NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Stephanie There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

TheEmulator23 Now I don't adore McDonald's or even think their food is particularly good. Do I think they do things that aren't completely fair? Of course I do, but so do all sorts of companies. I think the people that refused to say sorry are two people that have WAY too much time on their hands. I like documentaries very much, but I hate it when they are completely one-sided A-LA Michael Moore! I think it is a shame about some of the practices of companies, but what these people forget is that companies aren't really out to make friends, they are out to MAKE MONEY! I think it is quite hilarious, that these people just wouldn't say sorry and get on with their lives. I am sure it is the principle of the thing, but honestly, get a life! Was this documentary good, Not really, was it even very well done, not in the least. I am sure fast food is a huge reason that people (particularly in America) are becoming more and more obese. The problem w/ blaming McDonald's is the fact that even though their food is not particularly good for you, it is the fault of all the lazy people that can't make basic foods for themselves. It's every individuals fault when they become obese then blame McDonald's for all their health problems. It is the new thing especially in the U.S. to blame EVERYONE else for their problems, which is especially sad. Does McDonald's do a lot of things that are perhaps morally wrong, absolutely! So do all sorts of companies, not just the almighty McDonald's. This documentary is all against McDonald's and not even one thing says some of the good things they do. If everyone despises McDonald's so much, then they can just stop going. Until that happens there will always be some that hate companies for whatever reason they so choose.

sherbetsaucers What happens when the biggest name in the fast food world decides to crush two insignificant protesters using England's surprisingly strict libel laws? Why, old Ronald gets a black eye of course! This movie charts the events surrounding the 'McDonald's Restaurants v Morris & Steel' court case - which has become known as the McLibel case - an action filed by McDonalds in protest against a pamphlet being given out by a small group called London Greenpeace. In the past McDonald's have threatened legal action against some massive names, including The Guardian, BBC, Today Newspaper, Channel 4 and of course that giant institution, Hatfield Polytechnic. Every one of these people backed down and apologised. Helen Steel and David Morris didn't.This film really expresses three different things. Firstly it obviously follows the trial, and thus highlights some of the nastier practices indulged in by McDonald's. This documentary does not try to remain impartial, but neither does it do anything more than report on what went on. In the 2005 documentary there is no voice for McDonald's, but considering that executives at McDonald's would now rather be seen eating at Burger King then comment on the record about the McLibel trial, this isn't a surprise! As an insight into the frankly despicable practices McDonalds have gotten away - and continue to get away - with, it is absorbing. It shows the kind of cynical marketing practices McDonald's get up to, the most disturbing being the targeting of children. I personally have never been a member of the 'clowns are scary' club, but very few things that I have seen in my life unsettled me more than the sight of Ronald McDonald leading innocent children to chant his name as loudly as they could The fact that McDonalds actually hired private investigators to infiltrate the local campaigning group is actually quite amusing. (The investigators learned that a group of campaigners banked at the local branch of the Co-Operative Bank… Really… These people sometimes charge by the hour!) Another fascinating moment was the recorded 'secret' meeting that McDonald's had with Helen and David once they realised that the case was really beginning to hurt them. Interestingly in the 2005 release the voices are simply 'Mr. X' and 'Mr. Y', however in the 1998 movie they are identified as Shelby Yastrow, Executive Vice-Presdent, and Dick Starman, Senior Vice-President. However the most telling piece came when Geoffrey Giuliano, a former Ronald McDonald no less, actually compared himself at the time to Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. This is not a nice person to be comparing yourself to! Secondly the movie looks at the political views of Helen and David. This takes a back seat to the action of the trial, and rightly so. The pair are socialists and some of their ideas and ideals are interesting, but the facts that they are socialist and that they also fought McDonalds are to my mind very separate things. I am not agree with all of their political views myself, but I definitely agree with the action the pair took.Thirdly and, to my mind most importantly, the film highlights the inherent injustice within the English Libel laws. The very fact that McDonald's, an institution as American as Mount Rushmore, used this country's laws to oppress opinions that would be constitutionally protected in the United States is hugely interesting. Keir Starmer, a barrister who chose to give the pair legal aid for free, seems utterly affronted by the lack of support available to those people being sued, with no legal aid being offered at all. He also implies that, had the two had the same resources that McDonald's had to spend on the case then some of the findings against them would have been different, most notably the claim that the destruction of the Amazonian rainforests was in part due to McDonald's demand for cattle. Shockingly during the case it arose that McDonald's had used contacts within the Metropolitin Police Force to get information about the defendants. Scotland Yard were sued, ordered to pay Helen and Dave £10,000 and give a full apology. In fact the case itself , which was technically a victory for McDonald's, was brought to the European Court of Human Rights, who in 2005 gave an absolutely devastating verdict, ruling that the case had breached Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.I cannot over-emphasise how badly McDonald's come across during this movie. Ironically the majority of it isn't because of editorial bias. The real reason is a gentleman called Paul Preston. Throughout the film he is the face of McDonalds, being President and Chief Executive Officer of McDonald's UK. Perhaps it's because of my British upbringing but the sight of a rather sweaty, middle class American in an expensive suit just screams the words fat and cat. He had all the charisma of an underdone chicken nugget and managed to personify every stereotype of corporate greed I can imagine.

Homogeek McLibel could have been an underdog story, but film makers had a different agenda. Morgan Spurlock (Supers Size Me) and Michael Moore (Fahrenheit 911) know how to make a documentary entertaining and still get their point across. You may disagree with the filmmakers but it is all-consuming watching the filmmaker unfold the argument in front of you. A more descriptive title would have been 'Greenpeace vs. McDonalds'. Franny Armstrong and the London Greenpeace folks shot for the publicity and controversy. McLibel (read Greenpeace) makes some valid points: • in the UK when you go to trail you get legal representation unless if it is a libel case then you are on your own. Since large corporations have so much in resources ($$$) everyone will just apology rather than face an expensive court battle. • McDonalds and other large corporations use their power and money to affect our buying habits through our children. • Many corporations underpay their worker. However there is no counter-point. The movie spent 83 minutes explaining and fighting what is wrong with society but as far as a solution: 2 minutes to say approximately:'mega corporations are evil. We believe individuals should be making their own decisions on what products and services should be made available.' I see this as a radical stand and I am not sure how Greenpeace actually envisions this utopia. Are they suggesting that everyone should grow their own vegetables like one of the protagonist? Should society be sourcing commercial goods locally? Should we constrain advertising so we eliminate the 'push' market and end up with a 'pull' economy? All of these are a radical change in society. Sorry Greenpeace, there are things I dislike about our society but a socialist reform is not the answer. (6 people found this review helpful.)

justsomeregularguy "It is about the importance of freedom of speech now that 'MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS' (BOM-BOM-BOM!) are more powerful than countries." What a shameless attempt to turn pseudo-convictions into dollars (or pounds, in this case). It seems painfully clear that the release of this documentary is a nauseating attempt to ride on the coat tails of Super Size Me. I know it culminated in 1997 or so, but that just makes its 2005 release all the more transparent for what it really is: Shameless.The types of people who enjoy these types of films are so jaded toward "THE CORPORATIONS," that monolithic, hell spun entity, because they're so successful. What it comes down to is pure, unadulterated jealousy. Yet ironically, those same champions of egalitarianism; the self-styled "Davids" of David and Goliath lore, are pretty quick to engage in practices which might help to line their pockets, as evidenced by this film's shamelessly belated release. Steer clear of this sore loser propaganda.