CRUDE - 2009
RATED - NR but probably PG-13 for several uses of the 'f' word.
RATINGS - 3 Amazon (5/5), 1,700 Netflix (3.5/5), 136 IMDB (8.0/10).
THEME - Justice
AWARDS - Many awards and nominations at various film festivals.
STORY - I watched this video with high hopes after reading the reviews. It did not live up to the reviews. After all that Wall Street and other 'too big to fail' corporations have done to our country, I really wanted to see a story where a big corporation got what was coming to them for raping the environment and leaving a trail of destruction in the country where they made their fortune. While the film skillfully plays on your emotions with the editing of scenes back and forth between sick babies and sludge filled ponds and rivers where the people live, eat and drink, it is short on facts. It is clearly told from the plaintiffs point of view and that's fine (every 'objective' documentary has a story to tell) but you need to make your case. This was billed as a kind of 'legal thriller' documentary. I tried to look at it from a perspective juror's standpoint. As much as I felt emotionally for the people I don't know if I would be able to convict Chevron based on this film. It is woefully short on medical documentation connecting the dots between what Chevron did to their environment and the cancer outbreaks. There were no statistics of before and after cancer cases or how the environment contributed to the cancer. Also, it would be foolish, based on history, to think the government of Ecuador was an innocent player. Clearly, bribery and payoffs are the way business is done in third world countries, and the film did nothing to reveal the relationship between PetroEcuador and Chevron. Who in the government benefited from all this? What is their responsibility? While I have absolutely no sympathy for Chevron, they are all too easy of a target and it does not seem likely they could have pulled this off without a lot of inside help from government officials. It was also not made clear how much the plaintiff attorneys will benefit from this lawsuit. They are asking for $27 Billion. Are they doing it pro bono? If not, what is their take? As they say, 'follow the money'. Lastly, at the end of the film, they brought in a celebrity activist who contributed nothing to the overall story, just took credit for donating some water purification devices. As they used to say on Dragnet, 'just the facts, ma'am'. I wanted to really like this film but give me the facts, not just an emotional appeal for what seems to be a worthy cause. Watch it to be better informed about how multinational corporations and corrupt third world governments rape their countries and leave the citizens to live with the destruction but if you're on the jury and you vote with your head, I don't think you'll be convinced. Lu G. for Lu's Reviews. 02-27-2010.
Posts
