McLibel

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..)

I found it interest That the facts get turned around so the critics are so good. Never mind that McDonalds actually won their lawsuit against the libelous info the 2 put out and won a $40,000 lawsuit against them. Only suit they won was against British government not Mc Donald's, and seeing a side note Mc Donald's never did press the pair for the money. BTW, I am NOT a McDonalds fan or customer, just wanted to see what really happened.

McLibel is the story of a single father and a part time bar worker, who were taken to court by McDonalds. Thus causing the longest libel trial in British history and the biggest PR disaster in corporate history. All because two people refused to say sorry.

In the documentary Dave Morris comments that if there is a David vs. Goliath story then Goliath is the public, and David is the corporation.

So if anybody is worrying that this documentary provides a one sided view of events, they should relax as McDonalds has a million dollar marketing campaign, whilst Dave and Helen had nothing, not even legal aid.

And this is their story, of how they continued to fight against impossible odds, increasing court decisions against them and revelations that McDonalds had used private detectives to spy on them.

It is appropriate that this story be told in classic Low Budget style, as Franny Armstorng armed with her Dad's camera embarked to tell their story not knowing that it to would take years of her life.

The film contains re-enactments by Ken Loach and in this re-released version brings us up to present day as having finished the libel trial, Helen and Dave took on the British Government in the European Court of Human rights, challenging the governments libel laws. Laws that McDonalds had for years used against institutions like the BBC and the Guardian newspaper.

Finally available on DVD McLibel is a great addition to a growing library of material on the Globalisation debate, achieved by two people who believed in what they were doing and one filmmaker's dedication to their story.

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.

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.