Ensofter Overrated and overhyped

FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Josephina Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

unknownfilmmaker The topic was very engaging. Very eye opening to see how the big companies can control things on a national and local level, but the overall quality of the movie was extremely lacking. I tried to not be that harsh in understanding this is a first time director and that the content itself was powerful to inform and entertain the viewer, but there are some real big problems with the creative side.The good is that overall I really enjoyed this topic and found myself very impressed with how the story telling worked within the edit. There was a good movement that always had you waiting to see what would come next with enough content to allow people to begin to understand the topic. Starting with the case that from watching this seems to be the most misrepresented court case ever it was extremely engaging. Great use of slow reveals through a man on the street technique and a good variation of stories that attracted different audiences. Then we have the artistic side of things. The music for this movie was awful. I mean truly awful to the point that I found myself feeling like I was in a hotel lobby and the worst part was I kept coming back to it. Very poorly produced music that did not at all fit with the content. Then you have the cover ups which seemed to be a combo of i-stock photos mixed with awful visuals that reminded me of corporate videos that the editor had to cover up a cut or find a way to make more time than what they had the footage before. Then you have your animations which at times were very nice and at others that looked like they paid someone to alter a template. Really really poorly put together and all looked like they were done by different people.Similar to this was the interviews, which for the most part were shot professionally, but a few were poorly framed with incorrect lighting and made me think that someone else had to shoot some of them. This was very annoying at times.I enjoyed the content like I said above, but there were many times where things were said in interviews or content was used that really did not go with the movie. I don't know if the editor just wanted to keep it fat or what, but there are moments that just did not at all work for the content. I would say that if there is anything worth learning from this movie it's in the content and that is why I did not try and be to harsh, but the difference between an educational video and a documentary is pretty significant and to be a movie that got into the festivals it did I really really had myself scratching my head. I think of it like when you show your family something that you made. While they might be persuaded by their love for you so much that they can over look the things you did wrong in making it they will almost always tell you it looks great. Which with this it's the politics, so you could make a bad conservative movie or a republican movie and as longs as it subscribes to their beliefs you will be okay.I recommend based on the content that you check it out, but think the artistic merit is lacking.

TheDocHierarchy How does big business turn a multi-million dollar pay-out into a substantial coup for industry and a devastating blow for the civil justice system? Quite easily, according to Susan Saladoff's 'Hot Coffee'.On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a healthy, active 72 year-old woman spilled a cup of boiling hot McDonald's coffee on her inner thigh. Suing McDonald's for damages, she was awarded $160,000 in medical damages and $2.7 million dollars in punitive damages by a jury; a trial judge would later reduce the award, and the two parties settled confidentially. In the meantime Liebeck and her cause were being pilloried by the nation's media - how, they said, could a company be liable for the mishandling error of a patron?Big business latched onto this wave of public opinion to condemn, in a widespread and well- financed media campaign, the rising tide of so-called 'frivolous lawsuits' eating away at the profits of all businesses. 'Tort reform' became the new catch-cry of this push - 'tort' meaning a 'harm' essentially - as industry used its leverage to encourage politicians, judges and the public alike to get behind new regulation that would make pay-outs like the one to Stella Liebeck a mere memory. The problem with this lies between the lines of the Liebeck case. Court photos detailing the extent of Liebeck's injuries - which required two separate skin grafts and over $100,000 worth of medical costs - are horrifying, as are the revelations that McDonald's had received over 700 unanswered complaints about the potential for injury with their standardized coffee temperature. That the jury came down so vehemently on the side of the plaintiff, and the corporation lowered their temperature standard in the wake of the case demonstrates not that this was not the 'frivolous' lawsuit painted in the media, but an appropriate and necessary use of the civil justice system.Not content to rest on this relative bombshell - I for one was embarrassed at my lack of knowledge of the Liebeck case - Saladoff charts how the case was used to systematically introduce US-wide 'tort reform', in the manner of both 'caps on damages' and 'mandatory arbitration' clauses in contract. These 'reforms' ensure that big business is protected from not merely the very few con artists seeking to extort them out of money (of which Liebeck is not one), but also the majority of whom have a reasonable and justified case to put forward to a civil court.The tragedy is this whole sage is not that Liebeck received such a pay-out, but that with these new misnomers of 'reforms', the likes of Liebeck are no longer sufficiently protected from the rich and powerful. Accountability is gradually being eroded, with the tacit consent of the people no less.Concluding Thought: How have I gone this long without knowing the context of the McDonald's case? Should I have been more diligent and found out myself, or can I blame the media?

