This documentary is a good example, of so many, how our monetary system really operates and its consequences it generates. How wealth gets transfered from the poor to the rich and how short term profit results in long term destruction. How a small group of rich people decide the faith and future of so many people in this world. This is also better known as corporatocracy. I would have liked to see more from the scientific side to support some of the arguments of the movie especially in terms of technology used right now and the total consequence of it. Also a bit more evidence in total would have given this documentary more momentum. But, I must say most of this movie is well researched and it speaks for itself. Points are very clear made.

I never write comments, but after watching this so to say documentary I just had to comment on it. The documentary had potential, but the story is underdeveloped. Instead of showing rows and rows of deprived people, the makers of the movie could have at least included some interviews with actual scientists, instead of dubious book authors and some random characters. There is no argument in the movie, but there are lots of heart-breaking shots of small children looking into the camera and dramatic music. Yes, I too feel bad for them, but you can't solve the water shortage with emotions. This movie is targeted on the primitive human emotions. What do the movie-makers want to achieve with this movie? It does not even provoke thoughts, because there are very few facts and ideas voiced. If you bear to watch till the end and wait for the titles there will be a few small-scale solutions, which should have been the focus of the documentary instead of a mish-mash people talking. I am an environmental scientist and don't work for a global corporation. This is why I say that this documentary almost gives a bad name to environmental activism, because of the poor and factless delivery of subject. Only because the topic is important I give it 2/10. But don't watch this movie if you are looking for anything but heart-breaking entertainment.

I love the critic who gave this two stars: they only have one review, and they lump Flow, Sicko, No Logo together under the title of "Anti-capitalist" - they are more than entitled to their opinion, but rather like those who dismiss environmental damage as a necessary collateral of feeding the masses, so water is just water, huh, not THE commodity of the 21st century? Should it be privatized? Should it be run for a profit? Why do I pay taxes? Given that water is the ultimate human need shouldn't it be the most carefully guarded human right? At least Flow starts to ask and raise these questions. If you thought An Inconvenient Truth was an eye opener Flow will change forever your awareness of water issues.If the purpose of this type of documentary is to raise awareness then it succeeds. Massively.

I watched this at Bloor Cinema yesterday, luckily missing the TTC strike might I add, with my high school. The movie is obviously biased and it shows -- and that's not a bad thing. It takes a gritty, firsthand look into the atrocities many parts of the world face day in and day out, eventually juxtaposing our overconsumption. Maybe it was due to the director being there (in the theatre) and letting us know it took her four years to make, but the movie had heart. It faces the problems and also takes a look at solutions, finally ending with what people are doing on our own continent. It's a mixture of life over there and life on North America. It's real. I had a few problems with the pace and editing, along with a shot of a girl being pushed down (it was shown on screen twice, to my calculations) that felt taken out of context. The movie also felt slightly lacking, like the information wasn't totally delivered. It makes you want to feel like an expert without truly paying it's part of the bargain. But that's a minor gripe. This is definitely one of those movies that everyone should see.

I saw a screening of FLOW at AFI Dallas, and it's one of the best documentaries (perhaps even THE best) I've ever seen. The film covers a lot of ground. In fact, Salina probably could have made a series of films from her research. But instead she's managed to condense it down to a very watchable hour and a half. As she said in a Q&A after the screening, she realized during her research that although there is a wide range of water problems spread all across the globe, they are all connected, and it's important to look at the big picture. And from the viewer's perspective it's also interesting to see the connections between water problems in communities in India or Bolivia where privatization is putting poor communities in serious danger and communities in Michigan where Nestle is stealing water from the aquifers without paying a penny. And, like any good documentary, this one doesn't stop just after presenting a problem; it also talks about how communities are fighting back, providing inspiration for viewers to take a stand as well. This film should be required viewing.

I remember a certain web page that featured "unseen movie reviews", based on the idea that, to make a review for some movies, it is only necessary to watch the trailer, and not the entire film (and sometimes, not even that)... this was the case of movies such as I am Sam or others of that kind. No doubt this is also the case of FLOW. One of the comments above stated that this movie certainly "had heart"... well this might just be the problem. Ideas such as this should not try to appeal mostly to our feelings. Also, in the broad context of the growing awareness about the supposed sad state of our planet's ecology(and especially, in regard to the main causes of this condition), this movie is anything but original... a piece about the future scarcity of water was just the next logical step. Like The Corporation, No Logo and Sicko, this is just another form of crass anti-capitalism... I expect this movie to be a big hit in France. I did not like the one-sided and blatantly biased approach to a serious subject that this movie proposed.

Unfortunately, Flow takes an important subject and reduces it to sound bytes from community activists played over poorly photographed and edited b-roll and interviews. All emotion and no brains. The film has no coherent structure, rather it wanders from example to example of purported corporate water transgressions without actually examining the science behind the problems. I really believe that these problems need to be addressed so I'm saddened by an approach that is not effective. While I sympathize with (what I believe to be) the message of the filmmakers, they do such a poor job of supporting their arguments with anything substantive, as a viewer I'm left feeling slighted by their lack of investigation or presentation. They are guilty of all the same things I hate about Fox news, just on the other side of the political spectrum.

Trailer—Flow: For Love of Water

source: Flow: For Love of Water

Given its controversial title, "Flow" turned out to be a rather well- balanced documentary. It focuses on the often overlooked impact of water shortages or lack of its affordability in many poor and often densely populated rural areas. While the move focuses primarily on rural India, it also offers some engaging overview of the situation in the US. The principal argument is that first, the water should remain a public resources. Second, locally-managed water pumps sustained by recipient communities make clean drinking water both cheaper and more fairly distributed. As an example, the movie gives a community-run UV treatment facility, where 10 litres of clean drinking water per person per day can be obtained at less than $2 per year. To give a sense of balance, the movie features commentary by a former IMF official and the CEO of Vivendi - a water management business. However, those are often used simply to back producer's intention to vilify practices by MNCs such as Videndi, Suez or Nestle. A more- informed discussion of the benefits those companies bring would have been welcome. The movie also offers no discussion of severe under-pricing of water which in turn leads to overconsumption. There is also no discussion of the potential socio-economic benefits that dams can bring to the affected regions. Notwithstanding, the documentary was both very informative and stimulating. While a bit light on cost-benefit analysis, it will be appreciated not only by Development Economists by all those with broader interest in the world around them. Dominik Kania