Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

2freensel I saw this movie before reading any reviews, and I thought it was very funny. I was very surprised to see the overwhelmingly negative reviews this film received from critics.

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

Nelson. Their were a lot of very interesting point brought to light in the this film. I would hope people would be more opened mined and observant of what works and don't work in society. Great film and very informative, I hope the messages and the information someday lead to a debate to a better way of tackling social and world problems..

Samuel Hindgren Where to invade next is a documentary produced by Michael Moore and was released in late 2015. The documentary is about how Michael Moore (the producer and writer of the documentary) travels all around Europe to find ideas from different European countries, which he can later on bring back to the United States to make the United States more like Europe. Michael utilizes humor to show and describe a complex problem to his viewers in a simple way. But in my opinion too much humor can be very deceiving and as a viewer you can miss the importance of the subject. Michael Moore is an extremely good producer and writer. He's really talented and knows exactly how to catch someone's attention in his new documentary ''Where to invade next''. Although Michael knows what he's doing, he has a tendency to be a lot one-sided. This makes me question almost everything he says in the documentary'. It's my assertion that Michael Moore doesn't show us the whole truth, only what looks good on television. This makes me question if I really can believe everything that Michael tells us, or if he is just angling the facts again? And if so, why?In his documentary he compares the United States with Europe and according to me, Michael presents a picture of how awful the United States is and tells us how Europe is superior in almost every sense. Michael show us how different some parts of the United States are as compared to Europe and in my own naive world I did not believe that the gap between Europe and the United States was that big. What I perceived from the documentary was that the people in Europe and in the United States pays almost the same in taxes. The difference is that the United States choose to use the tax income to finance the military instead of focusing on free healthcare, free college degrees and education for every child. So I agree with Michael Moore on one point: We both want free healthcare, free college degree and education for everyone. So, to summarize, in my opinion Michael utilizes in a humorous way an important issue and puts light on the big differences between the United States and the countries that he visits in Europe. Differences in respect to one and another , gender equality, working conditions and free college degrees. Despite the importance of the documentary it's also very important to question the content, when Michael unilaterally describes the subject. What I want to bring about to you, the reader, is the importance of being critical.

Emil Wilsson 4 This review will contain spoilers.Where to invade next was released in 2015 in Canada and United States of America and three months later they released it for the rest of the world. Michael Moore who wrote and directed this movie is back with another funny documentary that will for sure make you laugh but also show you the differences between USA and some other countries.This documentary is produced by Michael Moore, he's traveling around the world to conquer the best ideas and concepts and bring them back to the US. He does this in order to make a better society in the US. In the film he is traveling to places such as Italy, France, Tunisia, Slovenia, Portugal and Norway to find out if the working conditions, school lunches, gender equality etc.. are better there and why it's better. But this movie is extremely misleading if you believe that just because one school have nice food doesn't mean the entire country has the same quality. It's simply impossible. Likewise, the statement that Germany have so good working condition can't be confirmed unless other sources can back it up. He portrays Europe as if we don't have any flaws at all and that's totally wrong, every country has their flaws but he doesn't show the entire picture and that makes the film really unreliable. So what can we call it? A documentary or propaganda?But, I really loved the film because of the humor in it but also that it's so serious. Everybody should see the movie and judge it for themselves. I'm sure you will learn something fun, but also a lot of interesting facts you didn't knew about those countries earlier. I guess Michael Moore also has a hidden reason behind this movie. He wants us to discuss and talk to each other about it and the differences between the countries.I highly recommend this movie.

Nickname This review will contain spoilers!The movie Where to invade next was produced in 2015 and is directed by a film-maker and political activist named Michael Moore. He travels the world to learn from others and to find information to be able to build up what's supposed to be "the American dream" of how their citizens want to live. I assert that it can be helpful to visit other nations to gain experience from for example their traditions and laws, but just because Michael Moore insists that these are the ways other countries handle their problems, doesn't necessarily mean that everything has to be true. Therefore, even though the movie is full of interesting statements, it's being discussed whether it's a documentary or a propaganda. Despite that, there's no doubt that Michael Moore manages to account for some of America's biggest flaws. The US is supposed to be the place where dreams come true, nevertheless they have enormous problems within the country that affects the way people are living. It's important that Moore emphasizes these issues, but on the other hand, he only shows the bright sides. Instead of just pointing out the problems you must explain and provide information of how you can develop, which Michael Moore doesn't. There so much more than meets the eye than what Moore mentioned and I'm sure that the average of the people in this film exaggerated a lot, for example when the French chef claimed that he'd never eaten a hamburger. As mentioned earlier, this movie contains many doubtful assertions. For example, in Tunisia, we get the information that the government pays for women clinics and abortions. But what Moore doesn't mention is that Tunisia is on the 126dh place when it comes to equality according to Global Gender Gap 2016, compared to The U.S on the 45th place. Amnesty (http://www.amnesty.se/om- amnesty/kalendarium/handelse/1433/) also claims that it's legal for rapists to marry their victims to escape their punishment, so why would Michael Moore insist that America should be more like Tunisia? It cannot be stressed enough that Tunisia has to work on their gender equality, therefore I don't understand why Michael Moore would use it as a comparison. Michael Moore also managed to offer somewhat misleading information when it came to Italy and their paid vacations. According to USA Today, Italy has 20 vacation days and 10 paid holidays. Although this is not egregious in terms of international comparisons, it's still untrue to state that everyone has eight weeks of guaranteed paid vacation. Why would Michael Moore choose to show false statements about a country instead of selecting one from the beginning that has true facts and more paid vacations than Italy? To summarize, this movie is, in my opinion, very interesting even though it has a lot of uncertain statements. However, it appears to me that the movie-maker chose to exclude all of the negative parts and only show the pros instead of the reality. Of course the solutions that Moore advocated can work and be helpful, but at the same time, every nation has its own problems. Why not show the viewers the reality instead of distorted facts? Nonetheless, it was a relatively good movie with a mixture of humor and various perspectives. I do not recommend this film if you want trustworthy information, but somehow it serves as an eye-opener because it introduces you to other cultures and lifestyles. Therefore, I rate this movie 5 out of 10 points.