IMDb रेटिंग
7.4/10
44 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
विश्व अर्थव्यवस्था के पतन के बारे माइकल मूर की डॉक्यूमैंटरी आर्थिक मंदी के मूल कारणों की जाँच करेगी जिसमें कॉर्पोरेट और राजनीतिक गतिविधियाँ शामिल हैं जिन्होंने इसे लाने में मदद की।विश्व अर्थव्यवस्था के पतन के बारे माइकल मूर की डॉक्यूमैंटरी आर्थिक मंदी के मूल कारणों की जाँच करेगी जिसमें कॉर्पोरेट और राजनीतिक गतिविधियाँ शामिल हैं जिन्होंने इसे लाने में मदद की।विश्व अर्थव्यवस्था के पतन के बारे माइकल मूर की डॉक्यूमैंटरी आर्थिक मंदी के मूल कारणों की जाँच करेगी जिसमें कॉर्पोरेट और राजनीतिक गतिविधियाँ शामिल हैं जिन्होंने इसे लाने में मदद की।
- पुरस्कार
- 4 जीत और कुल 15 नामांकन
Jimmy Carter
- Self
- (आर्काइव फ़ूटेज)
Elijah Cummings
- Self
- (as Congressman Elijah Cummings)
John McCain
- Self
- (आर्काइव फ़ूटेज)
Sarah Palin
- Self
- (आर्काइव फ़ूटेज)
Ronald Reagan
- Self
- (आर्काइव फ़ूटेज)
Franklin D. Roosevelt
- Self
- (आर्काइव फ़ूटेज)
- (as Franklin Delano Roosevelt)
Arnold Schwarzenegger
- Self
- (आर्काइव फ़ूटेज)
Chesley Sullenberger
- Self
- (आर्काइव फ़ूटेज)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
Controversial documentarian Michael Moore has taken on some important news topics over the past two decades but perhaps none has affected every American more than the financial meltdown of Wall Street in 2008 as depicted in Capitalism: A Love Story. Done in his customary style of news clips, interviews, and enactments, he has fashioned a convincing indictment of greedy bank executives while being engaging and at times enlightening.
He points out a startling fact: We used to be one income family, Wall Street and corporate profits were guided by sound principles, and our country had no business competition. It's a kind of history lesson courtesy of Moore as he also notes parallels between the demise of Wall Street and that of the Roman Empire, a comparison not without merit. His thesis is that since President Ronald Reagan came into office, the influence of Wall Street has increased to the point that, while Congress and the U.S. Treasury have promoted financial deregulation, many of them have direct links to financial giants such as Goldman Sachs. It would seem on surface to be a major conflict of interest, and that is the point. A handful of CEO's have benefited from running the country as a corporation and costing millions of jobs and livelihoods.
Moore ties news stories to an increasing pattern of corporate greed. There is a juvenile facility in Pennsylvania financed by taxpayer money and corrupt public officials. There are college students beholden to banks with student loans, and we witness news reports of a recent plane crash in Buffalo, New York, for what appears to be the lack of funds for safety issues. Then there is the surprising practice of businesses like Wal-Mart that take out life insurance policies on its employees and collecting on the benefits. By contrast, he does show examples of companies owned by workers that operate efficiently and at a profit. His point is there can be win-win situations.
As Wall Street sold 'derivatives', a risky form of corporate gambling, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan suggested that Americans tap the equity in their homes, and thus came the refinance boom for banks and a new found wealth for the masses-or was it? Using a home like a bank was a formula for financial disaster as the housing industry collapsed with foreclosures and the banking industry fell too. Moore makes his point with footage of actual foreclosures as sheriffs evict homeowners, and the cruelty is not only losing a home but in the cottage industry that has taken advantage of this agonizing process. Added to this is the preferential treatment that CEO's gave to each other and many lawmakers regarding mortgage approvals. The question that keeps being asked by Moore and others is 'where were the regulators' in all this?
As Congress debated on how to repair the economy with a bailout of as much as $700 billion of taxpayer money, Wall Street used media abetted fear to manipulate lawmakers. It was a politics of fear. But not everyone was buying into the fear. Some members of Congress were brave enough to tell a sobering tale of a lack of oversight versus corporate bonuses being fed by the bailout.
Moore shows that some people are fighting back. A new President (Obama) ushers in the potential for change. People are fighting foreclosures and forcing banks to prove chain of title. The laid off workers at Republic Doors refused to exit the factory, and with media coverage and a supportive President, Bank of America caves in and agrees to pay the workers what is owed to them. This event is not without precedent as Moore points out in 1936, workers at a GM Flint, Michigan plant also fought back. In an ironic, fascinating piece of history of what might have been, President Franklin Roosevelt proposed but never lived to see a second Bill of Rights which would address virtually every important concern for Americans including health care, education, and financial security.
