Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

adrianjordan89 I don't really give movies 1 star unless for extreme circumstances. When it comes to documentaries, honesty is the most important aspect. When a documentary skirts its responsibilities it becomes propaganda at least and utterly dangerous at the worst. House of Numbers is both. It is filled with numerous inaccuracies, holds an infantile view of science, and is deceitfully edited to make these experts appear to say things that they are not. Many of the experts in the film have released statements condemning the film for these tactics. This should be shocking and rage-inducing to anyone that has seen this movie or is considering it. Not only is the movie dishonest in its editing, it has now developed another facet of dishonesty: filing false DMCA claims against those who wish to critique it. The creators of the film, Knowledge Matters, has become incredibly dedicated to ensure criticism of the film is not to be heard although seem perfectly fine with having the ENTIRE film uploaded by dozens of different users. However, when someone wishes to cite the film or use footage of it under the Fair Use Doctrine it is quickly taken down. I find this quite interesting considering that throughout the entirety of the film there is the accusation that their movement is being censored.This film deserves no respect as art or as academia for its bastardization of what medical science has taught us over the last 35 years. Questions concerning HIV/AIDS should always be answered and investigated, but this religious drivel is being used to sell a preconceived idea - and a dangerous one at that.Tread carefully with films such as these and always fact check things for yourself.

tiggerkenwood It seems that one of Brent Leung's motives for this documentary is to convince us that HIV does not cause AIDS. Ridiculous. Dr. Ronald Swanstrom, retrovirologist, discovered and isolated the glycol Gag proteins of HIV. (Glyco-Gag proteins can be considered as nonstructural retroviral proteins.) This allowed other scientists to create the antiretrovirals that target these HIV proteins and keep the virus from replicating. If there was no HIV virus then these same antiretrovirals would be ineffective. Even a grade schooler could figure this out-if there is no virus then the medicine to treat that virus would be useless. Mr. Leung seems to be proud of the fact that after his documentary was released, some countries cut their HIV funds. Why would any decent human being be proud of that? The drug companies probably love him. They can use this documentary as an excuse to get the pressure off of them to provide the people of Africa with free antiretrovirals. I wonder if Mr Leung didn't have a hinden agenda. Perhaps he is a member of one of those religious groups who believe gays and people who have sex before marriage should be punished.

Matt Chung My world has been turned upside down. What an important film. Everyone must watch this documentary. I watched it when I read a review in Watermark. Here is an excerpt: "Leung, who was born in 1980, grew up as part of the "AIDS generation"—he's never known a world without it. Yet with all of its notoriety, he realized the average person did not know much about HIV and AIDS. What began as a 15-minute film project built around the simple question "What is HIV/AIDS?" revealed itself to be a much deeper journey.The journey takes the viewer into some strange territory, where it is possible to receive an AIDS diagnosis in one country and not even test positive for the HIV antibodies in another. Through interviews with experts and with those infected and living with the virus, Leung exposes how some less developed areas of the globe diagnose AIDS by sight of symptoms alone in absence of testing facilities, a process called the "Bangui diagnosis." This can lead to dramatic overstatements on the actual number of AIDS cases.One of the more interesting segments of the film takes viewers to cities across the globe—London, Paris, Sydney, New York, Johannesburg—and asks people on the street if they know the difference between HIV and AIDS. Despite millions of dollars in public education, the answers across the planet were fairly uniform in their lack of understanding of the disease itself or the virus that many say causes it. In fact, the very idea of AIDS being an illness is challenged in the video, rather some would classify it as a "condition" or "set of conditions".Some experts interviewed also express their belief that while HIV may contribute to the development of AIDS there may be other "co-factors" that could play a role as well. The film strongly suggests that the poor sanitation and living conditions found in 90% of the areas of the world most affected by the disease could be a contributing factor as well. The film states this is particularly true in Africa."

eric cho I think that there's a lot of heated emotion related to this movie, which is understandable, since so many people are affected by HIV/AIDS. I, however, am apart of a small group of people who aren't as invested in this topic like many others are. I came into this movie intrigued and curious as to what the director would put out there. After watching it, I came out having a lot of questions myself. Are some of Brent's questions potentially misleading? Sure, you can take it that way, but I think that the point of the film can not be ignored. What is AIDS, and are we really taking our battle against it the right way? That's a fair question to ask, and one that Brent attempted to answer in a fair, respectful way.