"House of Numbers" Movie Trailer Review

1/09/2010 Posted by Admin

By our guest blogger, Hannah Lawrence

Despite the tremendous advancements in the treatment of HIV/AIDS in recent years, many scientists and medical professionals continue to disagree about the specifics of the disease and its manifestations. The widespread variety of opinions has spurred countless debates about treatment and a potential cure within the medical communities. 

And it has divided that world.

"House of Numbers" is Canadian filmmaker Brent Leung's first feature film and it documents how countries are all searching for a cure, even though most of them disagree on what, exactly, HIV/AIDS is. In the trailer, we see Leung willingly surrender his own beliefs about the disease and openly accept conflicting theories from scientists and specialists. In talking to one specialist after another, the back-to-back different mindsets are alarming. This proves there is accuracy in Leung's own description of the film as "the first picture to present the uncensored POVs of virtually all the major players."

"House of Numbers" does not appear to be a documentary that tracks the history and rapid spread of of HIV/AIDS, which some might think prevents it from comprehensively analyzing the disease. And while it might have helped for Leung to provide his audience with a brief rundown of the disease and its complications, the trailer suggests the director avoided doing so because he wanted to make viewers question their own knowledge of HIV/AIDS.

It's scary to think there are very few widely held truths about the HIV/AIDS pandemic. What's so intriguing about "House of Numbers" is that it doesn't appear to be a documentary that tries to separate supposition from fact.  Instead, it's caught in the midst of an evolving, critical debate.

View the trailer for the movie "House of Numbers" below. What are your thoughts?

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Technorati
  • Facebook
  • TwitThis
  • MySpace
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • Google
  • Reddit
  • Sphinn
  • Propeller
  • Slashdot
  • Netvibes


  1. Ricci said...

    Are you curious at all about these health wars we have in the world today? Why for example the 50 year war on cancer in the West has resulted in coinciding increases in the disease as well as funding received for "fighting cancer"? Do you put this down to incompetence, coincidence, complacency or greed?

    I am curious why fundraisers, on the one hand assume to be compassionate and caring, often accuse critics of decade-long (failed) medical research as being uncompassionate themselves towards the victims. Even in circumstances where researchers themselves admit that they have not saved a single life.

    If the fundraisers and activists insist that more money and hope will lead to success in cures and they are really convinced of this then why can't they offer a name to a single prominent researcher? Let alone cite a reference paper. This is tantamount to a religion and has fascinated me for many years. My own mother has supported what is now called Cancer Research UK. She worked in a charity shop for 15 years. She still knows no cancer researchers or names of any.

    When I told her proudly that I had stayed at the home of Prof Harvey Bialy (cancer researcher and former editor of Nature Biotechnology) in Cuernavaca in Mexico and that he had told me in no uncertain terms that "cancer research is not about finding a cure, but about understanding why carcinogens cause cancer", she showed no interest. On the contrary. This and the general attitude of other well-meaning folk make me ponder (uncompassionately): are such causes and the people who support them only concerned as long as there ARE victims? Have you noticed how nobody celebrates when someone is cured or cures themselves, when the media occasionally spends a day investigating? Or how nobody gets depressed when the media reports that "the scourge" is on the rise again and "....these are just estimates, the real figures are probably much higher...."
    I think most people accept that TB has been endemic in Africa for hundreds of years and has been a major killer there. TB is not an STD. Yet 50% of "AIDS" cases (certainly among adults) present with TB. What is the difference between someone who has TB and tests "positive" and someone with TB who tests "negative"? None. Clinically the same, serologically (blood) the same. So why change the name to "AIDS"? People in Africa have been dying of TB for hundreds of years. This isn't good, but it's a fact. People who succumb to TB are normally always poor. Being poor does not necessarily mean that someone goes without food, but it probably does mean that they are EATING THE SAME MEAL DAY AFTER DAY, YEAR AFTER YEAR, being over tired, over worked, underpaid, stressed and unfit. Being sick prevents men from going to work, treatment expenses for families are a worrisome curse too. Because of the amount of money thrown at “AIDS” costs of treatments for real killer diseases goes up compounding the effects of extreme poverty.

  2. Anonymous said...

    This website is the best. Thank your for this article. I enjoyed it very much.
    Find Payday Loan Inc. 524 Yonge Street, Toronto, ON M4Y 1X9 (866) 519-5161