Watch The Big Sellout For Free

Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

This movie is a perfect illustration of Naomi Klein's book 'The shock doctrine' wherein the author clearly demonstrates that the 'free market' doctrine is a veiled vehicle for filling the wallets of private interests, with the help of their long arms, the IMF and the World Bank. One of the main commentators in this movie is Noble Prize winner J. Stiglitz who heavily criticized the operations and policies of the World Bank and the IMF in his books. The movie scrutinizes mainly four examples of privatization: water in Bolivia (the explosion of the water price provoked a popular revolt which forced a big transnational corporation to close its operations), railways in Great-Britain, electricity in South-Africa and health care in the Philippines. The devastating effect of the implementation of the 'free market' doctrine on innocent populations is most blatantly exposed in the last example, where ill and handicapped people are struggling to pay their medical bills (the cynical motto is 'pay or die'). Florian Opitz made a most convincing documentary on an ideological 'human scandal'. His movie is a must see for all those who want to understand the world we live in.

In the last years privatisation has often been hailed as a remedy for all possible financial or structural problems of the state.Given the discussions in Germany about the planned privatisation of the German Rail this film by German TV-documentarist Florian Opitz seems overdue.He offers four examples (transport,health,energy and water) in four countries to show,how it ends in higher revenues for the companies by raising the prices and in decreasing service quality and a major part of the population lacking access to fundamental qualities of life.If it was't so depressing you could laugh at some scenes,especially when Bechtel tried to privatise rainwater,banning the collecting and using of it.But the film also gives a little bit of hope;privatisation is nothing imposed on people who have no opportunity for resistance.The film nearly all the time stays with the victims and their fight to overcame the consequences of these decisions.The representatives of the World Bank and IWF with their formal and cold argumentation serve as comical figures.And there lies the weakness of this film and the reason why it gets only a 7 by me.It is openly biased-not per se a disadvantage for a documentary-,but offers for someone who is a bit familiar with the theme no new thoughts.I personally prefer docs with a more open view on a theme,thus forcing the viewer to draw his own conclusions.Here everything is readily packaged and you can only admit: "Yes,so it is!" Nevertheless it should be a must for the German Gouvernment and the parliamentarians especially the part about British Rail.

This movie shows four examples of the drastic effects which privatization of formerly public goods and services had and has on the lives of real people: Electricity in South Africa, railway transport in England, water in Bolivia and health services on the Philippines. Interwoven you get to see statements of a World Bank representative, a computer-animated cartoon by the International Monetary Fund (because they are not available for comment in flesh and blood) and former World Bank Chief Economist and Economic Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, who today is very critical of the role theses institutions play in the globalised world.In all of the four examples privatization had negative and sometimes devastating effects on people's lives. There is for example the English train driver who gets paid less for more work and has lost the pride in his profession since punctuality and safety offered to the passengers have severely suffered through the process. And there is the poor Philippine mother who has to fight every single day so that her son can get a dialysis at least once a week, which he needs to survive. Those who profit from privatization remain in the dark.In all cases the decisions for those privatizations have been made either by politicians who firmly believe in free market ideology (like Maggie Thatcher) or have been due to pressure by the World Bank and the IMF who also follow this ideology and have made privatizations of public sector services a condition for granting credits to developing countries.The essence is that real humans have to suffer from a religion-like ideology which benefits the wealthy an threatens the poor. And ideology it is: after all the formerly public goods and services were the common property of all people in the respective countries and served them very well. There was absolutely no need to take this property away from them and put it in the hands of a few anonymous so-called investors. As the English train driver put it: When the people were offered to buy shares in the British railway they were in fact offered to buy something they already owned. And as you can see from the Bolivian example it requires massive police force (funded by the taxes of the people) to rob the people of its public property, while actually police should protect its interests. This free market-ideology often masks as irrefutable science in the form of neoclassical economic theory. However this theory is based on the premise of a "homo oeconomicus", the assumption that all humans only act in their personal self-interest. Under that premise this theory seems to show that it's best or most efficient if governments don't interfere with markets, i.e. the voluntary exchange of goods and services. So basically this theory says that if everybody only acts in his personal self-interest, it's best if everybody only acts in his personal self-interest. It's clear to see that this is a logically circular and thus meaningless result. But apart from that the whole premise of this theory isn't even true. People do not only act in their personal self-interest. It's been proved that humans pretty often behave altruistically, i.e. they help others even when they can't expect anything in return for their help. As another Economic Nobel Laureate, George A. Akerlof, has recently pointed out, all the "scientific" results of neoclassical economic theory fall apart completely without the assumption of the "homo oeconomicus". Thus this theory turns out to be pure religion, which however serves those of the wealthy well, who don't want to acknowledge any responsibility for the rest of society. (Even if this society enabled them to accumulate and preserve their wealth in the first place.)