Hot Coffee

"Eye-opening indictment of the way big business spins the media." —Variety

"Stunning debut … Sends audiences out of the theater thinking in a brand new way." —Washington Post

"Entertaining, informative … vividly illuminating." —Hollywood Reporter

I can't top Variety and the Washington Post, but I can tell you "Hot Coffee" is an unbelievably informative story that questions the governments true intentions when it comes to tort reform and the mandatory arbitration argument.

I loved it and I hope you do to!

Yes this film covers one side of the tort reform and mandatory arbitration argument. Yes the cases presented have been chosen to ignite a certain emotional response. But is this a bad thing? In a nation where it seems that the people have grown jaded to government actions, it takes a certain amount of emotional stirring to get them off their seat. This film does just that.

Hot Coffee shows us what damage can be done when we listen to PR or shoddy journalism without investigating their claims further. Before watching this film if asked about the leading story, enter McDonald's infamous coffee spill, I would have been right in line with those ready to condemn the clumsy patron. But after being presented with more of the facts from the case I am now appalled at how quickly I jumped on a bandwagon led by ignorance and corporate damage control. Susan Saladoff succeeds in bringing these issues down to a level we can all understand. From what started the drive for tort reform and how it can hurt the victims of these cases, to what measures have been taken by big business to protect their interests, each story presented guides us through the evolution of this process with poignant relevance.

In reference to a previous review I also wanted to clear up that in no way does this film try to pass the buck. No one, including the victims, denies there were things they could have done differently to help prevent these accidents from occurring. What is being found in each of these cases is a consistent amount of gross negligence on the part of the companies involved. None of these examples were the first of their type submitted to the businesses. So how do you get these types of corporations to changed flawed policy? You hit them where it hurts. This is why the jury, not the victim (in this case), sought such high dollar damages, to prevent this sort of accident from occurring again. If you missed that the first time, you might wanna give this documentary another go.

With that said, Hot Coffee is an effective and engaging documentary with a clear message. This viewer came away feeling more empowered, and will think twice next time he signs the dotted line.

. . . and ignored them all.

Anyone who actually watched this film would know that the McDonald's case is only the first of several cases discussed in the movie. Anyone who knows about the McDonald's case would know that the injuries suffered by this 79 yr old woman were outrageous. She required skin grafts all over her crotch, most of her buttocks, and much of her upper thighs. She had third degree burns so bad she almost died. This woman was no sleaze, no con artist-- she worked her whole life.

Other reviewers seem to ignore that there has been a concerted movement by Karl Rove and his US Chamber of Commerce pals to stack the deck against individual rights in favor of corporations under the guise of "tort reform" and some of their tactics have been appalling-- and this film discusses that as well.

This film, much like Gasland, tells a story that needs to be told, and it's great that HBO has the kahunas to air it.

I saw Hot Coffee at the San Francisco Film Festival last night (4/22/2011). Trial lawyer Saladoff has done well with this debut documentary feature and the case studies were presented well.

That being said, I think it needs greater balance in order to work as a serious statement. The subjects of tort reform and mandatory arbitration are her targets in directing this film. 4 cases are presented supporting her thesis that they are damaging to democracy and not supportive to the masses who are looking for accountability when treated badly by corporations.

I am not defending tort reform or mandatory arbitration because I don't know enough about the issues or the subject. After seeing this movie, I feel the same way, in fact I feel a thirst to hear from the other side as this film had me feeling manipulated by cherry picked cases and emotionalism. I don't doubt that there will sometimes be harm done to the individual by corporations but there are also "opportunistic" cases brought forth by individuals when the situation calls for it. There was no addressing this in the film and no explication of what happens to professionals such as doctors when they are, perhaps, unjustly accused by individuals.

Saladoff's claim is that the "other side's" story has been told for the past 25 years. I don't feel I know that story well enough and would have appreciated more background of why tort reform and mandatory arbitration exist in the first place and, perhaps, even a story or two where their existence may have worked in everybody's favor.

When all was said and done, the film painted a dire situation for and effectively raised strong emotion against, tort reform and mandatory arbitration. I felt a trifle manipulated in the process.

This is the "other side" of the McDonalds coffee tale, along with a lot more interesting information on tort reform, the buying of judicial elections, and the signing away of our legal rights without our knowledge. While some may call it slanted to one side, the issues have been fully explored from the opposing view in the media, so I found this perspective very interesting.

Please don't limit yourself to just the coffee issue- this is not what the movie is about. There is a good bit of information packed into a rather short period of time, and while it might be a bit slow paced, it is better viewed completely. If you are interested in how big corporations skew our system in the United States, you will enjoy this film.