cineastFGD I say it upfront, coming from Europe I like Michael Moore, most probably because I share his political ideas. However I'm no die hard fan of his. I watched a couple of his documentaries and found them entertaining. Still, I was never one second in doubt that he bent the truth to fit his narrative in order to make the story more entertaining and to emphasize a certain point. Whoever takes Michael Moore's films literally and sees them as the beacon of truth is a fool. And as such I would describe this filmmaker couple of 'Manufacturing Dissent'. The story strikes me as a film that starts out with two naive and blinded fans who end up butt hurt because they figure out that their huge idol is not as approachable as they thought. These people are two nobody's who stalk a very famous and probably very busy guy and get busted along the way, as most people would get busted if they started running after their famous idol. However, it seems they cannot accept that the mere fact that they decided to make a documentary on Michael Moore and them being Canadians doesn't open all doors to them. At some point they try to take unauthorized footage of one of his speeches and naturally get kicked out. They use this episode to claim that Moore prohibits their right of free speech? Sorry, what? First of all, what does filming have to do with free speech and, secondly, one cannot just walk into an event and film commercial material without seeking authorization first. As the film progresses, the narrative becomes increasingly negative and they start to present themselves as victims shunned and threatened by the tough staff of Michael Moore, who out of some inexplicable reason doesn't want to talk to them, despite of them being Canadians, heaven forbid. Well, what about him being extremely busy at the time - to the point of total exhaustion, as he told many times in later interviews. The film is a long chain of complaints by people who hold a grunge against Moore out of various reasons, as well as footage from people who simply don't like him and his political agenda. Accusations are taken at face value and go totally unchecked, which makes the journalistic value of this documentary questionable and gives it a sensationalist underpinning. Sure, Moore probably has a huge ego, which person working in the movie industry hasn't? Sure, Moore is probably no angel and being as exposed as he is, it's probably no too hard to find some people whose toes he stepped on. But to accuse him of manipulation of the same level as Nazi Germany's propaganda machine, to indicate he hurt the Kerry campaign through his documentaries and support, and thereby enabled Bush's reelection, is outright ridiculous and straps this documentary of the last rest of credibility.

brad12d3 how people will defend Michael Moore as if somehow showing he is dishonest is representative of the democrat party as a whole. I found this movie an honest look at Michael Moore and who the man really is, compared to what he sells himself to be. Sure, the filmmakers were probably a little miffed at Moore by the end of their film, but that was a result of Michael's mentality. He claims to support the little man, but offers little support for the crew of this film who ask time and again for a sit down interview. Michael is doing the same thing that he demonized Roger Smith for supposedly doing 20 years ago. On top of that his excuses are incredibly lame. "I can't interview with you until after the election, but then I have to sleep for 6 months,.. then we can do an interview." "Oh now, I can't do an interview because I am about to start my next movie, and it will be another years or so before I could possibly do an interview." (not exact quote mind you)You would expect someone like him to not only be supportive of those who admire him, but also a fellow documentary filmmaker.So yes a large part of this film is meant to show Moore's character, which seems to have more of the same qualities as the type of people he claims to be against as opposed to those he claims to defend. Apart from that it is not hard to find evidence of his factual inaccuracies in his films. It amazes me how people still defend his work only because he is outspoken and shares the same political views. A little research will bring up many things that show how dishonest his work is. Bottom line.. this is a film made by left winged filmmakers who are not making a documentary against democrats, but rather a dishonest filmmaker that ultimately would do more to harm the party he claims to represent rather than help it. I don't care how much I agreed with someone's view points, I would never support someone that was this dishonest, and in fact would be ashamed to have them be apart of my party.

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.

kenalbertson The film makes an important distinction for those who are still unsure about how to view a "documentary" film. Recently we have seen "mainstream" film makers such as Ron Howard and Clint Eastwood make movies that are based upon actual historical events, but purposely deviate from the truth in order to make a more dramatic movie. Michael Moore has done this in every "documentary" he has ever made. He admits as much, claiming that the words spoken by his subjects are theirs alone, but he is in charge of editing them however he likes. Using this technique, Moore has managed to make films which were more successful than they might have been otherwise. The success he has enjoyed has allowed him to assume the same "fatcat" attitudes which he criticized and parodied in Roger and Me. This is nicely pointed out in this film. One fault with this film is that it starts slow and you wonder if you are in for a very dry and unfocused personal history of Michael Moore. After about 20 minutes, it picks up speed and focus and has a powerful conclusion.