House of Numbers: Anatomy of an Epidemic (2009)

Simply A Masterpiece

Perfect cast and a good story

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

The movie is made so realistic it has a lot of that WoW feeling at the right moments and never tooo over the top. the suspense is done so well and the emotion is felt. Very well put together with the music and all.

While I praise this documentary for making us doubt about everything we know about HIV since its earlier cases in 1981, I recognize that despite the various authorities on the issue and their strange contributions with alarming facts, this is a one-sided portrayal perfect to match the opinion of the disease's denialists and their conspiracy theories. The director guides us and acts as if being a curious person like his viewers are to later become the paladin bearer of the ultimate truth. In his first (and as of now only) film he seems to a be dedicated researcher seeking the truth but only looking at one side of the matter (to deny AIDS existence). Doesn't convince for too long and neither does most of the interviewed people here.I liked it solely because of its good filmmaking, well-put together without making a giant mess with the information gathered (for a moment I almost trusted some of its false items) and above all because it makes us doubt, it raises deep and still unanswered questions and this can be good sometimes. Of course, he's gonna confuse many people and make a lot of disservice but prudent minds know how to see this in other perspective. I'm just worried with people who know little about the disease and will "buy" the theories presented. This is dangerous, offensive and cruel. The Wikipedia page is far more reliable than this movie, really.Who's here? The CDC team who investigated the first HIV cases (Doctors James Curran, Harold Jaffe and Don Francis); the controversial Robert Gallo, one of its discovers along with Luc Montagnier, another pioneer who is also here among other medical doctors, patients, regular people who know little about AIDS and "miracle" cases (awfully manipulated by making us see crying parents we're led to believe that the infected baby had died years ago when in fact she was alive as a teenager during the making of the film). Here's the destruction little by little, the best I could remember: according to what was shown HIV is not of easy transmission; there's always co-factors which are important to dictate if you'll get it or not like the use of poppers; reckless or poor lifestyle; heterosexual transmission is put into jeopardy, as inexistent or rare; if acquired it IS the thing that's gonna kill you (even with the use of medication which prevents its growth). The medication side effects, OK we'll give you that because is truth, AZT as villain (sure, back in the day alone and with no other helper it was a main issue); the inadequacy of tests - Western Blot is pointless, confusing. Who do we trust? The rapid method used in some African countries is ridiculous. And the "perks" of being infected - which I'm not sure if it was real, it was too optimistic - I mean, people were secured homes because they have AIDS? But the medicine is still expensive. One thing truly amazed me: the charts system used to describe the difference between having AIDS or having an occasional low in the immune system. Several diseases besides HIV/AIDS also causes failure in the immune system, low levels of CD-4 count (immune failure due to stress, most of us have and we get sick.) But according to the 1992 chart (still on use) those drops could be classified as having HIV/AIDS. The thin line used in this criterion is quite intriguing. It lost great potential when it skimmed the most frightening topic: the role of pharmaceutical companies in developing a cure. They don't want to find it. We'll never find a cure because of reasons. Another downer was an unflattering image of Brazil (and I doubt the man filmed those in here cause we have better places than what was shown. 5th economy of the world, we're not a country of just slums) focusing on poor conditions but the director failed to show our medical program widely acknowledged by the United Nations as an example to the world. It's reported everywhere that some of the doctors interviewed were taken out of context; one of them easily falls in contradiction three times in less than two minutes. As for the doctors who felt misinterpreted, it's your own fault. Educated, highly paid and cultured experts like you can't afford to not knowing how to explain facts and proofs. The worst was an impatient and snob doctor who refuses to create a image of the virus in a way to show how the virus mutates. "I have more important things to do than to teach you things" he says to which the director inter-cuts with dumbfounded reactions of other doctors who simply can't expose a new image of the virus as if to say all doctors in the world are led to believe such disease exists based on a 30 year-old image, and no new studies were made to corroborate that. But Luc Montagnier, tops it all, and managed to cause a significant damage. In no way he should have said that the body system of a healthy person in contact with someone infected has ways to expel the virus from itself. Watch it at your own risk but don't accept anything from it. It's not objective and it wants to sell a miracle that the disease doesn't exist. So what on Earth were those news images of people with KS? What about the casualties all these years? 6/10

This documentary is a waste of time for those who watch it and those who made it. All the "evidence" in this movie is either outdated, twisted out of context, or false.The most hysterical part is the beginning where the director says he has lots of questions about aids and is going on a journey to uncover the truth. It's obvious he is already a hardcore AIDS denier and only intends to present this point of view, no matter how illogical.I have a very open mind, and am an admitted conspiracy theorist. However, disproven conspiracies, such as this one, with no factual basis, are not worth learning about.Dear Mr. Director, if you really don't think the AIDS virus exists then why not just infect yourself and document your life for a few years? If it's as harmless as you say then you have nothing to worry about.

All documentaries serves as possible tools of manipulation and I see many thoughts flying around about this one but at the end of the day what it does show is that many key scientists in the HIV and AIDS world clearly have very different opinions about what they are dealing with. We live in a world where we want to put things into simple boxes and give them an easy heading. Life is rarely like that and what this documentary does is makes the viewer want to know more. I don't think anyone watching this doc comes away thinking they now have answers they didn't have at the beginning, just more questions and thus less likely to just take any information put in front of them as fact.People no doubt will get into fighting matches over this doc but I found the diversity of idea's within it to be fascinating. To hear any professional in the field of HIV say that due to differences in testing you can be HIV positive in one country and negative in another is fascinating. If this doc opens up more debate that leads to a clearer picture then that's great. I don't imagine the audience of this doc are stupid enough after watching to suddenly throw away the condoms. This doc really kicked me up the ass to find out more, a pretty great attribute if you ask me.

I'm a journalist who has spent some time investigating AIDS denialism and those who have been affected by it. This film is very dangerous, and will likely lead to many lost lives.Since it would take too long here to debunk the various outrageous claims made in the film, let me address just two points it conveniently glosses over:First, Christine Maggiore, the HIV+ activist who has avoided antiretroviral drugs with supposedly no ill consequences, is dead. She died of AIDS-related pneumonia, aged 52. Her daughter Eliza Jane, whose contraction of HIV was undoubtedly helped by Maggiore's refusal of antiretrovirals and breast feeding, also died of AIDS-related pneumonia, aged 3.Second, Kim Marie Bannon, another of the film's HIV+ activists who have avoided antiretroviral drugs with supposedly no ill consequences, is presently residing in a care home with HIV encephalitis. She is dying of AIDS.Why are these fairly important facts pushed to one side? Perhaps they got in the way of creating such an "objective" film.