Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Ketrivie It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

HottWwjdIam There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

petarmatic This documentary is a real insight into dealing and wheeling in Central African Republic. I heard all the bad things about that country. It seems that it is bad as they say. It looks that they are not only corrupt but cannibals as well. It gives me shivers down my spine.I am sorry to say that more and more countries in the world look as failed states as they CAR. It really shows us in what sorry state Africa is in.Just few days they showed footage of people trying to get into Mellia, so desperate to get to Europe.More and more people like that are coming all the time from the failed states of Africa.Nothing can be done to stop that.

mefisto222 I cought this documentary by searching my TV channels. In fact, friend of mine was involved in gold mine business in Mali. His experience is very close to that of Mads. Very bizarre way of living, full of betrayals, corruption, promises and dissappoitments. Mads' experience was rather a happy end, one of a few in this business. Anyway, the story-telling, camera and selected characters are perfect. You can get very fast into the story and enjoy absurdity of the neo-colonial style of living. You become part of this crazy business. You wonder that you are in 21st century. In addition, his acting performance is great. Therefore thumb up Mads!

p-stepien Crack reporter Mads Brugger invokes his inner Sascha Baron Cohen to turn into a Liberian diplomat searching for blood diamonds and the corruption surrounding it. Through his journey he comes into contact with brokers, who deal in diplomatic papers, thus offering despicable white guys opportunities to practise shady business matters in Africa. Laden with cash and an ultimate pre-ordained goal (of uncovering the blood diamonds trade), he dons a white suit, immerses himself into an eccentric European persona with racial stereotypes and ludicrous point of views, soon raining down on the Central African Republic, one of the most corrupt failed states in the world.Despite touching some extremely fascinating issues, such as the brokerage in diplomatic passports, post-colonial back-room dealings and the mechanisms of power and money, "The Ambassador" poses several very problematic issues in terms of artistic honesty, limited contemplation and matter sensitivity by the director as well as some starkly distracting manipulative tactics. When Brugger is in character generally anything goes, much like the famed Borat, but unlike his British predecessor the Dutch director fails to capture the same controversial feedback, instead our quirky diplomat talks absurd nonsense to liven up proceedings with his unknowing counterparts just letting the powerful white dude churn out drivel, at best nodding in belated agreement. However the problem area lies in the overriding outlook by Mads Brugger, who often narrates his close-minded point of view, unfortunately one quagmired in generalisations, ignorance and a permeating lack of sensitivity. The basic message and ultimate downfall of Brugger being: "This is Africa", as if a documentary about Belarus could be summarised as "This is Europe". The Heart of Darkness is obviously invoked (despite the fact that the 'heart of darkness' by Conrad actually wasn't placed in Africa, but inside white colonialists), while Brugger dishes out overly generalised comments hidden within 'jokey punts' for the effect factor, making him almost as derogatory a character as his 'false diplomat' persona."The Ambassador" also feels overly fabricated as Mad Brugger has his mind set on reaching the pre-conceived conclusions, and if the facts say otherwise then f%^& the facts - such as the unapologethically misinformed attack on Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, which concludes the documentary. Another stark example: when shown a picture of what in my eyes looked like an amiable and friendly looking Asian, Brugger surprisingly narrates about how this person looks 'shady' (why? because he's Chinese?). The director's quest for so-called 'blood diamonds' ends up looking like a wild goose chase, but when he finally comes across a partner in business, it turns out that Brugger has a self-proclaimed definition of what 'blood diamonds' are (apparently government licensed diamonds mines using crude artisinal extraction methods qualifies as 'blood mining'). The stronger questions regarding corruption, the whole audacity of trading in diplomatics credentials and power mechanisms seems overshadowed by Brugger's incessant focus on getting a big story, instead of focusing on the small issues exposed to form the big picture.The most divisive and contemptuous matters occur when Mads Bruger decides to have some mock fun at the expense of Pygmies, a side of the narrative, which should have been cut out for the director's sake, as he comes out as extremely exploitative and tasteless. A issue very well summarised by Docutopia reviewer Anthony Kaufman: "Thus, like the political stunts of Michael Moore, sometimes they work brilliantly when the target is right, as in Bowling for Columbine, when he goes after K-mart for selling bullets; but not when that target is misplaced, as when he goes after ailing NRA president Charlton Heston in the same film, trying to make him feel responsible for the shooting death of a young girl." Thus the inherent problem of Mads Bruger himself often feeling like the most embarrassing thing in the movie, something that "Borat" managed to avoid despite the titular hero running around with buttocks exposed in a five star hotel.

laura_13-898-503657 I watched this movie as it was selected as the opening film of the Dutch documentary film festival IDFA in 2011. It was a big disappointment. It's completely unclear to me what point the film maker wants to make here. There is not a single proof of 'real' diamond smuggling. The film only contains a lot of suggestive references to illegal behaviour by others without any confirmation. It rather seems like the film maker was not able to collect enough evidence for what he set out to do. However, the film maker himself obviously did engage in ethical questionable behaviour.Even without watching the film, it's obvious that in a country such as the Central African Republic in its current state with e.g. a poor human rights situation and a history of civil war, one cannot expect the same standards of legal and ethical behaviour that we expect in the developed world. However, a statement such as 'there is a ruling political class in the capital which spends most of its time on illegal activities' without any further references adds no value whatsoever.I also have no understanding for the approach of portraying himself as the parody of a 'neo-colonial' businessman. It's occasionally mildly funny, but beyond that rather feels embarrassing for the film maker himself than for the Africans who go along with his behaviour.Thus, overall this film is neither worth watching nor worth the attention it got.