ThiefHott Too much of everything

Inclubabu Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

dabev1945 This film has some merit. It includes videotaped quotes from several major players in the Bush administration. Where it falls down is in it's editing. Anytime a neocon is depicted on screen you can hear the dissonant violins playing in the background and the scene is immediately cut to some unknown ex-government staffer decrying the statements as neo-nazi rather than neo-con (or any other modern political philosophy).If the US has decided that WMDs are unacceptable in a world of global Islamic terrorism, that should be debated on those merits. Instead, this film conflates 9/11 and Iraq in a manner that is worse than anything that the "power players" in the US have done, and goes forth to insinuate that they are war mongers trying to bring about the 2nd coming of Christ, at the behest of the Jews.These major faults degrade the usefulness of the film to "junk propaganda" status that does nothing to further the political goals of either side, and removes it from the realm of documentary. With proper editing, this could have been a good film, but the blinders were tied a too snug.

loleralacartelort7890 This so-called documentary, if you can call it that, is named: "Monde selon Bush, Le". This documentary is nothing but boring facts/lies and accusations against the American Presidint George W. Bush. The french director of this so-called "documentary", had an opinion about Bush before he made the documentary. The the French director chose facts and lies to fit his own opinion about Bush - the reel facts, that supported Bush was of course erased from this "documentary", because it did not fit in the french director's political agenda. The evidence about Bush not winning the 2000 election is justified in this documentary (Kerry's 500,000 more votes than Bush is hard to look away from), but after that the so-called "documentary" falls apart. The so-called facts (which I personally really do not believe in) are ludicrous. For example the so-called "facts" about Bush's father (former President) and his grandfather's connections with Nazi Germany are just SO laughable and laughable, that I think I became dumber just by listening to it. The whole "documentary" is wrong and ludicrous. And you can clearly see that the French director has an political opinion (he hates Bush). This is not a documentary, it is just pure hate and political propaganda against Bush - no more, no less. Other than that the documentary is poorly made in comparison to reel documentaries like Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 - which is a well made political documentary.All in all: Don't watch this poor workmanship.1 out of 10 - Nuff said.

DaADA1 I literally accidentally saw this film in a cinema on the Champs-Elysées in Paris one evening in mid-July planning on seeing Shrek 2. I asked the usher what his favourite film was, and he told me "Le Monde Selon Bush", making sure to point out that it was not the film by Michael Moore. Having seen "Fahrenheit 9/11" recently, I decided to see France's take on the Bush administration. I had no idea what I had gone into.This film is a triumph in terms of documentaries. It's narrated in French, but nearly the entire film is a series of interviews and archive footage, all in English, with French subtitles. The interviews are just amazing. They construct the entire Bush administration from the inauguration in January 2001 up until present day. Several key figures (including Iraqi weapons inspector Hans Blix and notorious Bush aide Paul Wolfowitz) as well as many White House insiders construct a portrait of the interior and goings-on within the Bush administration, frequently focusing on the religious aspects. The facts are so overwhelming and shocking that I literally felt short of breath in several instances. The footage is not doctored, the interviews very articulate and straight-forward, and the effect is absolutely stunning to say the least. Everything speaks for itself. From time to time, the narrator connects the testimonials into a network of characterisations that, with seemingly stunning accuracy, paint the zeal and fervour of the Bush administration, even hinting at the usage/ believing of the medieval divine right. The images of Bush being blessed on his way from Crawford to the White House, an Army General fervently preaching at a Baptist church, and the testimony of a White House staffer being told by Donald Rumsfeld on a Sunday morning that he "missed Bible study" are just some of the amazing and moving images in this film.Weeks later, after having travelled to Nice and upon my return to Paris, I found the DVD recently released. Seeing as that I was moving to the States (in region 1) and that the DVD was encoded zone 2, I decided not to buy it. However, if you live in Europe, I implore you to find this film. See it by any means necessary. You won't regret it. What I wouldn't give to see the reception of it here.And for the record, it ran laps around "Fahrenheit 9/11".

vostf Sure William Karel won't indulge in some Michael Moore-like farcical overview. Karel is more of a documentary cistercian monk observing abstinence from humor and poverty of montages. Well, to observe the same austerity in reviewing 'Le Monde selon Bush' I must say it's a well-documented investigation over the Bush administration with revealing questions (V.O.) answered by about 20 interviewees ranging from journalists, CIA insiders to such big shots as Richard Perle, Colin Powell or Carlyle's 'Don' Carlucci.Strongly rooted in a careful definition of the Bush background and persona the documentary then grows into full blossom which might be overwhelming if you're not one hundred percent concentrated. There's so much to understand straight away then jump to the next implication that 'Le Monde selon Bush' is only valuable to people who already know it all. All the information is available here and there in articles and books so the documentary is only a quick recap for all you've heard, read or missed in the past couple of years. But that's definitely not a movie that will cater for grassroots audiences. What does remain on your RAM once you're through with the Karel weapon of mass documentation? Precise and revealing facts such as George W's passport (he didn't have one before 2000) or the vast array of links between political figures in office and industrial military businesses. Maybe it's enough to qualify for a PhD. in Bushonomics, cronyism and oversimplification. Maybe you'll leave that to other people.So what's the more important thing for a documentary? Be strictly un-intrusive, which implies to hold your breath for 90 minutes? Or to have people moved by what they see so they think about it thereafter?