Bereamic Awesome Movie

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

bob the moo When I watched this film I was it as the main title of "Slacker Uprising" and it was only after I had seen the film, draw my own opinion together and come here to post a review that I learnt of the "proper" title. I thought it was befitting the film because if you think of the two film titles, they both describe the same film but they both have different subjects as their focal point. So, the question is, which one best describes the film? I ask this because to me Slacker Uprising (the title I prefer) has the same strengths and weaknesses as many of Moore's films. The strengths are there of course and they are the things that his fans and ardent supporters will tell you while not really being keen to discuss much else. In this film it is the spirit of awareness of political involvement and of debate that makes it interesting.In following the tour of the colleges, the film gets to see any things that are well picked out and depicted. We get to see Republican's attacking the tour for "bribery" (giving out joke gifts to those who register at the event) and then weeks later show us major Republican donors offering money to the student bodies if they will only cancel the tour at their venue. It is a joke of free speech and it is well contrasted in the film. What also works is the chance to hear from real people on both sides. Of course the sound bites selected from protesters against the tour are not the sharpest but it is not that fair to go to the desert and then complain about all the sand – it kinda comes with the territory. I liked it though, I liked to see people engaged, I liked to see them energised for a cause – even if I happened to disagree with (like the hecklers at some of the venues) I liked what they did and I liked that Moore let them have a moment and never mocked them that badly (although of course he makes light of them).All these things I liked and generally the film was interesting to see the campaign and understand what it was trying to – OK it is more of a record than a documentary but there are themes and discussion points in here that make it more than just a chronicle of events. The problem I have with it is that Moore himself is too much centre stage. Now, I do not mean this physically because of course he was always going be on the stage or on camera but more that the film has this air of presentation that suggests greatness. Now, I will give him credit as I do to many documentary makers and activists, for the work he does to inform and raise awareness – I may not always agree with what he is saying but then I don't want him to stop saying it any more than I want Fox to stop saying what they do. However, he does have this issue that he makes HIMSELF the focus of things at times rather than letting the subject be there with him just the presenter. With this film it opens with the suggestion that the Democrats had blown it totally till he got involved and ends with the implication that Kerry would have won if he had just gotten out of the way and let Moore do it all for him - there are lots of these moments scattered throughout the film and it constantly grates.The scene with the medal of honour is a keeper – not only that it happened the way it did but that it made it into the final cut of the film. I think he was wrong to take it because the right answer to the offer would have been "your father gave/risked all he had in getting that medal and he did it for us and specifically for you, so your way of life could continue. All I'm doing is encouraging people to do is exercise the rights he defended for us – he would want you to have that and, if you want to give me something to show you support me then get voters out next week – do just what I'm trying to do, I'm nothing special – not like your Dad". It sounds like I'm fixating on this event but beyond the fact he took it of more interest is that it got put in the film and you really have to ask yourself what role that scene serves here other than showing what a hero Moore is to his fans – which is not what I thought the film is about. If this was the only example of this self-focus then I would be fine but it is frequent and just as weird each time.And so it is. Slacker Uprising is a solid film but, as a document of record it doesn't have a core documentary draft to keep the audience engaged and overlooking faults. Don't get me wrong – I found it interesting but I really wish that someone had taken Moore in hand and said, "this is not about what we did – it is about why we did it, what we were asking people to do and what those people did". But it seems nobody did so the film does have a lot of material that makes it about Moore himself and, as we have seen with his last couple of films, when that happens he weakens his own film and message. And I don't care if the intentions of the title are "ironic" or if I'm accused of "not getting it", the "proper" title should be Slacker Uprising as the "slackers" and the "uprising" should be the focus of the film – not "Captain Mike".

Luís Felipe Rasmuss de Almeida Michael Moore is a genius. This movie's amazing. Unfortunately USA have had problems with Bush administration these 8 years, and I really like Americans like Michael, smart. He really woke up and he is trying to wake up all the Americans. Also, I don't know how this grade could be so bad, maybe because there's a lot of republicans here. Michael knows how to put together in a movie information and comedy. The part that he's praying with republicans, and your answers ("and I think that someone has stolen their sense of humor" - about the Republicans who tried to take him to the tribunals) to them are really amazing. Hope that Michael make more movies like it.

secrective i heard that michael moore had a new movie out, and that it was available on the internet. so i downloaded and watched it for free.i am a fan of his movies and love his other documentaries including his tour documentary "The Big One". "The Big One" was very well produced and included interviews with people who had lost their jobs. radio show interviews, moore talking with corporations and lots of footage of moore running around signing books.sorry to say, but this movie is just poorly edited. there is at least 20 minutes of applause footage. short clips of moore giving speeches, a few celebrity interviews. some footage of moore traveling and going to call centers. opposite of his other films, there is very little outside footage.most of the movie turned out to be: short speech - applause - short speech - applause - speech - etc.don't waste your time with this movie. watch 'the big one' or 'canadian bacon' instead. or 'roger and me' if you want to see moore in action, and not just giving speeches.

doug-697 This is a documentary of the nationwide tour by Michael Moore to resurrect a failing Democratic election campaign. The intention of the tour was to get the people who normally don't (the "slackers") to get out and vote This is an entertaining and at times fascinating documentary, but whether you will enjoy it will entirely depend on whether you like Michael Moore.The documentary takes place not just during the final phase of the election, but when American emotions over the Iraq war were in flux. This documentary puts you in the middle of that emotion.Michael Moore said in the introducing this movie at the Toronto International Film Festival that he usually tries not to just preach to the converted, but with this movie he openly admits he did. So this is a documentary that has a one-dimensional viewpoint: Democrats are for free speech and care about the poor and Republications are religious fanatics. It is frightening to see in this documentary Americans, in supposedly the country that invented individual freedom, being perfectly happy to not allow or to even actively prevent any beliefs other than their own. And there is tremendous value exposing those people and Moore does it by simply letting them talk, which of course is what they would not allow him. However, the possibility that there are Democrats who may also be intolerant isn't considered here.I think this documentary also shows, unintentionally, why they ultimately failed. It ends by stating that their tour succeeded with young voters, but older voters went with Bush. Anti- Bush sentiment was largely due to the Iraq war and not other social issues. Rosanne Barr's rant at the end of the documentary might appeal to some, but it would have completely alienated older and middle-America.As with all Moore documentaries it's utterly watchable.