Then Moore makes this observation based on a private corporate memo that says 1% of the population in this country has 95% of the wealth but that the other 99% have an equal vote and the power to make changes (yet still hope to be part of the rich). It is this equal vote that scares the corporate powers. His conclusion is that the only hope for this country is for democracy to work.
Some things don't come off well in the film; Moore appears to be grandstanding when he rents an armored car to make a citizen's arrest of the CEOs of Wall Street and get back the public's money. He even takes crime scene tape to cordon off bank doors. Also, an interview with actor Wallace Shawn seems a bit out of place. Wouldn't an interview with an industry insider have worked better? You may not agree with everything Moore espouses, but some of the information should cause anyone to research the facts and draw their own conclusions. If you are a fan of his previous films Sicko or Fahrenheit 9/11, then you will appreciate Capitalism: A Love Story.
He points out a startling fact: We used to be one income family, Wall Street and corporate profits were guided by sound principles, and our country had no business competition. It's a kind of history lesson courtesy of Moore as he also notes parallels between the demise of Wall Street and that of the Roman Empire, a comparison not without merit. His thesis is that since President Ronald Reagan came into office, the influence of Wall Street has increased to the point that, while Congress and the U.S. Treasury have promoted financial deregulation, many of them have direct links to financial giants such as Goldman Sachs. It would seem on surface to be a major conflict of interest, and that is the point. A handful of CEO's have benefited from running the country as a corporation and costing millions of jobs and livelihoods.
Moore ties news stories to an increasing pattern of corporate greed. There is a juvenile facility in Pennsylvania financed by taxpayer money and corrupt public officials. There are college students beholden to banks with student loans, and we witness news reports of a recent plane crash in Buffalo, New York, for what appears to be the lack of funds for safety issues. Then there is the surprising practice of businesses like Wal-Mart that take out life insurance policies on its employees and collecting on the benefits. By contrast, he does show examples of companies owned by workers that operate efficiently and at a profit. His point is there can be win-win situations.
As Wall Street sold 'derivatives', a risky form of corporate gambling, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan suggested that Americans tap the equity in their homes, and thus came the refinance boom for banks and a new found wealth for the masses-or was it? Using a home like a bank was a formula for financial disaster as the housing industry collapsed with foreclosures and the banking industry fell too. Moore makes his point with footage of actual foreclosures as sheriffs evict homeowners, and the cruelty is not only losing a home but in the cottage industry that has taken advantage of this agonizing process. Added to this is the preferential treatment that CEO's gave to each other and many lawmakers regarding mortgage approvals. The question that keeps being asked by Moore and others is 'where were the regulators' in all this?
As Congress debated on how to repair the economy with a bailout of as much as $700 billion of taxpayer money, Wall Street used media abetted fear to manipulate lawmakers. It was a politics of fear. But not everyone was buying into the fear. Some members of Congress were brave enough to tell a sobering tale of a lack of oversight versus corporate bonuses being fed by the bailout.
Moore shows that some people are fighting back. A new President (Obama) ushers in the potential for change. People are fighting foreclosures and forcing banks to prove chain of title. The laid off workers at Republic Doors refused to exit the factory, and with media coverage and a supportive President, Bank of America caves in and agrees to pay the workers what is owed to them. This event is not without precedent as Moore points out in 1936, workers at a GM Flint, Michigan plant also fought back. In an ironic, fascinating piece of history of what might have been, President Franklin Roosevelt proposed but never lived to see a second Bill of Rights which would address virtually every important concern for Americans including health care, education, and financial security.
Then Moore makes this observation based on a private corporate memo that says 1% of the population in this country has 95% of the wealth but that the other 99% have an equal vote and the power to make changes (yet still hope to be part of the rich). It is this equal vote that scares the corporate powers. His conclusion is that the only hope for this country is for democracy to work.
Some things don't come off well in the film; Moore appears to be grandstanding when he rents an armored car to make a citizen's arrest of the CEOs of Wall Street and get back the public's money. He even takes crime scene tape to cordon off bank doors. Also, an interview with actor Wallace Shawn seems a bit out of place. Wouldn't an interview with an industry insider have worked better? You may not agree with everything Moore espouses, but some of the information should cause anyone to research the facts and draw their own conclusions. If you are a fan of his previous films Sicko or Fahrenheit 9/11, then you will appreciate Capitalism: A Love Story.
Michael Moore has never been objective. No documentary maker ever was. When you chose a subject, you've already taken some kind of position and Moore doesn't try to hide what he thinks.
And he shows us worker's families being driven from their homes and brokers making profit on it. He shows business companies taking life insurances on their employed and taking all the money when the employed dies. He says that the Congress is in the hands of Wall Street and especially Goldman and Sachs. There are more examples.
The interesting question is why Michael Moore is so alone making these kind of films in the US. The answer is probably that the investors don't want him or anybody else to do them. They want to go on, treating the American people in the most terrifying ways. And since money seems to decide so much in that country, such films are very seldom made. But you're not supposed to know.
