "inherently flawed" institution. Should we blame the WHOLE U.N.? Nooooo, we should only blame its poorest and most powerless members, Third World countries and such. Hint: so, NOT the Veto Powers America, UK and France. Nor any of the other rich nations, but only if they support Israel. So that's a no against Belgium.
We are asked to accept this, but it is flawed because: 1. It's silly and downright wrong to discard 60 years of performance based on two failed cases. 2. Blaming the failures on member states which have the LEAST power is kinda stupid, just your typical ReichWing anti-people preachings and a variation of blaming the regular conservative "blame the victim" strategy 3. Completely leaving out the role of the USA and the UK, out of everything, is, besides being logically flawed, also hugely underestimating the knowledgeability of your audience. Do they really think we don't know that the USA and the UK have veto power?
'Consider the source' is normally not a good argument to make, but in this case I think it's warranted, for two reasons.
a. Ami Horowitz is a (failed??) investment banker. You know, that set of people which brought us the global financial meltdown because of greed. Not exactly a glowing example of moralism. There's a saying about a pot, a kettle and calling it names, I forget.
b. Horowitz is NOT, I repeat NOT a Jewish-American, but he has an Israeli background. Israelis hate the UN, since it's hugely critical of Israels Apartheid-like occupation policy. (No, not saying it IS Apartheid, it's very much LIKE Apartheid)
I guess this comment won't make it past the IMDb censor, free speech doesn't apply when we're talking about Israel, I guess ....
The makers showed this at the IDFA, a documentary filmfestival in Amsterdam, because they thought they'd have a good time smoking weed while getting free room and board. Well, in the Talk and Meet sessions afterwards, they really got an earful from the European audience, which is of course not as gullible as their hillbilly target audience.
What's also flawed about this video, is that it's overarching theme is: The UN is inherently bad, but at the end they show some Charter articles which show that it's NOT bad ... Odd.
Finally, American rightwing criticism on an organisation which they don't even pay the contribution for (they haven't paid their contribution in 10 or 15 years)????
Can and should we really take such criticism serious???
No, no and heII, NO.
It highlights two recent cases, the Food For Oil scandal, and the mass murders in Rwanda. On the backs of the victims of these cases it tries, but bitterly fails to make the following point: The UN is an Evil Organisation And Thou Shalt Never Give Them Any Money. And one should discredit all the good work it's done based on it's failure to act in these two instances. We should completely stop caring about the good work the UN has done in Eritrea, Bosnia and other places because it's an "inherently flawed" institution. Should we blame the WHOLE U.N.? Nooooo, we should only blame its poorest and most powerless members, Third World countries and such. Hint: so, NOT the Veto Powers America, UK and France. Nor any of the other rich nations, but only if they support Israel. So that's a no against Belgium.
We are asked to accept this, but it is flawed because: 1. It's silly and downright wrong to discard 60 years of performance based on two failed cases. 2. Blaming the failures on member states which have the LEAST power is kinda stupid, just your typical ReichWing anti-people preachings and a variation of blaming the regular conservative "blame the victim" strategy 3. Completely leaving out the role of the USA and the UK, out of everything, is, besides being logically flawed, also hugely underestimating the knowledgeability of your audience. Do they really think we don't know that the USA and the UK have veto power?
'Consider the source' is normally not a good argument to make, but in this case I think it's warranted, for two reasons.
a. Ami Horowitz is a (failed??) investment banker. You know, that set of people which brought us the global financial meltdown because of greed. Not exactly a glowing example of moralism. There's a saying about a pot, a kettle and calling it names, I forget.
b. Horowitz is NOT, I repeat NOT a Jewish-American, but he has an Israeli background. Israelis hate the UN, since it's hugely critical of Israels Apartheid-like occupation policy. (No, not saying it IS Apartheid, it's very much LIKE Apartheid)
I guess this comment won't make it past the IMDb censor, free speech doesn't apply when we're talking about Israel, I guess ....
The makers showed this at the IDFA, a documentary filmfestival in Amsterdam, because they thought they'd have a good time smoking weed while getting free room and board. Well, in the Talk and Meet sessions afterwards, they really got an earful from the European audience, which is of course not as gullible as their hillbilly target audience.
What's also flawed about this video, is that it's overarching theme is: The UN is inherently bad, but at the end they show some Charter articles which show that it's NOT bad ... Odd.
Finally, American rightwing criticism on an organisation which they don't even pay the contribution for (they haven't paid their contribution in 10 or 15 years)????
Can and should we really take such criticism serious???
No, no and heII, NO.
Powerful movie
sam-73-23188216 June 2012
Amy Horowitz uses humor and a sense of the absurd to highlight the morass that is now the UN due to the fact that any country, regardless of it human rights record, has an equal vote. So Syria can be on the Security Counsel and the only country to preoccupy the UN is Israel. Ami shows that in spite of the powerful things the UN can do, it is fundamentally messed up at the most basic level -- how decisions are made and how priorities are set. And it is clear what needs to be done to fix it. And we in the US have the money to force the changes. If we have the will.
Great movie. Great message. Worth the view.
Great movie. Great message. Worth the view.
A very subjective and poor quality documentary made by Fox News.
robinbrunet9 October 2019
A very poor quality "wanna be documentary" made by a subjective US fox news employee... Not saying everything in it is fake, just saying it only covers the negative part of the UN and does not use objective journalistic methods. A dangerous populist message sent to the public.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
