Customer Reviews

Michael Moore Hates America

5 star:		(27)
4 star:		(26)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(36)

 

 

I think that for a first attempt at film making, Michael Wilson does a creditable job. Documentaries are not expected to display cinematic art to the degree of other genres. Documentaries are to film what informational books are to writing: it is the validity of the content that is of primary importance.

Wilson uses Moore's own story line from "Roger and Me", vainly following the title character around the country in search of an interview, and does it quite well. The movie is quite interesting and sometimes funny (especially his interview of Penn Jillette).

Now, let's tackle the provocative title, "Michael Moore Hates America." I believe Michael Wilson used it in order to get his movie noticed. It is clear that he is uncomfortable with it: This is shown when, at the end of his interview with the extremely ethical documentarian, Albert Maysles, he sheepishly reveals the title, apparently expecting to be rebuked. To his surprise Maysles simply responds, "Maybe he does."

The film is really about ethics in the making of documentary films. Scenes from Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" and to a lesser extent "Roger and Me" (both of which I have seen) supply the basis he and others such as Penn Jillette, Albert Maysles, and David Horowitz (as well as people whom Moore chose to interview in making "Bowling for Columbine") use as a basis for their comments pro and con.

Some reviewers have stated that all movies shade the truth or worse. That may be literally true; however, it is clearly unethical to manipulate scenes in a documentary in such a way as to create "facts" or connections (particularly to create the appearance of cause and effect or guilt by association) that are false or misleading. There is general agreement that Moore was repeatedly guilty of that in "Bowling for Columbine" and "Roger and Me". I have not seen "Fahrenheit 9/11", but most movie reviewers, even those who appear to agree with Moore's cause, seem to agree that he does the same in that movie.

Telling lies in historical movies is not new, and I would say it creates no major ethical problem when it simply fills in material that is unknown or is of no major importance. Of all the movies I have seen, Oliver Stone's movie, "JFK", is almost certainly the prime example of unethical movie-making because it is untrue in every important statement it makes. Although it is not a documentary, millions of people believe it portrays the JFK assassination accurately, which could not be further from the truth. A major point of Wilson's movie is that it is so easy to allow one's self to bend the truth for expediency's sake that he found it very difficult to avoid doing so in making his movie. This, however, is not an excuse that applies to the films of Stone and Moore.

The problem I have with Michael Moore is that his movies have gotten so much attention and praise that he has set the ethical bar for documentaries far lower than it has been in the past. This will mean that documentaries will no longer serve as credible sources of information. Since that is the primary reason documentaries exist at all, it is a serious problem.

More and more people are reluctantly coming to realize that newspapers and TV news have lost most of their credibility, so it shouldn't be too surprising that the trend would spread to other sources of information. Still, it sure is a pain in the [...] to be forced to expend time doing major research on every significant issue in order to have a reasonably accurate view of the world.

Let me start this by saying I *AM* a fan of Michael Moore.

That being said, I do find some of his filmmaking techniques sloppy. That is the price you pay for trying to pack big issues into a two hour movie.

Is using the title "Michael Moore Hates America" any more inflamatory than titling a book "Dude, Where's My Country?" The fact of the matter is that this is the way that this form of entertainment appeals to its core audience, from either political spectrum.

What we have here is a delightful, if somewhat provocative film by a first time filmmaker. Is it good? Ebert and Roeper gave it two thumbs up. I'd say I have to agree with their assesment.

This is an important film for anyone who wants to be informed of both sides of the issues in Mr Moore's more recent films. Knowing both sides of a discussion is the only way a person can make intellectual decisions.

See this film.

With a title like this, it isn't a surprise that some won't see it because of what they think it's about. I am no fan of Moore, but believe him to be one of the most important film makers of this generation. That said, his tactics and his path to a point of view are frequently underhanded, misleading and at times, dishonest.

Michael Moore Hates America is certainly not as well crafted or entertaining as a Michael Moore film is, but then perhaps that is exactly why I liked it. I saw it in LA, and was prepared to hate it. Being a moderate, often liberal thinker, I thought it was going to be a political hack job, like so many other anti-Moore films of late have been. I was happy to discover that, while imperfect and flawed, it is honest and earnest in it's attempt to make a simple point (see the film for yourself) It's not an easy task, in fact, director Michael Wilson makes the point of showing us how easy it is to slip and cave in to the impulse to manipulate others in order to make a point, a vulnerable thing to do in such a public fashion. We're left to consider if it's alright for the "ends to justifies the means" and should Moore, or other, be forgiven for misleading and lying, all for the sake of making a point. An important point to consider in light of the recent elections.

This movie is far from perfect. Penn Jillette shines, but I perhaps Wilson gives him too much time. I think the film is funny, but not as funny as it needs to be in order to win a larger word of mouth. Most of all, the flaw in this film is it's title. In these heated political times, a title like this, no matter how ironic it is, well nearly guarantee that a lot of smart, though left-leaning people will never see it, and a lot of smart right wingers will leave disappointed that Wilson didn't go for blood.

Ebert gave this film Two Thumbs Up and he's an ardent supporter of left-wing causes and Moore. The National Rifle Association is featured in the film, and they think it's worthy. With such diverse bed fellows, it should tell you that it's a work that both Red and Blues should see.

My recommendation is that you see it and judge for yourself. It is a gem, and it will spark conversation and debate (as it did with the friends I saw it with). Great first effort.

