I really wanted to like this film. It deals with a topic of great importance and generally propagates ideas that I agree with - like the dangers of corporate behavior, the threat to biodiversity that GM products pose and the absurdity of patenting life.
So what's the problem? Let me sum it up:
So what's the problem? Let me sum it up:
- most of the movie is comprised from old footage cuts accompanied by a rather dull commentary. Not very captivating.
- the commentary is badly written. It's repetitive and often fails to make a point. For instance, it cites three methods for genetic modification of a cell. Dramatic music, the 'expert' says that the procedure is very invasive to the cell and that it mimics the behavior of a virus and... nothing more. I wanted to know what problems can arise from the treatment but there was no explanation. Is it really surprising that overwriting the DNA is 'invasive' to a cell? Yet, this treacherous 'invasivness' is mentioned several times through the film (with no additional information).
- important information is left out. For example, the movie mentions the Supreme Court's decision on the Monsanto vs. Schmeisser trial but fails to mention the Court's reasoning that sheds a different light on the severity of the ruling. On top of it the court denied any compensation to Monsanto. This clearly didn't fit the film's agenda.
- the choice of the talking heads is poor. When compared to the respectable lineup that producers of other documentaries were able to accumulate (e.g. The Corporation, The Power of Nightmares) I can only assume the creators of The Future of Food just didn't make their homework. Where are (ex)employees of the bioengineering companies, politicians that took part in creating the regulations for GM and where are the representatives of the regulatory government bodies?