4/10
not that good
17 December 2006
The acting is terrible, especially when normal people are told to "act". The only way using non actors works is if they behave naturally, otherwise it's high school play time. I also found the music very annoying, except for the Phillip Glass thrown in there, but even that is distracting, Glass works much better in "Baraka" and "Koyanisqatsi" because there is no dialogue. The final sequence is confusing and aggravating.

It is amazing though that people like James Baker can actually sit there and say the U.S. is a force for good in the world, in 2005! It's incredible the lies that some of these people tell themselves just so they can look at themselves in the mirror.

There are a few good bits, namely the the two economists (looking very much as economists do, stone faced and exceedingly dull) sparring with each other over realism and idealism. One of which seems to get his lunch handed to him when he suggests that there American wealth is more spread out than in 1950. In fact it is much more concentrated.

Lewis Lapham does seem a snooty old bore, looking smugly at this "case studies" throwing off pretentious quote after pretentious quote. Even though he seems to decry the wealthy he offers no other alternative than despair. This film is almost a long guilt ridden apology, almost to say "I'm sorry I sold my soul, but there really is no other way, have pity on me!".
8 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed