Reviews

2 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
Documentary??
6 August 2006
I have my doubts as to whether this can truly be called a documentary; perhaps rant, tirade or propaganda would be a better description. Frankly Greenwald would make Goebbels appear even handed and unbiased; even Michael Moore makes a half hearted attempt to allow his targets the opportunity to answer the criticisms. This film makes no attempt to consider any point of view other than its own, and so entirely devalues the message. Which is something of a shame, because some of the points raised are important to us all, and certainly worth considering.

At times the message seems rambling, appearing to look everywhere for the smallest criticism, and running it long past the point of tedium. Wal Mart has (apparantly) 1.2 million employees; surely Greenwald could have found abuse more meaty than the unsubstantiated complaints of individual vague accusations of discrimination. Disgruntled employees are hardly surprising in a company of Wal-Mart's size, and airing their grievances in itself adds no weight to the argument. Much is made of the apparent preferential promotion of ethnic groups by offering us anecdotal evidence, but without offering any proof to back this up.

A considerable proportion of the movie is devoted to the environmental crime of one outlet storing its fertilizers uncovered in the car park, but this was never demonstrated to have been directly responsible for any environmental impact. So we are left wondering why this is cited as the worst offense of one of the world's largest corporations.

However some sections are handled far better than others. The statistics relating to children of workers on Medicaid speak for themselves, and the section about working conditions in China and Bangladesh is pretty shocking, and certainly would make me think twice about what I buy and where.

Ultimately though, reasoned debate this is not, demonisation it is. There is a deliberate failure to give Wal Mart the chance to put across their response. And all right thinking film goers should ask themselves "WHY?"
11 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wolf Creek (2005)
1/10
Gross inconsistencies
9 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I could forgive the painfully slow start to this movie; even a lame attempt to explore the wafer thin characters could be perceived as a form of tortuous development. The tone of the movie is intended to be disturbing, it's been a while since I've seen such gratuitous cruelty, and even though it's pointless, it is after all a horror flick. What I will remember this movie for is it's extraordinary plot inconsistencies. Were it not for them, I think this film could be worth as much as 2, or (at a push) the dizzy heights of 3 stars.

SPOILERS BELOW

There are so many holes in this plot it's hard to know where to start. For example, two girls are in the truck being chased by Mick a long way back in another truck. Unfortunately they come to a cliff edge. So, think about it - what would YOU do? Should they switch off lights and try and sneak by him? Or maybe just turn left/right and drive like hell. No - of course - it's so obvious now, they should push the only means of escape they have over the cliff and then hide EXACTLY where they know Mick will pull up. As soon as Mick is gone, in an outrageous abuse of cinematographic licence, they decide to go back to his house of horror to look for ANOTHER truck!!!!! Possibly a different model, maybe they were looking for something in red? I cannot even begin to imagine ANYOBODY, no matter how hard of thinking acting in this way.

So Kristy goes back to find a working car, (why the hell would she think any of them are working, Mick has just destroyed their car?!) Anyway, whilst running for her life she takes a break from her furious and stressful searching to watch some movies, check though some old photos and have a general mooch around for the benefit of the audience. Meanwhile, Mick is making his way back home and into the garage where he waits in the back seat of the only car out of a dozen or so that he knows Kristy's going to try to start. Clever bugger, as they say in Australia.

Ultimately it could be argued that the girls acted in this irrational manner purely because they were under such stress. But in this "true" story nobody has any idea how or what the girls did. Even the unreliable witness hasn't a clue. So writer/director are totally responsible for this infantile fabrication!

Do yourself a favour and watch the grass grow, learn a language, start a religion, but do not waste 100 valuable minutes of your life trawling though this pap.
46 out of 77 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed