TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Numerootno A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

wreeah Off the top, let me first say I was very entertained by this film and found it very informative and a little thought provoking. However, as a documentary, it has some issues.First, let me get the 'cons' out of the way. I will say the production values are low, however, some of the best documentaries are shot on shoe string budgets by people that really just have something they want to say! The music can be too prominent, monotonous, and a little irritating at times. It also doesn't fit the subject matter at points. Stock footage is a little over done, and over edited. Also, you really know right off the bad where the film makers stand on the subject matter! It can feel quite one sided at times, and can present some of the street people being interviewed as naive with uneducated points of view.However, all that being said, there were a LOT of well made points that came up! The film makers take you inside the operations, and show you first hand how this world operates. He interviews some big names, and asks a lot of the big questions and covers a lot of areas that we never quite hear about.Even if it's not the best documentary (and I'm not even sure how that standard could even be set...) this is one that you should take in! It'll be worth your time!

clay langhorne This documentary is very informative, just like the documentary it was cloned from -- GRASS, 1999. Its a shame so much of the history of marijuana in The Union (2007) was identical to GRASS. I suppose because it's depicting history, duplication is unavoidable. But the number of identical images, and the progression of the story are too similar for comfort. I saw The Union first, and must say it's more polished, more investigative, more to the point and more informative in many areas than GRASS. GRASS had a fair bit of filler. All the more reason it's a shame The Union couldn't have been more original. I particularly liked the exploration of grow-ops in The Union, whereas in GRASS there seemed to be a lot of rather banal footage about Haight Ashbury and the 'psychodelia' of the 60's and early 70's. The Union was definitely more Canada oriented.

realcreature I really, honestly believe about 90% of the facts quoted in this movie, however, the reason it grated on my senses was due to the background music. It seemed that no matter what topic was being discussed the music that accompanied the topic was some form of synthesized keyboard repetitive "melody" (not really melodic, just annoying repetition of a few notes) that seemed to have been performed by a bored eight-grader using a home computer.I believe the visual production quality was at least as high as most modern documentaries so I cannot understand what happened with the music, only that it may have been an afterthought. My advice: if the music becomes an afterthought then make it nonexistent. I would have preferred to listen to my own chewing sounds, some street traffic or quiet computer hum, rather than an electronic da da da da, over and over while some narrator droned on about how bad everything but marijuana is, which is really true, I believe...just not with that "music".This brings me to the other point of this production: where did you dig up that mock fifties-style narrator? Why parody the thing you hate with the thing you hate? I was so bored listening to those high school documentaries that I nearly always fell asleep in class, and God forbid it would be a warm day - no escaping a classroom snooze. Perhaps some less sanctimony would be appropriate in this type of factual information documentary.

Nickolas52 I was pleasantly surprised by this documentary. As a non-user of cannabis viewing what had to be just another pro-cannabis argument, I had low expectations. My expectations were wrong.This documentary has about as much to say about North American Society as a whole as it has to say about the legalization of marijuana. Taken in its greater context, the documentary is about how Society allows limits of personal freedom to evolve. The documentary uses the example of the 1920's Prohibition on alcohol to demonstrate how Society can change to allow something within its perceived bounds of decency, for which it previously tossed people in jail. I have seen in my own lifetime the legalization of homosexuality, which also finds its roots in Canada, initiated as it was by a visionary Prime Minister named Pierre Trudeau. What a less tolerant society once restricted through oppression to dark, secret places, it is now allowing freely, even if it is all still happening in dark, secret places. If Society had finally recognized that these prohibited things could not be eliminated, Society may have also recognized that they would at least not be promoted by legalizing them. Not everyone is happy with either societal change, but the majority are. We are now seeing the evolution of acceptance of cannabis in Society. But that's not the point. To me the documentary is not about cannabis. It is about disparities of freedom.The point is driven home by an exposé on the United States penal system, a system run to a great extent by private corporations who's primary interest, by definition, is to make money. What the documentary helps the objective viewer to realize is America's is not as free a Society as many, if not most, others in the world, and it helps the objective viewer realize, if chillingly, the reason why.