tha_mongoose

Today bashing big business is increasingly appealing. Specifically, the mismanagement of government is blamed on multinational corporate takeovers. A case in point is the privatization of the water supply in Banzer Suàrez's authoritarian Bolivia presented as evidence of this argument in 2004's The Corporation, where Noam Chomsky compared the entity of the modern multinational corporation to the slaving enterprise of a former age.

That Banzer's rule led to such a dire financial situation where, in order to appease foreign creditors and continue receiving World Bank loans, he was forced to concede and privatize Bolivia's national water supply in La Paz/El Alto in 1997, and then Cochabamba in 1999, is not mentioned. We are to interpret the 'water wars' that then took place in 2000 and 2005, respectively, as solely the result of Suez, and Biwater/Bechtel's inherent greed.

In this documentary the much-maligned Export Processing Zones (EPZs) are also the subject of inflammatory rhetoric. Naomi Klein emphatically points to these largely tax-free areas in low-cost, labour-abundant cities around the globe in which large multinational corporations are enticed to operate, where "the workers rarely make enough to buy three meals a day let alone feed their local economy".

If we consider basic economic trade theory, we know that, in the real world, national wage rates do, in fact, reflect differences in productivity. In 1975 South Korea was a low-wage-rate low-productivity country, where workers earned 5% of what they did in the US; by 2007 its productivity was around 50% that of the US and its wages had, accordingly, risen.

Where, then, does the blame for the appalling living conditions of labourers in certain Central American and Southeast Asian countries lie? In the corruption of their governments, the weakness of their financial sectors, capital markets, judiciary – in short: the inefficiency of their institutions. That poor people in rich countries should be subsidizing rich people in corrupt poor countries, to paraphrase the late Sir James Goldsmith, is not the result of the liberalization of trade. Rather, it is the fruit of systemic problems in less-developed societies.

I would advise anyone who wishes to watch this documentary to do so with an open mind (i.e. remember that it is very skewed to a particular viewpoint). Because of that, and the fact that it doesn't really offer an objective analysis, I give it 5.

There's only so many films out there that are a true pleasure to glean. The Guard is one of them because it's a piece of art. The kind of movie experience you take things from. Who says you need $60 million budgets to achieve that?

McDonagh and Gleeson must have really clicked, because the latter knows how best to deliver the main character in this, the former's brainchild.

McDonagh blends physical humor with the verbal. There are characters like the young kid on the bike that do much for this type of craft. The first scene in which we see him looks like it was taken from a Jacques Tati picture.

Gleeson is also thus engaged. Boyle succeeds via his physical presence - and Gleeson knows how to amble about and speak without words, and his sublime representation of the Irishman. His accent is pleasing to the ear.

The Guard also offers some memorable glimpses of the beautifully wild Irish landscapes. Add to that a spic and span soundtrack and you have a movie that, with the odd literary reference thrown in, works wonders.

I truly enjoyed this one. Hats off to the genius who made In Bruges. 8/10.

I'll preface this by being completely blunt. After watching the last X- Men, Rattner's bastard child, I was skeptic about another potential waste of my time.

However, what made X-Men: The Last Stand mediocre made First Class splendid. First we have the cast. Halle Berry and Hugh Jackman are both questionable actors. Add Famke Jansen and Ana Paquin and you're heading for disaster. Which is what The Last Stand was. Even Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart couldn't save it, surrounded as they were.

Fast forward to First Class and the quality already begins with the choice of director. It was inevitable that the man that brought us Layer Cake (and then showed his hand in the super-hero milieu with Kick-Ass) could somehow pull a decent X-Men movie off. No easy feat considering our expectations after what we'd seen before.

The fresh set of actors selected for First Class was its crowning achievement. Fassbender and McAvoy are sublime together. Bacon's chemistry with Magneto is dynamite. Another phenomenon was present: even seemingly redundant (in their secondariness) roles were played by solid actors (such as the American and Russian ship commanders, and their politician counterparts).

January Jones' good looks were put to their proper use, even if there was no palpable difference between her character Emma Frost and Cadence Flaherty, and Byrne showed heretofore unseen ability, if a little tame in comparison with the others present. Nicholas Hoult, after playing such a different person in Skins, was a pleasant surprise.

First Class is another of Vaughn's marvelous brand of superhero movies. What we'd already seen in Kick-Ass we see here: the acting is so believable, and the story so carefully and craftily woven, that the end- result is more than just popcorn entertainment.

You can usually tell how good a movie is when its length imposes no boundaries on your viewing of it. Well, First Class's 2 hours passed by in 5 minutes. There wasn't a single frame too many of cheese, the strings played in the right moments, and it seamlessly integrated first- rate action with an engaging plot.

This is what movie-making is all about. Other directors should learn from Mr. Vaughn. He is an exquisite picture-maker. Hats off to you sir! 8/10.