I was surprised-pleasantly surprised. While not a professionally shot film, don't let that distract you from the content. In my opinion, it makes it all the more appealing-we have enough "bells and whistles" with the others out there. Great message and not as right wing as the Dubya lovers would probably have liked. I perceive that the initial promotion by the right wing was the hope to have this film help effect the election by turning the table on Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 and his attack on Bush and the war in Iraq. So Kerry lost the election, and Moore is making another film. This film had no effect on either other than to bring a fresh look at documentary filmmaking in general. Michael Moore is an easy person to focus on given his huge success as a documentary filmmaker and the subjects he has chosen for his films; corporate greed, government corruption and media hysteria. I have admired Michael Moore for getting a message out there and raising awareness, but I don't need another skewed or manipulated message. Films that are made like this allow me to remain optimistically cynical. While not as flashy as most documentaries on the big or small screen, this film brings us a fresh and much needed perspective on documentary filmmaking and has some fun moments. The interview with documentary icon Albert Maysles is great. I would recommend the film to those right or left of the line of politics. If you have not seen a Michael Moore film, please do before you see this film to get the proper perspective.

I first saw this film at Smmash Fest in Excelsior Minnesota where it won best new film documentary! The last review of this film was by the legendary critics Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper who gave it "Two Thumbs Up"

This is a great movie documentary that will leave you thinking and talking about it long after the credits have rolled and if you believe that you know what this film is all about... All I can say is be prepared for a real surprise!

This film is a funny and refreshing feel good movie that takes us across America and its message is more about who we are than what it says directly about Michael Moore. Mike Wilson delivers a full cast including Penn Jillette of Penn and Teller fame, Albert Maysles the Legendary Independent Documentary Director and Representative Mark Kennedy of Minnesota along with several others. So if you are a political animal or not, Republican, Democrat, or Independent purchase this film because you might just find yourself cheering and applauding or maybe even rising to give it a standing ovation. We are purchasing the DVD so our family and friends can enjoy this film and view it's upbeat and valuable message.

I'd like to counter something that was posted in another review, that is demonstratably false.

"This was not a film made by amateurs for non-partisan entertainment truth seekers like they want you to believe. In fact according to the cofounder of the Dallas film festival, Jim Hubbard explained, it was being "bankrolled primarily by some 'big-time conservative donors.'"

It wasn't made by amateurs? Please, sir, tell me what films Michael Wilson has worked on before.

As for the 'big-time conservative donors' backing thing, you obviously do not know the history of the making of this film. It started a year and a half ago as Michael Wilson and his website, asking for donations to help finance the film. He was literally relying on donations from web visitors to buy the film he needed. Several times in the next few months he would write about how dangerously low he was running and at one point even wrote about canning the project.

A couple months before the election (June of '04 I believe) a conservative businessman stepped into finance the project to have it completed.

This was not some big idea where a big, rich conservative thought 'hey, let's make a movie about Michael Moore' and then just made it at such. Michael Wilson was working his butt off on this project for half a year before this donor stepped in. Hell, I even donated a few bucks (through Amazon.com, nontheless) to Michael Wilson. This is not 'Fahrenhype 9-11' or 'Celcius 41.11' which were made by think-tanks and whatnot, so don't write as if it is.

I originally saw this film at a festival and I found it to be quite surprising. In spite of its title, it is not an attack on Michael Moore. While it uses a Roger and Me type of device to tie the elements together, the film focuses on the challenge of maintaining truth and avoiding manipulating images and facts to make a point. The film certainly highlights many of the distortions in Moore's movies, but that is not the primary emphasis. Wilson examines his own desire to get certain images and the tempations to be less than honest in achieving that aim. To his credit, he always corrects these errors before moving on. The section with Penn Gillette is well worth the price of admission. He examines the nature of Bull$%#@ in different forms of media and discusses the difficulty in portraying facts with distorting them. If you are able to set aside your political bias and fawning worship of Moore, I think that you will find this film to be an entertaining look at the documentary genre and Moore in particular. Along the way, you will also get a healthy dose of the optimism that makes America the great country that it is.

Our family went to this movie in Minnesota. The Mann Theaters did a limited release viewing at six or seven locations for several weeks. At the showing that we attended the movie was well received with applause and laughter several times by the audience including my family and I.

One of the important messages presented in this film I believe is that when somebody states something as fact we need to use our critical thinking skills to investigate and not just rely on the purported face value of the statement. As Americans we need to have the courage to scrutinize the evidence regardless of weather or not we agree with Michael Moore or anyone else for that matter. The next message presented here is that if you are in a position of influence the duty to deliver a complete and honest appraisal is paramount. The other major theme running throughout this film is to admit when you are wrong.

Mike Wilson shows several examples of how Michael Moore has combined movie footage and taken quotes out of context thereby creating major deceptions for his viewing audience (AKA The Big Lie). I also believe that Michael Moore is not serving well the causes that he professes to believe in. Moore's use of Anti American rhetoric in his films and public statements has created a toxic poison that has been utilized by Osama bin Laden and other terrorist. Thankfully, some voices from the political left and right are starting to realize the ramifications and are demanding accountability from Michael Moore. BTW: You should see this film and give it a rating yourself.

Thank You,

The Wire Man

Not my real name.

Why did he act like an idiot in the interviews by pretending this movie doesn't exist..? Michael Wilson tries extremely hard to get a sit down interview, but to no avail. I used to like Michael Moore, but after listening to Alex Jones, I see now that he is a for-profit hack. This movie also has a good feeling vibe throughout. You can learn more from this movie than all of Moore's "documentaries" combined. AND I'M A LIBERAL!

I've read Moore's books. He doesn't present any solutions, he only manipulates half truths and snivals about them. Michael Moore, shut the hell up.

This film was funny and fair. In fact, it was fair to the point of annoying me. I wanted Michael Moore to be eviscerated. Instead, he was sympathetically portrayed as the pathetic diseased individual he really is.

Also, there is an excellent cameo of comedian Tim Slagle