Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

Helllins It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Hayleigh Joseph This is ultimately a movie about the very bad things that can happen when we don't address our unease, when we just try to brush it off, whether that's to fit in or to preserve our self-image.

Turfseer The average person would never imagine that the ongoing feel-good Breast Cancer Awareness movement is profoundly wrong-headed, but this is essentially what the controversial and extremely informative documentary, Pink Ribbons, Inc., attempts to impart. Primarily taking on the Susan G. Komen Foundation and its chief executive officer, Nancy Brinker (sister of Susan G. Komen and a breast cancer survivor herself), who are in the forefront of raising money for breast cancer treatment, Director Lea Pool first questions the sincerity of the feel-good pink ribbon campaign. Brinker defiantly states, "absolutely not", in response to the accusation that the Susan G. Komen Foundation and their supporters are putting a "pretty face" on breast cancer awareness. But it's interesting that she admits that without a positive spin, they could never attract the vast numbers of supporters that they do. It's understandable that those who promote the positive spin on breast cancer awareness do so as the thought of the reality of the disease, is hard to look at head on. But 'Pink Ribbons, Inc.' suggests that the sugar-coating of the disease, prevents the general public from realizing and ultimately admitting that certain cases may be indeed incurable and others, may be iatrogenic in nature—exacerbated by the traditional treatments breast cancer victims most often undergo. Indeed, the documentary features some enlightening comments from a former surgeon, Dr. Susan Love, critic of traditional "slash, burn and poison" treatments.While the thousands upon thousands who participate in race/walk for the cure events may be well-intentioned, the documentary points out that they're both gullible and take an unquestioning stance as to deleterious corporate involvement in their fund-raising events as well as to where all the research money goes. Indeed, the most compelling argument of the documentary is that corporations exploit cancer for their own gain. By linking themselves to the breast cancer awareness movement, it's the perfect opportunity for corporations to market their products, under the ruse of helping 'fight' this insidious disease.In certain cases, completely deceptive fund-raising campaigns were designed by these corporations. One example involved American Express— they agreed to donate one cent when you used your Amex credit card; the fine print made it clear, however, that they donated one cent for the ENTIRE purchase (so if you charged $1,000 to your card, they would still only be donating one cent). Fortunately, activists shut down the campaign through an email campaign of their own. Yoplait Yogurt was also forced to rescind their offer to donate 30 cents for each used Yoplait Yogurt lid mailed back in to the company—after it was discovered that Recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), a synthetic (man-made) hormone that is marketed to dairy farmers to increase milk production and linked to cancer, was used to create the Yoplait product. General Mills, owner of Yoplait, eventually discontinued use of the growth hormone in Yoplait, as a result of another activist campaign against them.The myopic view of the supporters of the breast cancer awareness movement is reflected in their complete lack of interest in where all the contributions go. The assumption is that the cancer researchers and drug manufacturers 'know what they're doing,' and they should be 'trusted.' The reality is that if the some of the drugs 'work', it's only a matter of extending the life of the breast cancer victim, a few months at best. But of course what is not mentioned, is the quality of life of the 'survivor'. 'Pink Ribbons, Inc.' argues for investment in prevention strategies and research into environment causes, which of course is antithetical to the corporate culture, which is basically out to make a buck.Major corporate contributors to the breast cancer awareness have products full of carcinogenic ingredients. The Estee Lauder company is singled out particularly for their hypocrisy—promoting their cosmetic products loaded with dangerous chemicals linked to cancer, while at the same time, collecting monies for a 'cure'. Just as garish is Kentucky Fried Chicken whose partnership with Komen appears to be absurd, given that the type of food they sell, is not considered to be at all healthy (Komen defended this particular campaign by arguing that KFC was promoting grilled, not fried chicken).'Pink Ribbons, Inc.', also delves into the history of breast cancer fund-raising. In fact, Breast Cancer Awareness Month, which began in 1982, was actually introduced by a pharmaceutical company. The original ribbon wasn't pink but salmon-colored and the woman who designed it refused to be bought out after a pharmaceutical company attempted to buy the original design (they circumvented her by simply changing the color to pink).Ultimately, the co-opting of Breast Cancer awareness and fund-raising by Big Pharma and other corporate entities, is American as apple pie. The value of this documentary is that individuals who watch it, may begin to question whether both the orthodox medical and corporate establishments really have a true interest in helping to prevent the spread of breast cancer. Researching prevention strategies, not finding some kind of illusory 'cure' that lines the pockets of corporate CEOs and their physician minions, really is where a good deal of the money Komen raises, should go. It is unlikely that the majority of people watching this documentary will be swayed, as it is much more comforting to put on a pink ribbon, than take an interest in whether your corporate sponsor is involved for their own profit and to inquire for what purpose your monetary contribution is being utilized.

