Ameriatch One of the best films i have seen

XoWizIama Excellent adaptation.

Borgarkeri A bit overrated, but still an amazing film

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

talltrees-964-504184 Early on in the film, Director Tony Kaye, shows us a live abortion. The physician's matter-of-fact approach to ending a pregnancy contrasts with the close-up of the aborted products---we see the distinct remains of a small white hand, and a head. That image stayed with me throughout the film. In another part of the film, we are shown late term, dead babies crowded into the clinic's freezer compartment. My first concern is about the accuracy of these visual whammies. The viewer might catch the fact that the woman was twenty weeks along, which makes the abortion being done midway though the second trimester. No recent stats are provided, and I'm wondering what the real statistics are regarding later terminations. We are given a scene where a religious leader with a number of children are planting a field with many small crosses. Later I learn from The New York Times, Oct. 3, 2007, that according to the film's distributor, the images of the late term (intact), dead babies in the "clinic freezer" had been given to Mr. Kaye by members of the anti-abortion group, Operation Rescue. As far as any body knows they could have been dolls---it's not that clear.I missed hearing more from women who were having to decide about an abortion. What were the causes for their dilemmas---was it lack of affordable, available preventives? Were the preventives they were using not effective? Was it the situation they found themselves in---poverty, an abusive partner, lack of information? Is our society pushing both men and women to participate in risky relationships---is our media irresponsible and seductive? What were the areas that needed our attention? It would have been informative to know what happened afterward. Were there emotional complications as the Fundamentalists have claimed? Or did most women feel that while it had been traumatic, they had done the best they could, and had gotten on with their lives?I had the distinct feeling that the first part of the long film, and the last part were done by two different people. Perhaps Kaye changed his view as he went along. We aren't given any obvious hint as to where he stands in this difficult debate. He may have well gone personally back and forth as his film seems to do. The back-and-forth doesn't seem orderly as one would expect a debate to be. At first it seems heavy on one side, and then another, and sometimes you wish he'd settle in and do a consistent, equal time, point-for-point thing. But, I have to say, the film's shock treatment keeps you enough off balance that you begin to realize how complex and big this issue is. Still, I also kept thinking that if anyone were truly serious about doing something about the issue, there were a number of savvy, fairly inexpensive, and effective ways to take care of a lot of the pre-abortion problems---so that abortions would then be needed only for special situations, they would be done safely, and the right to make one's own well-informed decision would be in place.

Greatornot I thought this documentary was very fair. Both sides were shown. Some people say it was biased to the left but I do not believe that. I have personally spoken to people who are antiabortion and most of them really do throw their religious beliefs around, like a 2 yr old throws a ball around the house. Basically , the fanatics against abortion , quote every other passage from the bible. Its not the filmmakers fault if these people that are against abortion , come across inarticulate and judgmental and yes for the most part very uneducated as well. The film showed abortion procedures, scenes of crimes, and multiple monologues from people on both sides. The title of the film itself , is proudly proclaimed by the religious right. If these people view this movie they would probably see this as fair. It was a very chilling film , and reinforced the fact that there are people in our very nation that would circumvent the law to push their religion on others. The film was a bit too long and would like to have seen some color to maybe get the true effect , especially on some of the medical procedures and crime scenes. All in all a good film.

Streetballa I saw a few people on here proclaiming themselves as pro-life and panning the film for supposedly being biased against their view.First of all, purely on balance alone I'd say the film is equal to both sides. It's just that most of the stuff which makes you want to be pro-life comes at the beginning of the film while most of the content which makes you want to be pro-choice comes in the second half. It seems to me that they're just upset that their side didn't get the proverbial last word.Secondly, this film is not about balance anyway. It's about documenting the cultural debate in the film about abortion in America. Whether one or two dissenting reviewers of this film are or not, the fact is that most of the pro-life advocates are Christian religious fringe. Of course there are exceptions, and they document that in the movie. Although I don't think Kaye should have given an hour to the secular atheist pro-lifers, because frankly there aren't that many of them.The criticism also seem to come from people who don't even understand any points being made in the movie -- one reviewer claimed that Chomsky was comparing abortion to a woman washing her hands. That's not what he was doing at all. His example was made to demonstrate the relativity involved with the process of placing value on life.In any event, the film definitely is a roller coaster ride, and there are times where you might find yourself at odds with your own opinion. The movie being as balanced as it is, probably wont change a lot of minds, but I would think at the very least it would soften your position one way or another. If it doesn't, you're either just stubborn, or you weren't even trying to pay attention to the message of the film.

Roland E. Zwick We've been taught to believe that the purest and best documentaries are those that take a definitive stand on an issue. Such a one-sided approach is supposed to bespeak a righteous passion on the part of a filmmaker - as if dogmatism, in and of itself, were an indisputable virtue. But what if the issue at hand is so morally complex that it simply doesn't lend itself to the strident arguments and easy answers of a black-and-white diatribe? Might it not, then, be best to drop the "know-it-all" posture of the partisan zealot and, instead, attempt to look at both sides of the issue from a position of objectivity and fairness? Well, that is exactly what filmmaker Tony Kaye has done with "Lake of Fire," a documentary on abortion that attempts to examine both sides of the issue in as unbiased and evenhanded a way as possible. For once, the impassioned spokespersons in both the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" camps are free to have their say and to make their case, without commentary or condemnation from a judgmental third party. In so doing, he has fashioned an unflinching and uncompromising look at one of the issues that most divides Americans today - and will surely do so for a very long time to come..Watching "Lake of Fire" is a bit like being a ping pong ball in a high-stakes table tennis match. Just as we find ourselves agreeing with a representative from one side of the equation, we are bandied back to the opposing side by what appear to be equally compelling arguments emanating from a spokesperson there. And back and forth we go. For while there are "nutcases" and "screwballs" on both sides of the divide (and they certainly get ample opportunity to voice their views here), many of the people who are interviewed offer sound, reasoned arguments for the positions they take. At a lengthy two hours and thirty-two minutes, Kaye's film has plenty of time to take us into the emotionally-charged world of abortion politics, represented most vividly by the impassioned rallies and protest marches that all too often devolve into name-calling shouting matches that cloud the issue and further alienate those in the political center. Moreover, in what is essentially a new American "civil war," both sides come to the battlefield armed with gruesome images of those who have already perished in the conflict - the pro-lifers of dismembered fetuses, the pro-choicers of murdered doctors and victims of "back alley" abortions.Kaye is to be particularly commended for not sanitizing or sugarcoating the actual abortion process, clearly assuming that we are grown up enough to face the truth without the need for coyness or comforting filters. Intriguingly, Kaye has opted to film his movie in black-and-white rather than color, a very shrewd and wise decision, since the stark imagery serves to underline the seriousness and gravity of the issue.If there's a weakness to the film it is that there may be a bit too much emphasis on the movers and shakers in each of the groups and not enough on the ordinary, average citizens whose lives have been directly affected or severely altered by abortion (or the lack thereof). The movie does, however, end on such a note, taking us along with a young woman as she goes through the step-by-step process of an actual abortion. It reminds us that, after all the speeches and marches, all the clinic protests and killing of doctors, the issue finally comes down to an individual woman and the agonizing decision she alone is being called upon to make.With his film, Kaye clearly wants to make us think, but he doesn't tell us HOW to think - and that's what separates his work from that of so many of his film-making contemporaries. How people will react to this film is anyone's guess. All I know is that, no matter which side of the struggle you may come down on - or even if you have somehow managed to remain scrupulously neutral about it up to this point - "Lake of Fire" will indeed make you think long and hard about the issue.