McLibel

This movie was fun compared to other documentaries. I think it did a very good job of humanizing its protagonists, who were a couple of grassroots organizers who took on a huge corporation, and won.

British Libel law is used by big corporations and individuals to do things they would never be allowed to get away with anywhere else - actually sue people for stating their opinions. The plaintiffs actually had to prove that fast food is bad for us, which is kind of like having to prove the sky is blue...

McDonald's is like a drug pusher, and we the public are like junkies. Let's be honest, we'd all be better off if we lived a vegan lifestyle, and would have less impact on the planet, but where would the fun in that be? Like Mephistopheles, McDonald's and their ilk give us what we want, and we hate them for it. But let's point out the devil is still a devil, even if we give in to his temptations.

First off, I love this movie. I think it has a great message and provides us inspiration to make change. The reason why I'm writing this review is in rebuttal towards an earlier comment who stated that he wished the movie was more balanced. With that, I can honestly say the guy didn't watch the movie.

First off, McDonald's has been in the media for 50+ years selling us junk. If you want to hear the other side of it, turn on your television to any channel and wait a few minutes. Or, go outside in any neighborhood in any state in any country and walk a block or two and you will run into a place where diabetics and future diabetics congregate under golden arches.

To the previous poster, justsomeregularguy, who equivocates the producers of this film to multinational corporations, please explain to me how this documentary has made tens of billions of dollars per annum, like a multinational worth their salt does. Your whole argument, and your anger over a certain type of filmmaker or person fails with a fallacy of that caliber. Read Adorno's The Culture Industry and get over it.

I am SO sick and tired of people accusing any and all director or filmmaker of cashing-in by copying or riding on coattails of others just because they see the flood of remakes/ripoffs/plaigarisms bouncing between Hollywood, Bollywood and Asia (aka The 2006 Oscar winner) and apply that in all cases: Another baseless equivocation! Quite simply, a film like this will hardly make ANY money off direct sales. Most documentaries make their money back due to library acquisitions and television broadcast rights. I really have to question the mind that thinks that a documentary like this is made motivated by greed. Films like the Corporation and Super Size Me are exceptions, and frankly the whole "documentaries are the new blockbuster" paradigm is also way past its sell-by date, and to buy into that is to accept what amounted to hype in the first place. For every Incovenient Truth there are thousands of conventional narrative films. We notice those docs because of their exceptional nature in the film marketplace. Again, McLibel is not exactly Spider-man 3. Let's please keep things in perspective. If anything, you give this film you seem to be angry at way too much credit. You also indirectly insult filmgoers by assuming we're all suckers and wouldn't be able to see past a rip-off and you attempt to privilege yourself as if you know better, by proxy. If anything, it's whatever amount of attention the Palme D'Or has brought to Ken Loach's work that might get some more people to see this. Finally, films of the same subject and type have been made in close proximity to each other; it's called a zeitgeist, and more than one person can tap into it at the same time. The Illusionist/The Prestige for example. Superficially: Costume dramas with magic. On any other, non-reflexive level: Totally different narratives.

One of the things that the protagonists had to explain was that how come their leaflets didn't have McDonald's views on it? They countered that by asking if any McDonald's adverts also talk about how several organizations and many research papers talk about the dangers of consuming McDonald's food.. they insisted that in a world flooded with McDonald's propaganda, their leaflet *was* the balance. So it is with this film. There's a lot of films that favour corporations and show them in a positive light. If you want a balance, go watch those films after you've watched this one.. but please stop harping about balance and being one-sided etc.. this is not a film that seeks to be kind to McD's.. it's a film that seeks to tell the story from the protagonists point of view and they do so extraordinarily well and on a shoestring budget. Anyone who's not talking about that and instead crying about how one sided the film is, is probably not the most unbiased reviewer (if you know what I mean..)

McLibel is a really interesting documentary about 2 people that were activists who were sued by McDonalds for libel. The movie spans 15 years and the lives of the 2 activists who wouldn't apologize to McDonalds. It's not really about a personal attack on McDonald's per say, it's more about the free speech and libel laws in Britain. While I find the movie engaging and the story a true David Vs. Goliath story is one that be told, but it is so one sided that it is frustrating. I understand how the film is against Multi-National corporations and their practices, but it's not fair to have them not have a voice, to allow McDonalds to share their side of the story. Many of the interviews seem staged along with the news reports and the reenactments of the court room scenes are awkward and poorly done. I think it's a landmark case and one that has all the makings of a great documentary, but it's so biased and subjective, all of its power is muted.