Maidexpl Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Senteur As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

Sameer Callahan It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

runamokprods Inspiring on a story level, if less so on a film-making level. Two working class British activists are sued by McDonald's for a pamphlet they put out accusing McDonalds of making unhealthy foods, exploiting its workers, etc. Under the archaic British libel laws, all the burden of proof is on the defendants, and somehow these two plucky, broke (if occasionally annoyingly naïve) nobodies fight McDonalds to a stalemate in court, while costing McDonalds millions in legal fees, and causing them an absolute PR disaster. While the story is terrific, the re-enactments, especially of the courtroom scenes are awkward, and the over simplistic idealism of some of the couples' political theory ('why can't McDonalds simply give half of it's profits to their workers') can be a bit much to take. Still, it's good to see something that makes you realize the little guy can win now and again.

film_riot Mr. Everyman and Mrs. Everymen, Dave Morris and Helen Steel distributed flyers, on which they criticized the fast food company McDonald's for their business practices, concerning environment, health risks and advertising amongst others. Because of UK law McDonald's could sue them and ultimately also win the case. However, long term results of Steel's and Morris' engagement were that in the year 2004 the law was changed and McDonald's image suffered an enormous loss. What they've done was important, but Franny Armstrong's documentary "McLibel" shows that an interesting story alone doesn't make a good film. First, the look of the film is held very conventional, meaning that it just looks like your usual TV documentary. The direction is not very imaginative, given that there are mostly the interviews, where I was missing counterweight. The re-enacted scenes were pointless for me, I mean, what should they prove? Just enforcing the emphasis on the David vs. Goliath story, rather than giving an unemotional and for that much more impressive view on this case.

Theo Robertson ... More of a quest featuring a camcorder and people with an axe to grind Dave Morris and Helen Steel hit the headlines circa 1990 when after taking part in a leaflet campaign outside a London branch of McDonalds they found themselves on being sued for libel and this tells their story over several years of their quest to find " justice " Now if this was an objective documentary I would have perhaps found admirable things about it but it's not objective at all or even subjective - It's polemical opinion featuring two people with an axe to grind against a corporate company that's fashionable to bash and seems more interested in having people the average Joe have never heard of stating nonsense . Take Eric Schlosser ( Someone who's written a book on McDonalds hence it makes him some sort of expert ) who tells us that " McDonalds is deliberately designed to control workers and offer them as little creativity and intuitive as possible " ! Forgive me for pointing this out but if someone is paid to flip burgers and clean tables then why should they be encouraged to have a creative side ? If it's creativity they wanted maybe the could have joined the Lee Strasburg Acting School or have gone to University to study literature ? If you work in a cafe you have to do the exact same kind of work except for some reason this doesn't bring out the anger in Schlosser . Apparently according to him it's only McDonald workers who have pulled the short straw in life since they're not allowed union membership ( Again many companies of whatever industry do not allow union membership ) and have to do boring tedious work . Wow I thought people only worked for the money And this is typical of the arguments put forward by Schlosser , Morris and Steel - They're not wide reaching arguments at all . Yeah I agree that a high fat /high sugar junk food diet that McDonald sells isn't too healthy but is it actually cancer causing ? - This was the claim that almost certainly caused McDonalds to sue the pair - and for some reason no one in McLIBEL makes the point that McDonalds isn't the only fast food chain selling this type of junk food , several other similar fast food chains sell more or less the same stuff . Did they protest outside these fast food chains ? Perhaps the most cogent point is that no one is actually forced to eat at McDonalds and this fact is conspicuous by its absence .I guess the whole concept behind McLIBEL is that the audience will cheer that Morris and Steel eventually won the case against a corporate giant but only if you agree with the duo's politics . We're asked to empathise with the self righteous Morris and Steel but my own feeling is that haven't done anything heroic and are in fact just self seeking publicists . At least SUPERSIZE ME was entertaining despite the flaws . There's little entertainment to be found in McLIBEL

bob the moo A long time ago there was a company that made lots of money by selling bits of meat between two bits of bread. Many people were employed to put the meat between the bread and many animals were killed to be the meat. A friendly clown persuaded children to love the company. Some decades passed and all was well. The company became very, very rich. Richer even than many countries. And then some people wrote in their newspapers than eating lots of the meat and bread could make people ill. Other people said on television that too many trees had been cut down and that the workers were unhappy. This made the company very angry. The company looked around the world and saw that in England there was a special law that could stop people saying things the company didn't like. And make them say sorry.It is with the above text (delivered in a Star Wars fashion) that this film starts with – pretty much immediately helping you work out if your politics and sense of humour are in the right place to be part of the target audience for this documentary. The story of the film is famous now; basically in the early 1990's McDonalds took libel cases against many people who had spoken out against them – papers, television channels, pressure groups, generally media groups and the like. Drawing retractions from the majority of them, McD's was very happy with the UK system and set about going after other targets. David Morris and Helen Steel were volunteering with Greenpeace as part of their belief in environmental activism, part of which was handing out a pamphlet "what's wrong with McDonalds" outside the outlets and telling the "truth" about the company. When they got served with a libel writ from the company, some of their group apologised and retracted but Helen and David said no and started to defend themselves against a team of very expensive lawyers retained by McD's. The film documents their case and then the action that they took in the European Court of Justice years later.Having been made over the whole ten year period (rather than looking back) the film is gripping and really involves you in the story. The case is boiled down to the essence and it is made surprisingly fluid and exciting as a result. The dramatisation of the courtroom scenes feels a bit cheap but still works – although it doesn't help that Morris, despite being natural and himself across the rest of the film, comes across as wooden and "acting" in these bits. The bias in the presentation is there of course and if you disagree with them then this isn't the film for you. However, I saw them both as rather pretentious hippy sorts but yet I was still able to get behind them, learn the lessons and be inspired by them. And really "inspiration" is the film's main strength because their story is amazing and it totally flies in the face of those who say "what difference does it make if I etc etc"; I still think that individuals are limited in day to day life but when the chips are down, if you can stand your ground it is possible to make a difference.Alongside this, the target audience will love the anti-Corporation thing. I'm not a protester or anti-Capitalist but it is satisfying to watch McD be taken down a peg – even more so now that we have spent the last year or so watch them start to lose ground, lose profits and many of the McLibel accusations be backed up over and over by many sources, to the point that most viewers will totally agree with the "lies" that Morris and Steel were telling. Ideal viewing alongside the equally important (but a lot less serious) Super Size Me, this is a great documentary that makes up for the low budget feel by being gripping, entertaining and inspiring.