timmyj3 I watched "Hot Coffee" today and was looking forward to it. I enjoy documentaries a great deal. It started off on solid note by giving the full back ground on the famous McDondalds hot coffee case. Unfortunately it goes downhill from there.We are shown a family in Nebraska that had twins. One is born with severe brain injury due to a lack of oxygen because of one umbilical cord instead of two. The family is awarded 5.6 million but Nebraska's cap law limits the award to 1.25 million dollars. While a sad story I think many people would argue that it was a birth defect medical condition that caused the injury not malpractice by the doctor and hospital. The movie makes a point about the doctor having been involved in two previous law suits. OK, but tell us how many case the doctor has been involved with in total. Is this doctor 3 for 3 or 3 for 13,289?? It makes a difference in the overall credibility of the movie.The next case up is a Democratic Mississippi lawyer/politician named Mr. Diaz that ran for the state supreme court in 2000. He won the race but was out spent by outside political groups according to the movie. Mr. Diaz then obtained personal loans guaranteed by a lawyer friend that practiced cases in front of the state supreme court. Mr. Diaz was then indicted on Federal charges of bribery and tax evasion. He was found not guilty. Does this film maker really think a judge should be taking personal loan guarantees from a law firm that does business in front of him?? He then lost his 2008 re-election bid. We are now told that Karl Rove scary right wing groups are behind the money against Mr. Diaz. I am still not sure what the problem was here other than a Democrat lost a race. Oohh.We are pretty much off the tracks by now. We are treated to Presidents Bush and Reagan talking about frivolous lawsuits. Of course, they are portrayed in a condescending manner. We are then, shown a brave President Obama standing up to the American Medical Association group. We keep getting shown edited snippets of President Bush saying bad things about tort reform over and over. At this point the movie has really become a little unhinged. But, lets continue..The last case involves every lefties favorite boogeyman "Haliburton" A woman named Jamie Leigh Jones claims that she was brutally raped while housed at a Haliburton housing area in Iraq. I had not heard of this case until I was watching the film. Lets say it didn't really pass the smell test. The gist is that she signed an employment contract the limited her legal recourse to binding arbitration. Of, course this didn't work out well. Ms. Jones also has a history of untruthfulness. Her case has since been lost at two different court levels. But, her case is taken up by Minnesota Senator Al Franken. Enough said.The film also harps on the right wing "outside" money spent to promote tort reform. The gist that this money is bad, wrong, and evil (show Karl Rove again). No mention of any "outside" left wing groups supporting non tort reform. Even though just about every person interviewed that supports the films view is from "outside" groups with names like "Judicial Justice for all" (I made that up) but you get the point.After the film, I decided to find out who Susan Saladoff is and was. She practiced as a trial lawyer on the behalf of injury victims, medical malpractice, and product liability. No bias here. Wow. How can this film be even called a documentary? It is an info-mercial for left wing trial lawyer groups.One parting thing I would love to know, who funded this one sided mess of a movie. Wanna bet it is outside left wing groups pouring money into non tort reform??? Ya think. Remember the cornerstone of the film is the outside money being spent on tort reform is bad, really bad, really really bad.One other side note. Instead of capping the victims awards, how about capping the lawyers cut to maybe 3%. Just a thought.

MartinHafer "Hot Coffee" is a film seeking equal time to explain the famous McDonald's coffee lawsuit. Information that public wasn't aware of is given in the film and the case isn't quite as simple as TV reported. But what they can't refute is that the original jury award was $2.9 million--an amount that STILL seems huge to me--though her injuries they showed in the film were pretty bad.Following this discussion, the rest of the film also explores lawsuit caps, cases where media reports are dead wrong and are only intended to illustrate a need for tort reform (such as the totally bogus lawnmower hedge-trimming case that never actually occurred though it was reported as fact)."Hot Coffee" is an interesting film but it's also one that has a very strong bias in favor of lawsuits. It gives lot of examples of legitimate lawsuits, damage caps and exaggerated cases that were reported in the media--and all this is true. But, the tort reform side can report the exact opposite--illegitimate lawsuits, ridiculously high jury awards and exaggerated cases that were reported by the media. As a result, I strongly caution LET THE VIEWER BEWARE. If anyone seriously says there is no need for lawsuit reform or that corporations are always right, then they are either out of their mind or simply cannot be trusted.This pro-lawsuit film doesn't seem to acknowledge ANY cases where oversight or abuses have occurred or the long-term cost on everyone (they just dismiss this and say suits DON'T increase costs--which just makes no sense). Doctors unfortunately DO make mistakes--and I felt for the family in the film. But repeated lawsuits have forced too many good doctors out of business--with many obstetricians abandoning their specialization. And, such unwanted and unexpected problems such as the shutting down of playgrounds, prisoners suing EVERYONE (including their victims) because they can, disbanding of little leagues and the like due to super-high insurance rates aren't discussed as well.Now I am not some big-business hack. I know that despite too many lawsuits, big corporations can buy still justice and have armies of lawyers and practically unlimited funds at their disposal. And, like the pro-lawsuit side, they, too, have their own hired experts who are paid to claim what's in their best interests.By the way, I checked and the consensus across internet sites devoted to coffee making seemed to indicate that the optimal temperature for coffee to be brewed is between 180-190 degrees. The public has shown the preference for this temperature and won't buy significantly colder temperatures. And, incidentally, this is the SAME temperature (190 degrees) as the coffee that spilled on this poor old lady's lap. Yes, the temperature we all want will cause horrible burns in some situations--so be careful! Overall, a well-written and constructed film--but a film whose message is heavily one-sided. I would REALLY like to see a film that looks at both sides of the issue--thus providing a much more objective look at lawsuits in America today.By the way, one thing the film did made me irritated. While the Chamber of Commerce and corporations do pour huge amounts of money into campaigns, it does NOT point out that trial lawyers and their organizations do the same. And, MOST politicians are lawyers--and some very famous ones have been trial lawyers (such as John Edwards), so the REAL story is much less black & white than the film portrays it to be.