Stoutor It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Kamila Bell This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

eurograd Pink Ribbons, Inc. brings up compelling and unsettling issues about the commercialization of the "fight against breast cancer". It presents a thorough history of how the pink ribbons became big business, while transforming female breast cancer into a hurdle that can or could always be fought, overcome and ultimately defeated if only the women facing it have the right attitude.In this context, the documentary brings compelling testimony of women who were left behind the pink ribbon movement, the unwanted faces on runs and events: those who, despite doing all the 'right things' (exercise, auto-exams, early treatment) still got late stage non- treatable cancer for whom "living to see my grandchildren" is not an option and for whom death looms as a matter for, at best, couple years. These women, without resorting to self-pity, clearly explain through their ordeals how they feel alienated and left behind by the whole pink ribbon movement, as if they had the "wrong" type of cancer to be accepted by support groups or advocated for by associations and their events.Nonetheless, the directors took an easy and unfortunate option that tarnishes the whole message of the documentary. They clang on one of the many scientifically plausible causes of cancer - environmental factors - and tried to construct a narrative where there is this whole conspiracy that thrives on cancer-awareness while preventing its cure, which would be easily achievable if only they investigated environmental factors that cause cancer. Mainstream science already knows, with quite some confidence, that cancer can have multiple factors determining its onset, and even people living very healthy lifestyles might still be affected by it. Environmental factors are one of many causes of cancer, but not the only one, and certainly not the only worth researching about. At this point, my score to this documentary went down from an 8.5, give or take, to 6.

Turfseer The average person would never imagine that the ongoing feel-good Breast Cancer Awareness movement is profoundly wrong-headed, but this is essentially what the controversial and extremely informative documentary, Pink Ribbons, Inc., attempts to impart. Primarily taking on the Susan G. Komen Foundation and its chief executive officer, Nancy Brinker (sister of Susan G. Komen and a breast cancer survivor herself), who are in the forefront of raising money for breast cancer treatment, Director Lea Pool first questions the sincerity of the feel-good pink ribbon campaign. Brinker defiantly states, "absolutely not", in response to the accusation that the Susan G. Komen Foundation and their supporters are putting a "pretty face" on breast cancer awareness. But it's interesting that she admits that without a positive spin, they could never attract the vast numbers of supporters that they do. It's understandable that those who promote the positive spin on breast cancer awareness do so as the thought of the reality of the disease, is hard to look at head on. But 'Pink Ribbons, Inc.' suggests that the sugar-coating of the disease, prevents the general public from realizing and ultimately admitting that certain cases may be indeed incurable and others, may be iatrogenic in nature—exacerbated by the traditional treatments breast cancer victims most often undergo. Indeed, the documentary features some enlightening comments from a former surgeon, Dr. Susan Love, critic of traditional "slash, burn and poison" treatments.While the thousands upon thousands who participate in race/walk for the cure events may be well-intentioned, the documentary points out that they're both gullible and take an unquestioning stance as to deleterious corporate involvement in their fund-raising events as well as to where all the research money goes. Indeed, the most compelling argument of the documentary is that corporations exploit cancer for their own gain. By linking themselves to the breast cancer awareness movement, it's the perfect opportunity for corporations to market their products, under the ruse of helping 'fight' this insidious disease.In certain cases, completely deceptive fund-raising campaigns were designed by these corporations. One example involved American Express— they agreed to donate one cent when you used your Amex credit card; the fine print made it clear, however, that they donated one cent for the ENTIRE purchase (so if you charged $1,000 to your card, they would still only be donating one cent). Fortunately, activists shut down the campaign through an email campaign of their own. Yoplait Yogurt was also forced to rescind their offer to donate 30 cents for each used Yoplait Yogurt lid mailed back in to the company—after it was discovered that Recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), a synthetic (man-made) hormone that is marketed to dairy farmers to increase milk production and linked to cancer, was used to create the Yoplait product. General Mills, owner of Yoplait, eventually discontinued use of the growth hormone in Yoplait, as a result of another activist campaign against them.The myopic view of the supporters of the breast cancer awareness movement is reflected in their complete lack of interest in where all the contributions go. The assumption is that the cancer researchers and drug manufacturers 'know what they're doing,' and they should be 'trusted.' The reality is that if the some of the drugs 'work', it's only a matter of extending the life of the breast cancer victim, a few months at best. But of course what is not mentioned, is the quality of life of the 'survivor'. 'Pink Ribbons, Inc.' argues for investment in prevention strategies and research into environment causes, which of course is antithetical to the corporate culture, which is basically out to make a buck.Major corporate contributors to the breast cancer awareness have products full of carcinogenic ingredients. The Estee Lauder company is singled out particularly for their hypocrisy—promoting their cosmetic products loaded with dangerous chemicals linked to cancer, while at the same time, collecting monies for a 'cure'. Just as garish is Kentucky Fried Chicken whose partnership with Komen appears to be absurd, given that the type of food they sell, is not considered to be at all healthy (Komen defended this particular campaign by arguing that KFC was promoting grilled, not fried chicken).'Pink Ribbons, Inc.', also delves into the history of breast cancer fund-raising. In fact, Breast Cancer Awareness Month, which began in 1982, was actually introduced by a pharmaceutical company. The original ribbon wasn't pink but salmon-colored and the woman who designed it refused to be bought out after a pharmaceutical company attempted to buy the original design (they circumvented her by simply changing the color to pink).Ultimately, the co-opting of Breast Cancer awareness and fund-raising by Big Pharma and other corporate entities, is American as apple pie. The value of this documentary is that individuals who watch it, may begin to question whether both the orthodox medical and corporate establishments really have a true interest in helping to prevent the spread of breast cancer. Researching prevention strategies, not finding some kind of illusory 'cure' that lines the pockets of corporate CEOs and their physician minions, really is where a good deal of the money Komen raises, should go. It is unlikely that the majority of people watching this documentary will be swayed, as it is much more comforting to put on a pink ribbon, than take an interest in whether your corporate sponsor is involved for their own profit and to inquire for what purpose your monetary contribution is being utilized.

