Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

ChicDragon It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

wmtyson This is a technically well executed film. Unlike the other attacks on Moore, this one is not so obvious. It contains very few facts, mostly relying on unverified report of people who have had dealings (and differences) with Moore. They mostly provide interpretations or opinions. Their claims and recall are questionable, but are never questioned, instead they are presumed to be true, and presented as such. The scene with the film critic is especially pathetic, but very illustrative. First he attempts to ambush Moore, when this fails he provides a very strained psychobabble interpretation of the interchange to explain away Moore's posture of being reasonable. Apparently, being nice to someone who is testing you is evidence of some deep psychological troubles (Christians take note). The implication at the end of the film that Moore was the cause of Kerry's defeat in 2004 is blatantly ridiculous, ignoring the complexity of this election and the many factors that led to the loss (like Kerry himself not responding to the swift-boaters). The filmmakers give away their bias and their true agenda. The scene at the end with Moore hugging the filmmaker was priceless. He may have known what he was dealing with. He is not stupid.

Michael_Elliott Manufacturing Dissent (2007) *** 1/2 (out of 4) This documentary has director Debbie Melnyk following around Michael Moore as he promotes Fahrenheit 9/11 and calls him on various lies he's told throughout his career. I've said this countless times that I find Michael Moore to be a very talent filmmaker and I think he makes very entertaining films but there's no denying that he's a hypocrite and lies just as much as the people he goes after. This documentary tells Moore's story from his high school days all the way up to the release of his controversial film and the funny thing is that when this documentary is released, there's even more lies out in the open. Moore's use of fear is something that he often tries to go for yet he uses this against people claiming they use fear to push their points. In 2004 Moore was saying the draft was coming yet here we are four years later and this appears to have been a use of fear to try and sell your point. Another thing that I'm glad got cleared up was the heated debate over the Charlton Heston sequence in Bowling for Columbine. I've always felt Moore crossed the line in this segment and we get to see that the original speech from Heston was not made days after a little kid was killed but four months before it. There's a lot of debate on whether Moore really believes in freedom of speech but I'll let the clips in the movie speak for themselves. I'm not sure if this movie was made to make one hate Michael Moore but it really didn't change my mind of the mind. I still think he's a great talent but as far as calling him a documentary filmmaker is a joke. There are three legendary documentary makers interviewed here and their comments are priceless.

fi61535 I don't believe everything I see in Michael Moore films, I just think he gets the big picture right and gets a little bit "lost" on some of the details.This documentary seems to first take a similar tack, by exposing some of the details he's fudged/manipulated/twisted while still showing him getting the big picture right and doing his stuff for a good purpose.Then, slowly but surely, the film begins to turn from things that are established truths about MM into more sinister looking film which demonifies MM (while still occasionally showing people praising him).I have not done the research, so I can't say which of the things they say about MM are true and which are not. But I dislike the way the documentary works, first "gaining your trust" by "praising" Moore, then using that trust to push something on you that you wouldn't easily believe if it came out of the blue. Seems more like the conspiracy films that circle the internet.. "If you believe this one detail is wrong on the 9/11 report, then you'll believe it was the UFOs that destroyed the WTC".Strictly speaking, both methods are wrong when making a documentary: Getting the big picture right and the details wrong, or getting the details right but the big picture wrong.That said, I have to confess I like Moore films because he makes them entertaining enough to be seen by a wide audience (I can't discuss most of the docus I see with anyone because nobody watches them). And if he gets a few details wrong (intentionally or otherwise), he's at least doing it for a good cause, unlike a lot of people who try to discredit him.

fariska This film makes some really interesting points about Michael Moore Films.Is very interesting to know about him before his film maker career and his first movie. As well as is very curious to see how the troupe actually uses against him his very own reporting methodologies.But said that, this movie doesn't really de-manufacture the points that Moore made on "Bowling for columbine" and Fahrenheit 9/11. Not any single key fact of those movies has been revealed as fictional or erroneous or too edited apart what I personal consider as details (like the Bush speech on Fahrenheit 9/11 or the "Bank with rifles") on the whole narrative and argumentative structure of the movies.At the end the movie succeeds to present Moore as an hypocrite, pointing out the mistakes and omissions on "Roger and Me" but at the same time forgets to say that the facts on his later films are not questioned.