And he shows us worker's families being driven from their homes and brokers making profit on it. He shows business companies taking life insurances on their employed and taking all the money when the employed dies. He says that the Congress is in the hands of Wall Street and especially Goldman and Sachs. There are more examples.
The interesting question is why Michael Moore is so alone making these kind of films in the US. The answer is probably that the investors don't want him or anybody else to do them. They want to go on, treating the American people in the most terrifying ways. And since money seems to decide so much in that country, such films are very seldom made. But you're not supposed to know.
I wasn't sure what to expect, but I was very impressed with the combination of comedy, tragedy, and historical explanation. Yes, there is a bit (or more) of playing to the camera by Moore himself--however, I enjoyed the grandstanding--kind of an investigative revenge fantasy to physically call attention to one of the biggest crime scenes ever. While the use of 1950s instructional film segments is played for laughs, other historical footage is literally breath-taking. My NY audience was utterly silent when we saw what FDR wanted to do, and might have done, had he lived longer. MY REQUEST, at least for the DVD version, would be to have more labels on the lesser-known political figures, so we could more readily identify the few, brave souls who spoke out in vain. I plan to see it again.
10pefrss
I saw the movie last night at a free screening. The theater was packed and after the movie started you could not hear a sound from the audience for the rest of the two hours besides two or three times when applause errupted.
You could feel that everybody in the audience really got the message.
I only hope that Michael's parting words will come true and everybody will join his fight. As long as we are being led like pigs to the slaughter nothing will change. We have to stand up against the insurance companies, the exploiting employers, the greedy merchants, the predatory lenders. If we all say no, things will change.
I will not be punished again for pre-existent conditions, car accidents caused by somebody else, retributions because somebody stole my wallet and I was punished. I will not fall buy trash anymore which breaks in a short time and cannot be repaired. I will not be talked into buying useless gimmicks which change every few months. etc.etc.
Thank you Michael Moore, without you, I would have lost hope a long time ago.
You could feel that everybody in the audience really got the message.
I only hope that Michael's parting words will come true and everybody will join his fight. As long as we are being led like pigs to the slaughter nothing will change. We have to stand up against the insurance companies, the exploiting employers, the greedy merchants, the predatory lenders. If we all say no, things will change.
I will not be punished again for pre-existent conditions, car accidents caused by somebody else, retributions because somebody stole my wallet and I was punished. I will not fall buy trash anymore which breaks in a short time and cannot be repaired. I will not be talked into buying useless gimmicks which change every few months. etc.etc.
Thank you Michael Moore, without you, I would have lost hope a long time ago.
10Muttines
Reading some of the other reviews of Capitalism: A Love Story, it soon becomes clear that those leaving low scores either haven't seen the film or have a particular agenda to smear the movie - one reviewer seems to think Angela Merkel's Germany (a centre right politician!) is 'Socialist'! It is this deliberate dumbing down in America of issues surrounding what capitalism is and does (as opposed to socialism) that enabled the conditions for the banks to exploit the worst off in American society and force the taxpayers to foot the bill by bailing them out - and why Americans are still without a universal free healthcare system. Moore takes great pains, and succeeds, in highlighting how this culture of demonising anything that criticises rampant and unregulated free market economics has been firmly established in US society. He has clearly undertaken a measure of research in the production - numerous sources/interviews and facts are used in the narrative - but the best thing for me was that he still manages to keep the more complicated aspects of banking and loans extremely accessible (I'm hopeless at maths!).
Comments that Moore is a socialist are extremely juvenile - Moore is a socialist in the same way that Ghandi was a terrorist or Jesus was a trouble maker.
All in all a very informative and inspiring documentary that dares to mention the elephant taking a big dump in the room.
Comments that Moore is a socialist are extremely juvenile - Moore is a socialist in the same way that Ghandi was a terrorist or Jesus was a trouble maker.
All in all a very informative and inspiring documentary that dares to mention the elephant taking a big dump in the room.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाThe footage of President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposing a "Second Bill of Rights" was believed to be lost until Michael Moore's film crew rediscovered it in a South Carolina library in 2008.
- गूफ़The film depicts a boarded-up house in Bellington, Washington. There is no such city in the state of Washington; it likely meant to say Bellingham, Washington.
- भाव
Michael Moore: Do you have any advice for me?
Wall Street Professional: Don't make any more movies.
- क्रेज़ी क्रेडिट"I sincerely believe... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies." - Thomas Jefferson, 1816
- कनेक्शनFeatured in The Jay Leno Show: एपिसोड #1.2 (2009)
- साउंडट्रैकMoving On
from The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)
Words and Music by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis
Courtesy of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is Capitalism: A Love Story?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- भाषाएं
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- The New Movie
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- Chevrolet Plants, फ़्लिंट, मिशिगन, संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका(old GM plant)
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $2,00,00,000(अनुमानित)
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $1,43,63,397
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $2,31,964
- 27 सित॰ 2009
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $1,74,36,509
- चलने की अवधि
- 2 घं 7 मि(127 min)
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.85 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें