Avaliações de usuários

EVERYONE needs to see this movie. These chemicals are in all of us, especially C8 (PFOA). Derived from The Manhattan Project, DuPont used one of the most toxic "forever chemicals" in everything from cooking products to paint. 99% of all humans have it in their systems.

Before you dismiss this as "hyperbole" or exaggerated for artistic license, don't. This is based on decades of documented and well known civll and criminal cases, countless deaths, DuPont's own records they tried to hide, and on and on. This isn't another "liberal agenda" film as some often state as a means of dismissal - this is about all of us and knows no political bounds. Please, I sincerely implore you, watch this movie and do your own research if you doubt any of it - and prepare to be gutted (warning: not an uplifting film).

This movie has me pondering every product I use now. Excellent storytelling. Fantastic casting. I even loved how some of the real characters were actually in the film as well. Good cinematography. The only reason I didn't give it a 10 was because it was slow in some parts. Overall, a must see that hopefully changes your life.

It feels like this movie is being swept under the rug. I won't say by whom, but I will remove my tin foil hat now. Fantastic fantastic film. This movie really rocked my world. It took me a few days to calm down I was so enraged at the subject matter. Unbelievable crimes against humanity. But because Dupont makes 75 billion dollars a year nobody can touch them. Not even the government. Evvryone should see this. Very thrilling and well made. Mark Rufallo can go fly a kite though. He's the same as he always is

This is one scary movie because it's something that stretched into recent times ... and really happened. It's about self-regulation, big-business, medical disasters and cover-ups on a scale that just doesn't seem possible in today's world.

I had no idea this movie was about one of the most well-known brands in the world (that DuPont owns) ... and the terrible secret behind it. Since the name is not advertised in the previews, I won't spoil it here ... but everyone has heard of it and ... ugh ... been somewhat contaminated by it.

This is not really an "action" movie ... it's a bit of a slow-burn as developments take place over stretches of time. Mark Ruffalo's performance is fine ... though it's fair to say there are other actors who could have put in more compelling and watchable performances.

I'd have to admit that if the movie wasn't about real events, it would be so-so. However, because it is based on actual events ... you can't help but want to know how the movie unfolds.

While there are some unexplained issues relating to the main character's law firm and boss (who inexplicably seem to side with an underdog case) ... it's not enough to derail the story ... because the main plot really did transpire.

It's a good movie to remind us that we're not as protected by our systems, institutions and government as we'd like to think.

Superb acting by Ruffalo who gave 100% effort exposing the capitalists guilty of destroying an entire district for financial gain. Shame on them! What makes this even more shocking is the time and effort it took to get them to admit it. Which was well played out by the excellent work done by casting director. It makes me wonder why it is a "movie" that highlighted this atrocity. Why is this not household knowledge. Why aren't we boycotting their products. Why!

It's very scary but it's all true. Look it up. We are not protected at all. We are just lab rats.

This film sheds light on the work and life of Robert Billott, a lawyer who has dedicated decades to bring justice to everyday folk affected by intentional corporate neglect. Mark Ruffalo plays the lead role in a very compassionate and human way that really let's us empathize with him. The film really shines at balancing out the desired goals vs harsh realities of corporate litigation. You get a true sense of how frustrating it can be to fight for justice and to bring change. This film is important for our times. It should get your blood boiling, make you aware of a system that is broken, and ultimately our attitudes and actions are what will determine if changes will ever be made. Watch this film, talk about this film, talk about the subjects of this film, that is the only way the purpose of awareness will be fulfilled.

There's nothing here that you have not seen. Go ahead and call it "Aaron Brockovich." But director Todd Haynes still makes it entirely engaging and painfully true that death is a number compared to liability and that is how you can sustain cold hearted industry. Made more gut wrenching is how they believed the ends justified the means. Mark Ruffalo tackles the lawyer with the conscience wonderfully. Suffering under the weight of what he must do and what then envelops his small world. It's heroic in how much he does sacrifice and let's face it, these stories don't end well. What director Haynes does is put a face to the not-on-the-books crime. And though, it only is a civil case somehow you sense the frustration of the town. Not played as rubes but believing that a massive corporation who funded and gave perks to sustain the village wouldn't willingly destroy it. As we know now versus 1998, they knew...if not for simple morbid curiosity. Then sat on the information as it fed the machine decades later, we are now more informed and much more paranoid. Everything we eat or touch or...breathe we are closer to death. I was in that area in 1998...and the news then spent less time on it then I recall. As a college bound student, I heard murmurs of DuPont and jokes were made of this. Now...it seems bitterly grim. How many lives were destroyed because of shady dealings. When you peel the onion, you do weep. I love this flick. The flavor of that era is pitch perfect. The backroads of an industrial town, built under poor chemistry just sweats disease. And you walk out angered by it. The fight continues to this day.

I'm a sucker for a good ol' little-man-against-the-system movie (think "Erin Brockovich" and "Silkwood"), of which "Dark Waters" is the latest example. I was mostly intrigued to see what Todd Haynes would do with the formula, since he's explored such a unique creative touch in films I've adored ("Safe", "Far from Heaven") and films I've felt more lukewarmly about ("Carol," "I'm Not There"). Surprisingly, he charges straight down the line with "Dark Waters." This is an interesting if not engrossing film, and it feels like it could be directed by anybody.

That's not necessarily a bad thing when you have an actor as good as Mark Ruffalo in the lead, because the movie gets out of his way and lets him do his thing. He gives a restrained, compelling performance and resists the urge to overplay the everyman-as-hero aspects of this story. This film is more "Silkwood" than "Erin Brockovich." As much fun as it was to watch Julia Roberts tearing around the screen giving everyone a what-for, she wasn't once believable as a working class broad. Ruffalo, on the other hand, IS believable as a modest attorney in Rust Belt America, and he builds a full performance out of subtle, quiet moments rather than any big, showy, Oscar clip ones. This is basically a one-man show, though he's given able support by Tim Robbins, who's worth the price of admission for the scene where he hands a young cocky attorney his ass, and Bill Pullman, gruff and hilarious and using an accent from God knows where. The weak link in the cast is Anne Hathaway as Ruffalo's wife, who, for all of her sweetness and goody-goodiness as an actress, is miscast as a wholesome, Christian mom.

I can't think too much about "Dark Waters" because it will keep me up nights and will give me a phobia about ever drinking or eating anything ever again.

Grade: A-

It is great to hear the details of this case from the victims' side other than from the media. Very informative and good flow of the script. Even though it is over 2 hours movie but didn't feel any scene unnecessary. Definitely great directing.

The movie is like a Deja Vu of films such as Erin Brockovich and so it depends largely on the performance of its lead character; in this case Mark Ruffalo. The storyline is known to anyone who has access to Google. The script is pretty average and so is the direction. What stands out is Mark's performance. I continue to firmly believe that he is one of the most underrated actors of our times.

As a film it wasn't executed in a particularly compelling way but it is a really important story

Great acting and a great story - what more can you want. Perhaps a happy story because this story is over whelming. A large company knowingly uses war technology to destroy the lives of animals, people, and communities in the name of the mighty buck. We can take solace in the fight to expose them, but the facts of this case are so distressing.

Mark Ruffalo, Tim Robbins, an d Victor Garber are exceptional, but the star of the film is Bill Camp in the performance of a lifetime.

I'm not sure how someone could watch this movie and not be intensely moved by it. That some people found it boring is a reflection of the group thinking society that we live in. I was tired when I went to the theater and almost fell asleep during the previews and first 10 minutes of the film. Then I was on the edge of my seat. Incredible acting! Easily one of the most informative and best movies I've seen in a long time. Ignore the bad reviews and if you're a free thinker GO SEE this movie.

Dupont's stock dropped when this film was released. I never knew about this deception until I saw this biopic. Casting was excellent with stellar and convincing performances. Directing was good but the editing was terrible in some parts. I also felt the 126 min runtime was too long, and felt even longer with the slow pacing and some dragged out/unnecessary scenes. Had the pacing been faster and 20-25 mins shaved off the runtime, I would've rated this gem higher. Still, a great biopic about a story that needed to be told, and a well deserved 8/10 from me. Now off to go throw away my teflon non-stick pans...

An informative & infuriating legal drama following a corporate defence attorney whose casual inquiry into an environmental concern uncovers a major conspiracy conducted by one of the world's largest corporations, and covers his attempts to get to the truth and expose the perpetrators to the public.

Directed by Todd Haynes (best known for Carol), Dark Waters should be gripping, given its subject matter dealing with corporate corruption & environmental harm, but Haynes narrates the whole thing in such a bland, formulaic & by the numbers fashion that neither the plot nor the characters garner our interest & investment.

The exposure to deliberate decades-long poisoning of our species by these major corporations is deeply concerning and yet there is no sense of urgency in Haynes' narration. And while the cold, sunless atmosphere reflects the grim situation, we are more worried by the realisation that it's already too late than how the events play out in the film.

The film also briefly touches on the rampant corruption within the government that allows these big & powerful conglomerates to get away with everything at the expense of public safety, all for a piece of their cake. Performances are good from the entire cast but the characters they play aren't interesting at all and fail to make us care about them.

Overall, Dark Waters is a well-crafted & finely narrated legal thriller that takes its inspirations from a real-life malpractice yet fails to deliver the desired impact due to Haynes' one-note execution. Captivating in only bits n pieces, hardly as furious as it should be, and a tad too conventional in its approach, Dark Waters performs well below the expectations. Worth a shot anyway.

