If you watch and realize it's as truthful as Borat, you might like it. Just forget that it's trying to be truthful.

I can't wait. It'll be funny informative and passionate. Exactly what the United States needs more of.

Yes, people said Blades of Glory was funny, I found that movie to be annoying and childish, but then, anything with Will Farrell in it turns out being that way.

I thought the point of the movie was an inside look into the ridiculous blind handouts made to numerous corporations last year, and not him taking a shit on capitalism as a whole. Am I wrong here? All I kept seeing were things about AIG and shit. I'll watch it, because he's always very informative and half right. You just need to do a crap load of research post-movie to figure out what was embelished or flat out wrong in his latest film.

Well I think as some have said, you need to go into this move with an open mind but not an accepting one. I mean it is giving a different perspective and that is to be respected but not to be taken as the whole truth and final truth.

I am interested to see it mainly because it actually seems to be quite libertarian in nature (breaking down social stigmas, fighting against big government and big corporations that both seek to take away personal liberties, etc) which would definitely be a decent change than bashing the right all day haha.

But always remember that you aren't seeing whole truths. Just like watching Hannity or listening to politicians, there is an agenda that eventually has the premise of manipulating your ignorance into believing this haha. So try not to fall for the trap. Simply take the other point of view as a way to expand your knowledge of opposing, agreeing, or indifferent view of the situation. And also remember this is Hollywood we are talking about where the most important part is to entertain you and get your money.

@ Onyxmeth. What exactly has been flat out wrong in his movies before? I tried asking this before and the best I got were links to critics who just disagreed with his political opinions. But having another view doesn't mean someones wrong, it means you disagree.

As for the name. I'm not sure if it's just unfortunate for the way it will make people think it has a totally different subject matter, or it it was a deliberate move to whittle those people out. Sort of a "oh, you think he's actually opposed to the entire Capital world system? you don't really get it and I'm not going to discuss it with you" kind of thing. It's probably the former.

Well you must understand that when you are dealing with an extreme on the other side they are always going to see negatively about anything that seems to be somewhat at opposition.  As Aristotle stated, "a reckless man sees a brave one as a coward and a coward sees a brave man as reckless"... more or less.

Point being Michael Moore is of course like a lot of others where he presents one side and that's it.  Of course how could you not as it wouldn't be very entertaiing... or convincing to show signs of doubt.  It would be kinda silly to see somone like Hannity up there talking about dissenting opinions in relation to his own haha.  Point people need to know is that simply you are seeing only one side and to simply not take that side as the whole and absolute truth.  But considering America is mainly a nation of sheep, I don't think it woudl surprise me.  Hell they've convinced Americans of a lot sillier things in the past.

But that's not to mean he doesn't provide a valid point. It would be quite authoritarian to simply say other opinions are automatically wrong.  We just need to understand the nature of it like any other, do the research, and help to better our own views on the situation. 

I'll just go with a couple from Bowling from Columbine.

Bowling from Colombine

Mistake Factual error: After the shooting of Kayla Rolland at Mt. Morris, MI, just north of Flint, Michael Moore says "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, [NRA President] Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally" When in fact Heston's speech was given at a "get out the vote" rally in Flint, which was held when elections rolled by some eight months after the shooting (Feb 29 vs Oct 17) In fact, then-presidential candidate George W. Bush, then Vice-President Al Gore, civil rights leader Jesse Jackson, and Moore himself all spoke at the rally.

Mistake Continuity: The speech that Moore claims/shows then NRA president Charlton Heston giving in Colorado is actually several speeches edited into one. Note how Heston's clothing changes between cuts during this speech.

Here he is twice lieing... in cases where he obviously knows he's lieing.  Specifically to try and make Charlton Heston look bad. 

Hey now well formed premises, with reasoned support, and a modest conclusion.  I must say that is just wonderful to see.

As kasz has pointed out, Michael Moore is defintiely guilty of spin even to the part where the stacked evidence fallacies end up in bold face lies.  Very common for him and those like him.  Which is why it is very important to go into these things with an open mind but not an immediate accepting one.  Have to make sure that you notice the problems in argument with research and check to see if the conclusions still have merit.  Otherwise you'll fall into the trap too many Americans already do fall into.

Fat man wants to go to star trek utopia of no money