SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Forumrxes Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

diomavro Its quite funny how many concepts are brought into this movie. From psychology of psychopaths to pricing everything to environmental recklessness to marketing manipulation. So many in fact that its impossible to properly explain to a layperson why some of these ideas might make sense in a single documentary. In fact this seems to be purposefully done to give a biased view of the world so as to create more radical nuts in the world. This review is mostly just a few things I specifically remember being misrepresented. If someone were to read some philosophy on moral dilemmas one would have an interesting framework with which to compare some of the points made in this film. Some of the famous moral dilemma's have to do with someone about to get run over by a train and the actor(you) have the option to save them by pulling a lever, which will kill someone else. There are then things that pile on top of this that I can't possibly explain in a review however the point is that most philosophers would agree that it would indeed be ideal if the person making these decisions were a cold calculating psychopath without much regard for human emotion, so just calling someone a psychopath is not an argument. It might indeed be best if the corporation looked only at profits, for instance if you have one good and two people, chances are by finding who is willing to pay more, you are also maximizing value for that good to society. There's a segment where they explain how a company studied how nagging affects sale and the documentary concluded that this is a horrible thing to do. Sure its terrible to manipulate children to nag more but the company did no such thing, it merely wanted to understand what is driving the demand for their products, maybe it can help them predict something in the future, nothing bad about that. There was a segment in which I thought the film would dig for interesting solutions when it started talking about externalities but it totally just used the concept to further manipulate the layman.There is such a thing as a positive externality and you can make the market have such a thing. For instance on pricing revolting transactions, watch Alvin Roth's Nobel prize speech, to see why putting a price on Kidneys could be a good thing. Its frustrating because the movie gives you some concepts unknown to the layman(except in its more intuitive form) yet fails to help him piece together how these things are combined into a wonderfully synergistic process. There was a short segment on how privatization is bad and public institutions are bad but ALL the MIT/Harvard economists/business people who talked in this movie would tell you that only under certain circumstances is making a good public a good idea, such as the fire brigade example. Its annoying because all this simultaneous cutting in interviews can lead you to think that credible people hold these opinions, because they were talking a few seconds earlier. I think its a good exercise to leave those who disagree to imagine industries which have thrived under privatization. There is honestly a lot of bad things going in the corporate world and some of the issues are mentioned here, maybe limited liability needs to be rethought, maybe patent law as well but advocating that people go out into the streets and "take action" without understanding the issues at hand is the reason why Democracy can fail. Micheal Moore is an idiot by any standard and sensationalism should not triumph over reason, having him be the role model of the story shows the ignorance of the maker of this film. I invite anyone who wants to know more about any of the issues raised to message me for studies/discussion.

Devarsi Ghosh Shaken and stirred by this amazing film. It goes deep into the problem of 'the corporation'. It is thorough and dispassionate, has interviews from both sides of the debate - philosophers, activists, protesters on one hand with CEO's and Government people on the other and the best of the lot - the devious middlemen i.e industry insiders, whistle-blowers, corporate investigators etc.Corporate evil is here to stay and is destined to suck the world dry. In my personal view there is no two ways about it, though the film ends with a touch of hope (well just because it has to I guess, because no matter how cruel the narrative is, what do we have except hope?), that is not the kind of hope I see sense/meaning in. Well what to seek meaning in then? I frankly do not know and I need time to ponder upon this maybe but perhaps the least we can do is to be aware at least, to be dangerously aware of the world around us, of the Moloch that we are up against and somehow in our own ways try to battle it through the way we live our lives and pass on those values to future generations.

Neddy Merrill "The Corporation" is a straight-forwarded documentary critique of what is arguably modern society's most powerful institutions -- incorporated business enterprises. What about governments? Well, yes, in some countries, notably Russia, corporations do as directed (just ask a Russian oil billionaire if the warden allows). However, the movie argues, the fairly self-evident point, that elected officials have little recourse but to swing their influence in the direction very large, very wealthy and very well connected people (corporations are legally persons) point. The movie recounts the mechanisms of this influence including congressional votes lobbied, tax codes rewritten and resistors silenced. At its most interesting the film covers the excesses of this power. According to the film, Mosanto, which makes an appearance in most material of this nature, boosts profits by selling seeds that produce non-reproducing plants so that another purchase needs to be made the following year and sues farmers who disagree with their practices. Another corporation buys all of the water rights in part of a South American country so that collecting rainwater becomes a form of stealing which the government enforces on the company's behalf. The examples in the film are many, frankly too many given this is a cinematic release rather than the PBS special it much more assuredly feels like with its multitude of title cards and talking heads most notably Noam Chomsky. Much like a PBS special, the tone is even-handed and civil and makes you understand why Michael Moore earns far more on his screaming, one-sided docs ("Fahrenheit 911") than he does on his more harmonious, balanced offerings ("Sicko"). In short, the movie lacks enough thematic elements to make for a particularly interesting film and the central premise that corporations are very powerful and are profit-driven will shock only the most naïve. As CNBC's Jim Cramer says: "it is government for the corporations, by the corporations and from an investor's standpoint, that is a good thing."

TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews I base this review on the shareware version, currently available for free on YouTube, under the user machbar. It is between 2 and two and a half hours long. This goes into all the damage corporations do, the fact that they are granted rights as if they were individuals(!) and the general callous nature of them. Sounds one-sided? Well, Michael Moore isn't in this for nothing. It is somewhat like propaganda, but at the same time, I can't come up with any real arguments for the other side. I will say that it would be good to have someone from there come in so we could see just how weak their position is, and how based on personal greed it is. It's not difficult to shred their claims with actual facts, and I suppose the choice to not do so was a fear that there might be people who weren't compelled into action by this. With that said, this is a well-done documentary. It is interesting throughout in spite of the running time, and the personal anecdotes, investigative journalism and editing(if it is a tad manipulative at times) all make a convincing case. There is quite a bit of disturbing content in this, and it is effective not only on account of it being real. I recommend this to everyone, though I fear that it is preaching to the converted more than changing any minds. 8/10