Capitalism: A Love Story

I seen a couple of Micheal Moore movies in the past and although I didn't agree entirely with what those films try to convey. But what those films did was got me thinking and thus I decided to check this movie out. This is a well crafted documentary and a important film that should be watched by many viewers. It's one of those movies that keep you thinking about today's economy and society after it's over. I don't want to get too deep into the issue and even if the viewers agree or disagree or somewhat agree and somewhat don't, it will keep the viewers thinking. And it can even be powerful sometimes. Even if the viewers know a lot about the issue that is going on such as "rich getting richer and poor getting poorer". But the way it covers the issues make it leave more of a impact and will probably want to deeply know more about the issues that this movie covers. I personally thought this movie covers the points really well while covering some powerful issues of greed. Especially how people commit crimes against humanity the legal way.

8.3/10

I wasn't sure what to expect, but I was very impressed with the combination of comedy, tragedy, and historical explanation. Yes, there is a bit (or more) of playing to the camera by Moore himself--however, I enjoyed the grandstanding--kind of an investigative revenge fantasy to physically call attention to one of the biggest crime scenes ever. While the use of 1950s instructional film segments is played for laughs, other historical footage is literally breath-taking. My NY audience was utterly silent when we saw what FDR wanted to do, and might have done, had he lived longer. MY REQUEST, at least for the DVD version, would be to have more labels on the lesser-known political figures, so we could more readily identify the few, brave souls who spoke out in vain. I plan to see it again.

Reading some of the other reviews of Capitalism: A Love Story, it soon becomes clear that those leaving low scores either haven't seen the film or have a particular agenda to smear the movie - one reviewer seems to think Angela Merkel's Germany (a centre right politician!) is 'Socialist'! It is this deliberate dumbing down in America of issues surrounding what capitalism is and does (as opposed to socialism) that enabled the conditions for the banks to exploit the worst off in American society and force the taxpayers to foot the bill by bailing them out - and why Americans are still without a universal free healthcare system. Moore takes great pains, and succeeds, in highlighting how this culture of demonising anything that criticises rampant and unregulated free market economics has been firmly established in US society. He has clearly undertaken a measure of research in the production - numerous sources/interviews and facts are used in the narrative - but the best thing for me was that he still manages to keep the more complicated aspects of banking and loans extremely accessible (I'm hopeless at maths!).

Comments that Moore is a socialist are extremely juvenile - Moore is a socialist in the same way that Ghandi was a terrorist or Jesus was a trouble maker.

All in all a very informative and inspiring documentary that dares to mention the elephant taking a big dump in the room.

Michael Moore has never been objective. No documentary maker ever was. When you chose a subject, you've already taken some kind of position and Moore doesn't try to hide what he thinks.

And he shows us worker's families being driven from their homes and brokers making profit on it. He shows business companies taking life insurances on their employed and taking all the money when the employed dies. He says that the Congress is in the hands of Wall Street and especially Goldman and Sachs. There are more examples.

The interesting question is why Michael Moore is so alone making these kind of films in the US. The answer is probably that the investors don't want him or anybody else to do them. They want to go on, treating the American people in the most terrifying ways. And since money seems to decide so much in that country, such films are very seldom made. But you're not supposed to know.

Controversial documentarian Michael Moore has taken on some important news topics over the past two decades but perhaps none has affected every American more than the financial meltdown of Wall Street in 2008 as depicted in Capitalism: A Love Story. Done in his customary style of news clips, interviews, and enactments, he has fashioned a convincing indictment of greedy bank executives while being engaging and at times enlightening.

He points out a startling fact: We used to be one income family, Wall Street and corporate profits were guided by sound principles, and our country had no business competition. It's a kind of history lesson courtesy of Moore as he also notes parallels between the demise of Wall Street and that of the Roman Empire, a comparison not without merit. His thesis is that since President Ronald Reagan came into office, the influence of Wall Street has increased to the point that, while Congress and the U.S. Treasury have promoted financial deregulation, many of them have direct links to financial giants such as Goldman Sachs. It would seem on surface to be a major conflict of interest, and that is the point. A handful of CEO's have benefited from running the country as a corporation and costing millions of jobs and livelihoods.

Moore ties news stories to an increasing pattern of corporate greed. There is a juvenile facility in Pennsylvania financed by taxpayer money and corrupt public officials. There are college students beholden to banks with student loans, and we witness news reports of a recent plane crash in Buffalo, New York, for what appears to be the lack of funds for safety issues. Then there is the surprising practice of businesses like Wal-Mart that take out life insurance policies on its employees and collecting on the benefits. By contrast, he does show examples of companies owned by workers that operate efficiently and at a profit. His point is there can be win-win situations.

As Wall Street sold 'derivatives', a risky form of corporate gambling, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan suggested that Americans tap the equity in their homes, and thus came the refinance boom for banks and a new found wealth for the masses-or was it? Using a home like a bank was a formula for financial disaster as the housing industry collapsed with foreclosures and the banking industry fell too. Moore makes his point with footage of actual foreclosures as sheriffs evict homeowners, and the cruelty is not only losing a home but in the cottage industry that has taken advantage of this agonizing process. Added to this is the preferential treatment that CEO's gave to each other and many lawmakers regarding mortgage approvals. The question that keeps being asked by Moore and others is 'where were the regulators' in all this?

As Congress debated on how to repair the economy with a bailout of as much as $700 billion of taxpayer money, Wall Street used media abetted fear to manipulate lawmakers. It was a politics of fear. But not everyone was buying into the fear. Some members of Congress were brave enough to tell a sobering tale of a lack of oversight versus corporate bonuses being fed by the bailout.

Moore shows that some people are fighting back. A new President (Obama) ushers in the potential for change. People are fighting foreclosures and forcing banks to prove chain of title. The laid off workers at Republic Doors refused to exit the factory, and with media coverage and a supportive President, Bank of America caves in and agrees to pay the workers what is owed to them. This event is not without precedent as Moore points out in 1936, workers at a GM Flint, Michigan plant also fought back. In an ironic, fascinating piece of history of what might have been, President Franklin Roosevelt proposed but never lived to see a second Bill of Rights which would address virtually every important concern for Americans including health care, education, and financial security.

Then Moore makes this observation based on a private corporate memo that says 1% of the population in this country has 95% of the wealth but that the other 99% have an equal vote and the power to make changes (yet still hope to be part of the rich). It is this equal vote that scares the corporate powers. His conclusion is that the only hope for this country is for democracy to work.

Some things don't come off well in the film; Moore appears to be grandstanding when he rents an armored car to make a citizen's arrest of the CEOs of Wall Street and get back the public's money. He even takes crime scene tape to cordon off bank doors. Also, an interview with actor Wallace Shawn seems a bit out of place. Wouldn't an interview with an industry insider have worked better? You may not agree with everything Moore espouses, but some of the information should cause anyone to research the facts and draw their own conclusions. If you are a fan of his previous films Sicko or Fahrenheit 9/11, then you will appreciate Capitalism: A Love Story.