One of the more forgotten films of 2019 (especially during awards season) is Dark Waters. A very, very good look at an underdog story about one of the most powerful corporations in the world and how they wronged the world (and may still be) by poisoning the water we all drink. Mark Ruffalo, returning to this investigative sub-genre after 2015's Spotlight, gives another terrific performance, and he's supported by several other noteworthy actors doing great work. I think in many ways this film could have been more satisfying if it was made in a few years as the case(s) against Dupont is quite frankly, still going on. Alas, the film isn't necessarily something I would ever revisit since it's far from an enjoyable experience. But at the very least, Ruffalo's performance is something all film fans will appreciate.

7.9/10

The powerful company DuPont that runs consuming water business with a plant in Cincinatti, Ohio, has been polluting water for many years with a chemical called PFOA that proves to be greatly dangerous to human health and has inclusively caused some deaths. The defense attorney Robert Bilott starts a fight against that company which includes judicial proceedings, The movie shows it with every detail in an excellent realistic way with all characters performed by excellent actors which galvanizes us as viewers till its end. One of the best 2019 movies.

So, basically if I ever end up with a serious illness then I should take it up with DuPont? Sounds good.

SYNOPSIS: This is the story based on a real person named "Robert Bilott" and inspired by an article titled "The Lawyer Who Became DuPont's Worst Nightmare." Robert Bilott (Mark Ruffalo) is a lawyer who primarily defends chemical corporations until a farmer from his old town of West Virginia asks for help to prove that there are chemicals being dumped in the water that is the cause of large amount of cow deaths. Although unconvinced at first, through excessive research and digging, Robert begins to find horrifying evidence of something much worse than just a deadly chemical to cows, but humans and all creatures alike.

DIRECTION: If I'm being honest, I don't have much to say in this realm. The direction by Todd Haynes was as technically solid as any other good film. Yes, just "good." The color palette was probably a little too dull even for the subject matter and really the film's strong points really lye in the writing and some strong performances. I feel almost any other director could've done the same job, if not better.

WRITING: The writing is definitely a step up from the directing. The writing isn't perfect as there are some scenes that almost seemed unnecessary and just had me thinking "get to the story!" Now, there is much to be said about how much time and effort it must've been to retrieve all of this information and translate it to script. Yes, it's been done before, ie: Spotlight, Zodiac, etc., but this is quite possibly one of the most important stories to be told today as this is something that is still affecting everyone... TODAY. It is based on the NYTIMES article "The Lawyer Who Became DuPont's Worst Nightmare" by Nathanial Rich, but obviously there was far more research than a 10ish page article.

ACTING: The acting is definitely where the juice is at. This is where you take your regular beef sandwich and baptize it (In case you're not american enough to know what this means, it means you dump in in the beef juice). Mark Ruffalo gives a similarly excellent performance as he did in Spotlight. WOAH WOAH, I didn't say it was AS good, I said it was SIMILAR. Cool it, Mary. It's expected, but he really makes the film what it is. Anne Hathaway is great, as usual, but her role as the wife wasn't integral to the story. I understand showing he has a life outside of work with kids and a wife and showing the kid's grow older and older gives substance to the prolonged journey Robert is taking, but these were the scenes I felt could've been cut or replaced. Tim Robbins is in this and some other people and some other people. All did well, just kind've interchangeable.

CONCLUSION: Mr. John "The Sexy and Over-qualified or something Critic Guy" Yanulis, you rated this film a 3.5/5, yet after reading your overly long review it seems like a high rating. What can I say? I like it Ruff and I'm a sucker for investigative films on important and interesting topics. Also, I prefer rating my films on a 1-10 bases, but I'm limited. So really for me this film is like a 6.6/10.

A very powerful and well-done account of a devastating and relatively recent example of egregiously long-term corporate arrogance, greed, and social irresponsibility; verses the sustained dedication of one farmer and one attorney.

With such well-documented, internally done, red-flag-raising studies which revealed the substantial long-term health consequences of the manufacture and use of such a widely used product, one has to wonder - where were the company whistle blowers?

Also, in light of all the years of legal maneuvering and stone-walling, one must also wonder what efforts Dupont damage control executives put into keeping this movie from being made, released, and seen by the public.

It's rare for a film to entertain and inform, and where the superheroes are real live people. A superb and important story-telling that everyone should, if not must, see!

I really wanted to like this. It's worthwhile topic that deserved a far better movie. Mark Ruffalo seems half-asleep during the entire movie, plodding around, failing to say anything but a few obvious platitudes. Perhaps if he mustered a little anger, or eloquence, the movie might have been better. Maybe it was the writing? The pacing? The direction? One scene shows a street, and some cars, and lingers there, like there's something there we should see. What is it? No clue. These kinds of movies are sort of review-proof. The story is so worthy of a movie, and is enough by itself to make anyone angry. This movie just wastes the chance. In the last few minutes the film gives some statements about the devastating and longlasting effects of this "forever chemical." Those crushing statistics alone have about 100x as much impact as does this entire slog of a movie. If you want to learn about this horrible corporate crime, I recommend you read about it online rather than sit through this pathetic rendering. Just my take.