Eschete Only among the left-wing lunatics that make documentaries for the National Film Board of Canada could one find the kind of person who would complain that the experience of getting a deadly disease is made somehow less dignified because of its association with corporate giving. Author Barbara Ehrenreich, cancer survivor, complains about everything she can think of: that anti-cancer activists are annoyingly upbeat, that some of the products sold to support breast cancer research are cuddly or cute, that the grim, sad, angry sorts of cancer patients out there don't get enough airplay. This documentary remedies that with several wrenching interviews with weeping cancer patients suffering from end -stage cancer. See, audience? What do you think of those stupid little ribbons now, huh?Samantha King even goes so far as to call an upbeat attitude in he face of the disease "tyranny." As in "tyranny of cheerfulness."The Susan G. Komen Foundation ran afoul of feminists a few years back by daring not to support Planned Parenthood's abortion-on-demand factories. It seems Lea Pool and her backers at the National Film Board have fired a dark and angry salvo back at the "pink ribbon" industry that, if the film's subtext is anything to go by, is guilty mainly of making it more difficult to politicize the disease and make it the realm of angry feminists with anti- capitalist leanings. Well-produced, but probably not a fair portrayal of mainstream and corporate anti-cancer efforts. Cynical and borderline juvenile in its contrarianism. C+.

MartinHafer "Pink Ribbons, Inc." is a far from perfect film but it's also a film that dares to ask many important questions. While the masses blindly buy their pink ribboned products and corporations thereby get richer, this film dares to question many things about this trendy cause. Because it will get you to think, it's well worth seeing. Some of the wonderful questions they pose include: There are some odd associations--such as many of the companies sticking the ribbons on their products ALSO produce carcinogenic products--such as cosmetics.The percentage of the money from these ribbons that goes to research is negligible. Most folks buying the products and doing the cancer walks assume the bulk of the money is being used for research when it isn't.Throwing money blindly at a problem may be a complete waste. There is no coordination among researchers and there is an assumption that money will lead to an elimination of the problem--providing a false sense of control.There also were some parts in the film that irritated me. Either statements were made that were OPINION instead of fact-based bothered me and many important points were never mentioned. These include: The link between chemicals and cancers needs to be addressed. Research establishing links between product exposure and cancer have not been done on many items we use all the time. This was a great point but also problematic and something I disliked about the film. They never even discussed how many (if not most) cancers may be caused by genetics and a few of the people interviewed seemed to ASSUME certain chemicals are leading to higher incidence of cancer. No one mentions that PERHAPS the increase in cancer is simply because people are living much longer and the longer you live, the more likely you'll get cancer.Oddly, no one in the film talked about how all the attention and money focused on breast cancer may lead to deaths--deaths because less attention and money is being spent on research on OTHER cancers and non-cancerous killers.One lady asserted that cancer MAY be caused by viruses but, as I said above, the genetic link was NEVER mentioned in the film. This is VERY odd, as the link of genetics with breast cancer is very strong (i.e., it is often passed from generation to generation within families).So, overall, I'd say the film is a mixed bag. I admire them for taking on a 'sacred cow' but also wish the film had maintained a much tighter focus--in other words, WHERE IS ALL THIS MONEY GOING? and DOES ANY OF THIS REALLY HELP? Worth seeing but don't think the film is Gospel, either.

laura-401-116034 As the Founder and President of a non-profit organization which raises funds for breast cancer research I found Pink Ribbons, Inc. disturbing and unproductive. I was inclined to rattle off each offense and elaborate on why I disagree. After having settled down a bit I will, instead, express a concise reply.I fear this film stigmatizes the business of raising funds for a worthy cause into something ugly and disingenuous. I fear movie viewers will be confused and demoralized by the film's ugly message. And, I fear past supporters may feel so degraded and shamed by this film that they will choose to direct their efforts and money elsewhere.We at The Lynn Sage Foundation agree that a collaborative approach to medical research is ideal and that activism can be constructive. Transparency is essential. Research into environmental causes of cancer is also very welcome. Funding worthy projects is simply not possible without the aid of corporations and individuals. Government dollars are scarce and dwindling.While their were some useful messages within the movie, the emphasis placed on sensationalism and inaccuracies is useless. We, and we presume many of our non-profits peers, would welcome the help of corporations, individuals and associates to collaborate on finding the causes, better treatments and a eventually a cure for this terrible disease.