Who payed the critics

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

A different way of telling a story

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

You come to realize through watching "An Unreasonable Man" that Ralph Nader is the last of a dieing breed. A breed that we desperately need in this time of corporate greed, empty politics and back room deals. There's nothing revealed in this documentary that most don't already know about the man, and indeed it suggests that there is little else to the man than what the world knows about him through his public work. Indeed this is a very conventional documentary. Don't watch this expecting to see an expose on some fascinatingly complex character with great depths. Nader is not that type of man, he quite literally is his work and little else. This is a man wholly devoted to improving the lives of the average citizen through the tools of the laws of the land. To the point that when GM tried to dig up dirt on him and entice him with women into compromising situations they came up completely empty handed. Most people probably remember him from the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections where he was roundly criticized of helping to get Bush elected by stealing votes from the Democrats. The documentary does a good job here of showing the anger and bitterness left in the wake of his campaign on both sides. However ultimately Nader emerges here as a man of the people, someone who has tirelessly worked throughout most of his adult life to better the lives of the average person. However one views his latter political carrier there is little doubt left here that his legacy will live on in the seat belts, air bags, food and medication warning labels, and thousands of other consumer protections that we now take for granted.There is little doubt in my mind that we need more people like Nader, now more than ever.

'An Unreasonable Man' sure maybe to some or to the sum, however, to badly paraphrase the quote at the beginning of the film, it's going to have to be that way when going against vast popular opinion or a country set possibly in ill-fated contemporary or foregoing ways. The unreasonable man should always be present in time, sound and communal ways: that way we can check ourselves and make sure the emperor has good threads and of course reason, too. That is the way it is has be; or should be. However, I guess it's not that way; and so it goes, but this is not a political diatribe, spread it where they or I may. This documentary, is one of reasonably objective, standard and possible edifying fare; it brings on opponents of the whole 2000/2004 election elicitation, and brings forth the questions or accusations or presumption that Nader had ruined the election for the dems in both respective races. It is a thorough documentary with footage seemingly inclusive of converse thoughts and events, but obviously biased. Even opponents seem to admit not a dime's worth of difference between our two parties. Nader states "and so when people say, 'why'd you do this in 2000?', well I'd say I'm a twenty-year veteran of pursuing the folly of the least-worst between the two parties, 'cause when you do that, you end up allowing them to both get worse, every four years." Very well said. Furthermore, In a supposed free-market, like cheese or milk, let the voter decide. What did Nader owe Gore or Kerry? Let the voter, or the faux-voter, decide, again! Some party's inability to provide the right H'ors deurves might be to blame. Whom did he owe any votes?

I remember when I was working on my listening skills. I used to listen to the speeches of David Duke to see if I could get beyond his hateful rhetoric to find some gem that I could agree with. When I started to watch this doc, I could easily agree with James Carville that outside of Jerry Falwell, Ralph Nader was the worst man in America, or something to that effect. I would put James Dobson and Karl Rove on that list.But, all that changed as I examined the facts. Nader did not cost Gore the election. Even David McReynolds got more votes that the 534 that separated Gore and Bush. In fact, every one of the half dozen or so third party candidates in Florida got more than 534 votes. Gore cost Gore the election, Just as Kerry cost Kerry the election in 2004. Bush should not have won either, and if the Democrats had stood up for the people as Nader did, then they would have won both.We owe so many of the things we take for granted: airbags, seat belts, product labeling warnings on food, clean air; I could go one and on, to Ralph Nader. He is one of the greatest Americans that have ever lived.No. I would never vote for him, but after watching this doc, I will stop vilifying him.

This film explores this fundamental question about democracy; do you vote with your conscious and the future in mind (big picture), or do you vote for the change right now because things are so messed up? My view, and I think the view of the film, is if we vote to change the right now we will only continue the flawed system and it's preconditions that will ensure we never really solve the major problems....just temporarily fix them.What the story of Ralph Nader gives us is an example of how you can fight the system and win. How when you act on what you believe in and look at the world without discrimination you can affect great positive change.Everyone told Ralph he couldn't do this, he couldn't do that. Ralph looked them right in the eye and said F-off I'm doing it because it's the right thing do. And then he would either win the argument or have his predictions proved true.This is the most inspirational film I have watched thus far in my life. If you like justice and fairness, try An Unreasonable Man. You will feel sooooo empowered after watching it.**This comment has been made safer by Ralph Nader**