VividSimon Simply Perfect

Micitype Pretty Good

Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Derrick Gibbons An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

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.

dfle3 If you've heard somewhere that the documentary movie maker Michael Moore ("Fahrenheit 9/11", "Bowling for Columbine" etc.) isn't honest about the stuff he presents in his movies as "facts", then this is the documentary for you.Employing the same guerrilla tactics as Moore himself, documentarian Debbie Melnyk pretty much stalks Moore, in trying to get an extended interview with him for her documentary. She says from the outset that she is a fan of his documentaries but, perhaps acting like an unrequited lover, she goes over all the incidents/scandals of Moore's professional life-from his time as the editor of a left-wing magazine (before he tried his hand at making documentaries) to the footage he used out of context in "Fahrenheit 9/11".Melnyk has got good access to people who identify themselves as Moore's friends (or as ex-friends), which gives you a broader insight into his character than Melnyk alone].There is one telling scene in the movie where a critic of Moore says that it was possible for someone to be against certain US foreign policies but yet not be an apologist for certain South American or Central American dictators (which Moore is accused of being). This is the main fault of Melnyk's film, I think. In other words, in the same way as devotees of Moore will lap up his attacks on the right-wing in the US and disregard some of Moore's own 'sins', die-hard right-wingers will watch this documentary and consider it to demolish all of Moore's claims. Manufacturing Dissent seems, in essence, part of the right-wing 'backlash' against Moore, even though Melnyk may have initially intended to do a positive piece on him.There is a funny scene towards the end of the movie where Melnyk acts the infatutated school-girl with Moore despite there being friction between her and Moore over his evasiveness in agreeing to be interviewed by her.For people like myself, I think it is possible to agree with some of the assertions in this film yet not think Moore is total bunk.Many of Melnyk's bleatings are risibly half-baked.

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.

snucker Though I'm aware of the various liberties Michael Moore takes with his films, I never really gave it much careful thought. Mainly because I like Michael Moore and I agree with many of the arguments he makes. The film portrays Moore as a manipulative performance filmmaker who is quite egoistical and doesn't allow for much dissent against his own views when ever he organizes an event or make a speech. The film portrays him as a man who doesn't practice what he preaches, particularly when Moore's various security guards and media handlers refuse to allow the filmmakers film Michael Moore events and speeches. It demostrates that by careful editing, Michael Moore can manipulate events to fit his version of what happens and is a master of pulling stunts on camera to prove his point.The film isn't a shrill diatribe about how Moore's ideas will lead to America's ruin. Instead it's a thoughtful film that asks people to be more media savy by setting Moore as an example. The fact that it's a Canadian production probably removes the filmmaker from the distracting American liberal and republican "issues" concerning Moore. Instead, we focus on the veracity of what Moore presents to us and the ethics of the way he manipulates the documentary genre. How Moore's appeal is not based on what he says but the entertainment value of how he presents his point of view.After watching this film, I'm more cautious about Michael Moore, to always be mindful about what he presents and not always accept it as is. But even at that, I still like Michael Moore. He's a talented man who seems to have his heart in the right place when he makes his films and I don't think he's as egoistical as the film suggests he is.