I'm amazed by the number of reviewers who were surprised to find "socialist" or "left-leaning" commentators being interviewed for this documentary--especially those reviewers who mention the original documentary favorably. Since the thesis of the documentary is (essentially) that corporations are dangerous, I'm not sure who else they expected to be interviewed. The film features some of the same interviewees from the first film: Robert Reich, Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky, Vandana Shiva, and so on. It does also feature a couple corporate representatives, but not the number that were featured in the longer and more in-depth first documentary.
As the film indicates with clips from Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman, since the 1970's, a market-based neoliberal philosophy has come to dominate political dialogue to the point that de-regulation is a central mantra of conservatives the world over (not to mention most centrist liberals). I would challenge these reviewers who demand a more "fair and balanced" presentation to scour the internet for a mainstream right-wing politician, thinker or activist that is strongly against corporate consolidation of power. You won't find one. It would be difficult, but not impossible, do do so within the mainstream centrists (Democrats in the US, or liberal parties in other countries), as well.
On the other hand, if the demand is to present these interviews alongside those who speak on behalf of the corporation, we certainly don't need further examples of that: our lives are inundated with constant pro-corporate messages, whether explicitly in advertising, or implicitly in the various privatized systems we have to navigate on an everyday basis--you are reading this review on a website that has been owned by Amazon since 1998. The pro-corporate perspective is also represented in the first film, which is more broadly about the history of corporations and their general methods of operation; this "sequel" feels more like an addendum or appendix than something to be viewed in a vacuum. In other words, if you haven't seen the first film, you should watch that first, as it is certainly still relevant and revealing.
Chris Hedges is correct that it is hard to view the complex of issues presented currently without feeling a deep sense of despair. I think that is why the second half of the film, which I see here derided by others, is both important, and ironically the subject of such angst. We are at an impasse and many of us feel powerless to counteract global forces that seem to be spiraling toward inevitable destruction. To present this documentary without some iota of hope would not only be depressing, it would be irresponsible. In the internet age, where raising someone's ire is the surest way to generate traffic, and therefore revenue, we should take at least some time to focus on the causes that bring us together, not just the ones that piss us all off.
