James Patterson There are some films that make you angry because they tell you things you didn't know and make you feel that you've been cheated - this is one of them.I'd heard of the Corporation of London but only in street signs. To find out that they're a centre for tax avoidance, they have people in Parliament and their role in causing the financial crisis made me furious and eager to find out more.The film has a really useful historical contextualisation for the first part, using a wide range of interesting interviewees whilst weaving in a tour of the city and plenty of really good archive footage. It leave you in no doubt as to where the City's power is derived from historically.The human-interest angle is explained by "victims" of the Corporation whose attempts simply to be democratic were thwarted as well as by reflections of Vicars (yes, really - some of the most interesting characters in the film), workers and of course the human impact of the current crisis.There were one or two problems with camera focus on occasion but then if it's true (as I heard at a Q&A) that it was done with no money at all, I can forgive them that as it fits with the aesthetics of radical documentary anyway. The music is sufficiently haunting to stay with you for a few days, which is a great effect.It's a really complex film in many respects, which means I had to watch it more than once to really understand but I'd recommend it really highly to anyone who wants to really understand what's going on in the world and why!

ericnottelling The movie claims to "investigates the power wielded by the Corporation of London over British economic policy. " However, they never really do that! They claim it happens but offer no proof of how these corporations have altered British policy for their own good other than turning London into a banking center, which in the film they admit may have saved the city of London after it was ruined in wwii. There is no link about how these companies are destroying peoples lives, or are doing anything "mischievous". This is absolutely little evidence if any at all that would even lead one to logically conclude such happenings. There is some neat history in it that most non British people might not know, but if you are looking for an actual argument in the movie, it is lacking. It's more theater than anything else. Noted by all the little clips and trailers that have little to do with anything they are trying to prove and take up a good bit of time in a short 70 minute film. My conclusion is they needed filler space for their lack of any argument. Yes the city of London is a square mile inside of what is commonly refereed to as London. Yes the people living there get no votes and it is run by corporations. OK fine nice points. But how has this been directly linked to anything, other than just saying yes it's there and we want to blame it with no real reasons given for blaming it? Where are some smoking guns. Where is the meat of the "Look what they are doing" type. Instead we see occupy wall street kids out there dancing as they wear designer jeans and play with their iphones having no real clue what they are even doing. Nothing about this is compelling and the history provided the film is murky and poorly strung together at best. There are much better documentaries to watch about the evils of global capitalism and what they are doing to decent people then this one. I wouldn't waste my time with it if I would have known it was this bad.