Steve Pulaski I went shopping at a local supermarket today, bought roughly forty items, and three of them bare a pink box supporting some breast cancer awareness fund. When does the ambition of creating awareness simply become lucrative glamorization? I hear more about walks, runs, jumps, and efforts to promote charities raising money to donate to a breast cancer organization, but scarcely hear about advances in science, technology, or medicines to try and prevent the disease. Is our money being put to use or is it put to fund another gimmicky public charity? Breast cancer is the leading cause of death of women in America, and cancer in itself is one of the most common diseases among both sexes. I know for a fact I'm personally at risk of developing prostate cancer because of the checkered history in my family. I've long thought if companies really would love to find a cure for cancer, or would that cease in the immense profits that charities continue to turn in? Recently, I watched a documentary on the pitifully disappointing American healthcare system called Escape Fire: The Fight to Rescue American Healthcare. A rare documentary, seemingly lacking a specific political bias, the film featured a female subject that bluntly stated that it's almost as if the system doesn't want you die or get better, but just keep coming back and handing money over the counter.Pink Ribbons, Inc., based on the 2006 novel by Dr. Samantha King, professor of kinesiology and health studies at Queen's University, explores the possibility and the stunning proposition that the "pink ribbon campaign," whose efforts are directed specifically at creating breast cancer awareness, is only a shameless cash-grab for companies to utilize while contributing very little of their profits to famous organizations. Some companies products that are donating towards breast cancer research include chemicals that possibly contribute higher risk of developing the disease. Not to mention, with so many organizations, big and small, and so many corporations shelling out products apparently with profits being donated to cancer research, it results in very disorganized money patterns. Millions being donated, with little rhyme or reason, and little coming out that is revolutionary.There comes a point where we can seemingly define the sincerity of companies attempting to fund breast cancer research and some simply trying to bank off a serious disease. When Susan G. Komen and Avon commit to holding a charity event, you almost feel compelled to trust them because they've given millions upon millions of dollars in efforts to find cures. But when we begin seeing pink handguns, we question how we've drifted from sincerity to shallow consumerism. I've frequently seen teenagers walk around with thick bracelets proclaiming "I LOVE BOOBIES. KEEP A BREAST." Do they wear them because they believe in stopping breast cancer, or do they just love having something as provocative as "BOOBIES" on their wrist? The same can go for those brazen "Cancer Sucks" t-shirts. Why? Interviews conducted are with the author of the Pink Ribbons, Inc. novel Samantha King, Barbara Eherenreich, writer of many books around the cancer, who resents the idea of softening the disease into making it "normal and feminine," and my personal favorite, the sassy, shamelessly blunt Barbara Brenner, a health activist, diagnosed twice, and not afraid to attack some corporations' lucrative practices. She makes no hesitation to call out Yoplait Yogurt for their "Save Lids to Save Lives" campaign, where if one were to peel off a lid of their yogurt, clean it up, then mail it back to the company, a dime would be donated to the Susan G. Komen Foundations. Brenner states that if you were to eat three cans of yogurt, everyday, and send the lid back for four months straight, the time the event was going on that, you'd successfully donate only $34 to the Komen foundation. "Bottom line, write a check," she says.Easily, the most intimate shot of the picture involves an obese African-American woman who struggles to walk at one of the sponsored breast cancer walks. We are unaware if she's diagnosed with the disease, knows someone who is, or simply walks out of the goodness of her heart. For about thirty seconds, we watch as she pursues on, through sweat and exhaustion; something about that scene made me want to help her along or sit her down and give her the resources necessary to complete the walk. It is one of the most affecting shots in any documentary I've seen, mainly because of the impressionistic prints it leaves on the viewer.The speakers we see in the film are mostly women, understandably so. One thing I caught early on that, beneath their deep intelligence and their wide range of talents, lied an angry, seemingly bitter core, in someways throwing the documentary a curveball. These women are mainly angry at the glorification of a painful disease that deteriorates the energy and body of a woman, but it seems they occasionally talk down to those who participate in walks and runs for the charitable organizations of the disease when they appear to be doing nothing but trying to take part in a community event to raise money or simply partake in the activities to memorialize a loved-one. It seems unfair to pull the "you don't understand suffering" card to those who are benefiting those who are actually suffering, don't you think? Starring: Barbara Brenner, Barbara Enherenreich, and Samantha King. Directed by: Léa Pool.

Sam Lake While I don't agree with some of the main points made by the documentary, I appreciate the film's honesty in discussing the corporate culture that has become pervasive in breast cancer fund-raising. I find it bizarre that there is this culture in the US that seems to think that throwing money at a cause with inevitably lead to solutions. The film makes a great point about holding the health and research industry more accountable. People are pouring money down the drain funding basic science research and incorrect mouse models that will never be translated into treatments for human beings. They are supporting monolithic institutions like the research and health care industries that have their own self-interests at heart. Researchers and medical professionals make their livelihood off of this funding. The majority of them don't have any real interest in finding a cure when they can milk the cash cow for their own benefit for years.