Best movie of this year hands down!

Awesome Movie

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

As detailed in the film, Monsanto has long been steeped in controversy. During its earliest incarnation at the start of the twentieth century, the company manufactured a series of products which were eventually deemed unacceptably toxic in their applications, including the DDT insecticide, Agent Orange and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB).Monsanto produced the latter in the town of Anniston, Alabama for nearly four decades. When Anniston residents began to link the chemical to increased incidents of cancer, retardation and a variety of other chronic illnesses and abnormalities, they successfully sued the company to the tune of 700 million dollars.The film spends much effort in exploring the dangers of Monsanto's most profitable product - Roundup, a herbicide that has proved enormously popular in both homes and agricultural communities for its ability to kill weeds. The filmmakers discover that the company was reprimanded twice for false advertising in claiming the product was biodegradable and friendly to the environment. Many concerns persist regarding its potential long-term effects on the environment and human health as proper testing has never been officially sanctioned.

Marie-Monique Robin is a journalist which has found the new source of all truth: Google and anecdotal evidence.She is not new to sensationalist subjects. Some of her movies revolve around Urban Legends like "Organ Snatchers" and "Le Sixième Sens, science et paranormal" which present paranormal activities in a very complaisant manner. Who doesn't like a crunchy scary story once in a while?This movie present Monsanto as the big bad bad guy in Walt Disney style.One of her point about the big M. is the infamous case of the Indian suicide which I find disgusting to use: this a simple appeal to emotions using somebody else suffering without any proof whatsoever. This Indian suicide story has been debunked so many times. Today about 90% of the cotton in India is indeed GMO. Reality doesn't match the horror stories of Marie-Monique.This movie doesn't stand the test of time because it is an ideologically oriented piece that falls apart under scientific scrutiny. Just a gathering of fears mongering and loosely tied together bunch of anecdote.

Unlike other reviewers, I didn't feel that the interviews were a soft spot detracting from the film. Some of the *interviewees*, on the other hand, were by turns creepy or wooden. Which may be a side effect of being questioned on camera about their complicity in activities that are potentially poisoning millions.One of the points made, and deserving of deeper treatment in my opinion, was the revolving door of Washington / corporate America. I'd thought that the negative effects of this merry-go-round were more or less confined to the US. Sadly, this movie made me see that is not the case.The film will become quickly dated by the use of what was, at the time, slick, new, technology; i.e. the white iMac. Used as a linking device / segue mechanism it was an adequate contrivance, but I feel the film would have been better served by simply using a human face or voice. The same holds true for using Google as a supporting actor. Both are sooo last decade, while humans, well, we're timeless (for now).Overall I gave a high rating for bringing together subject material I'd either not been aware of, or knew of but now saw in a broader context. The only "ding" I'd give it is for length. I feel the points it had to make could have been made to march in a much faster fashion.

I was eventually able to ignore the long scenes of Robin on her iMac browsing Google for all the world's truth and pay attention to her interviewees.I expected this documentary to have me grousing about hippies and giving up on it, but after the first third, it got better and had some interviewees who made really persuasive points, such as Monsanto's smear campaign against critical scientists, the contamination of non-GM crops in Mexico, and the socio-economic consequences of Monsanto's control of seed supplies and multinational agribusiness in general. I was interested in the science, but the documentary didn't cover the science nearly as well as it covered the suppression of scientific criticism and information by Monsanto (and its lawyers) and the FDA/US government -- not in a conspiratorial way, but with traditional political and economic motivations devoid of concern for consequences or democracy.If nothing else, it's worth noting that many of the people -- from scientists to farmers -- didn't distinguish between Monsanto and "the Americans", so we're being held responsible for whatever it is Monsanto is up to.Needed more concise arguments and less Google.