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.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Skyler Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

miloservic Friedman is like a leader of a cult as to economics? that's a joke, even some senior scholars don't give a shit. i studied economics for 6 years, at last i finally understand what economic is , it's not a science as it claimed at all, it's only a tool, a tool for brainwashers to control people's think.

Edgar Soberon Torchia It is as old as humankind is, but we only react when our stomachs are empty (and that is not a privilege of Marxist regimes). All over the world the ordinary people look the other way when told that actions have always been taken to control our planet (and of course its economy). I was not surprised with what I saw and heard in this fine documentary, but my info about the who, what, where and when of the whole Neoliberalism business was too vague. Therefore, when I see a film like this I appreciate to be illustrated, but I am mainly surprised at the wickedness of some human beings. My only regret is that "The Shock Doctrine" is a product from a specific time; it was made in the first decade of this century, so it ends with the Obama government. Nevertheless, the information it gives us is still valid to analyze the present. If you prefer to label this as leftist, propaganda or biased thought, well, it is your right to do so and believe in what you want. From my perspective, I do believe that such option leads us all to remain blindfold. I do not pretend things are exactly as described here, but the film does help to make us aware, a bit wiser and conscious that our rights are violated on a daily basis. We best stop believing it happens in "other countries". All of us, up and down, left and right, white and black, are subject to the decisions of evil, greedy persons, persons as those that were expelled from the temple in the Bible, as those that complain about the holocaust they were victim of, without thinking about all the wrong they do to people around the globe with their avaricious economic plans.

paul2001sw-1 We're all familiar with economic shock therapy, the idea that sometimes a massive destabilisation of the economy is the first step towards recovery. What Naomi Klein argues in her book, 'The Shock Doctrine', is that chaos is not just an occasionally necessary precursor of reform, but it rather exploited or at worst engineered by reform's proponents, because the consequences of the changes proposed would not be accepted by the people if offered to them a la carte in a less pressured environment. Michael Winterbottom's film develops Klein's arguments, and presents a fairly conventional alternative history of the world. But there are still some interesting details: I didn't know that it was Eisenhower, of all people, who first warned about the military-industrial complex; and it's welcome to see a different interpretation of what happened in Chile in the 1970s to the outrageous story told by Niall Fergusson in his recent BBC series, 'A History of Money'. Yet I still felt slightly disappointed by this film, because while it exposes the lies of the new right to be friends of freedom and democracy (by showing how they need to suppress freedom to get their ideas through), it doesn't address the other part of the argument, namely, whether their economic ideas are basically sound. Perhaps it does indeed take unpopular policies to rescue broken economies; one can dispute that this belief justifies coercion, but should a rational people accept shock as a price worth paying? There are lots of good arguments that say no, but the film doesn't make them; the case that equality is an aid to the efficiency of a country, as well as a moral good in itself, is here taken for granted, although this is arguably the key point of difference between left and right. I fear that this film will not convert anyone while the right's most insidious claim, that a competitive jungle is, however distasteful, the best of all possible worlds, goes unchallenged.

amaliece When you base a film upon a very fixed point of view, in my opinion, you have two options. You either spring for objectivity, within the realm of possibility, or you side overwhelmingly with the point of view. I have not read Naomi Klein's work, but since she has been accredited the manuscript, I find it sound to believe that this film is her total point of view. According to it, Capitalism is a tried and failed project that should be replaced with it's counterpart - a large, public governance. The film starts in 1951 with the development of shock therapy as metaphor for the consequences of the same technique employed with society. To be specific, the shocks with which war, terror and other streamline upsetting events have altered history. Per Ms. Klein's theory they have proved useful to those of a capitalistic persuasion, who have utilized, shall we say, a moment of weakness in larger circumstances to push through radical changes. Changes that would eventually lead to the reason we have had a Darwinian economical system since after WW2. The course of the film shows the awful situations in Chile, Argentina and Russia to mention a few, the way they were handled by America and Britain, and the results. Unfortunately the film had a lot of statements, but failed to follow through with thorough factual proof and the choice of images as well as length of certain horrid war clips, I felt, left the viewer with a thirst for the whole story. In the end, the film mentions Obama's comparisons to FDR citing that only if we "make him do it", as FDR would say at the end of staff meetings in his presidency, we can change the wreck in which our faith in capitalism have landed us. Too bad is that Obama has campaigned for the cease of relentlessly ideological battles against one another, for neither being liberal nor democratic nor republican. Just plain reasonable. I think maybe Winterbottom and Whitecross' film would have benefited from taking this certain point of view. Even though the film puts the spotlight on history that should late be forgotten and needs to be put in perspective, it still fails to make the viewer feel well-informed. It rather seems to be rallying for the viewer to join the cause.