I love this movie so much

It is not only a funny movie, but it allows a great amount of joy for anyone who watches it.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

It's 2003. Rick Caine and Debbie Melnyk take on Michael Moore after infamous anti-war speech at the Oscars. Debbie Melnyk claims to be a big fan of Moore at the beginning. They go on to debunk many of his assertions in his films as they follow him on his Fahrenheit 9/11 tour in 2004.Debbie Melnyk is trying to steal a page from Michael Moore's playbook but it comes off as being naive and silly. It would be better not to be so simplistic. "I thought he liked Canadians." Honestly, she sounds whiny. The narrative is scattered. Coming from other documentarians, this comes close to being jealousy. The best and possibly the only thing about Michael Moore that is revealed is that he's not a documentarian. That's a good revelation but it fails to make GM saints. They're actually digging too far into story. There is also a clash of personalities but it doesn't make Michael Moore evil. There is obvious bad blood with some of Ralph Nader's people after Moore switched his views on Nader's 2000 campaign. The film is trying to push the idea that the left should be a kumbaya movement and Michael Moore is equivalent to the right wing talk show agitators of the Republicans. Honestly, I don't think Moore would mind.

The movie has a new cover, different from the one shown above, to fool people into thinking it is a Michael Moore movie, not a movie about people who don't like Michael Moore. I got fooled myself. It not even a movie about Michael Moore. At first I thought Michael was just having fun letting some of his loonier tunes detractors go at him.Basically is is a bunch of right wingers complaining that Michael Moore says things they disagree with. They think he should present their views in his movies. The way they see it, he is deliberately telling things that are not true, because what he says conflicts with their ideology.It just goes on and on "Michael Moore is a terrible person. I don't like Michael Moore. Michael Moore is a mean s.o.b. Michael Moore tells only lies." without every explaining just what he did or said that was so terrible.It is a movie terrorists might show to convince recruits that all Americans deserve to die. They are a sorry lot of overweight bigots and whiners.It opens with a group elderly unknown documentary makers complaining that Michael Moore is popular, wins awards, and makes money. They figure they deserve this more than he does, so he is evil.I am sure a pointed movie could be made critical of Moore, that might, for example, go after him for stretching the truth about a bank giving away shotguns on the spot, but this movie isn't it. This is a sloppy amateurish, slovenly piece of work hoping to capitalise on the Moore controversy.

This movie tries to deconstruct Michael Moore. I saw it twice to give it a fair chance to get its point across to me, and it actually made me understand and like Michael Moore better.At this point I should tell you my stance towards MM: I consider his first movie Roger & Me a work of genius, but I disliked (sometimes intensely) his later docu-props. For example, I thought that the interview of Charlton Heston in Bowling For Columbine was atrocious, with Moore acting as a leftwing Jerry Springer. So I'm by no means an unabashed acolyte of Moore.The makers of "Manufacturing Dissent" (an allusion to another, but great, Canadian documentary, "Manufacturing Consent") have taken more than a page from Michael Moore's book. The documentary is stylistically an eerie clone of Moore's movies, which begs the question whether imitation isn't the most honest form of flattery. It constantly brings in new points (without ever solving the old ones) and fresh scenes, which makes the movie interesting to watch but difficult to follow. Like Moore, it uses the tactic of "the more mud you throw, the more will stick".On balance, the movie recycles some criticisms of Moore, and fires a barrage of new, but untenable (and often ludicrous) ones. That's simply not good enough.To give one salient example: we see a college thespian claiming that Moore fabricated a scene from Roger & Me, where a satellite van gets stolen by an unemployed auto worker before a live Ted Koppel broadcast from Flint. So how come no-one, for example someone from Nightline, noticed until now? In all likeliness the claim of the fabrication was itself fabricated. The documentary should have investigated this, instead it takes the claim at face value and moves on to fresh accusations. That's propaganda, not journalism.So what's the message? Michael Moore's everyman image is a carefully constructed role -- true to some extent, but really nothing new. He has a number of detractors, who are often pretty unpleasant themselves (such as the snooty film critic who proudly states that he instantly disliked Michael Moore from the moment he walked into the studio until he "waddled on out" -- what an incredibly biased and shallow statement from a professional critic). The makers of the movie purport to have started this movie as fans -- so why do they rely so heavily on the material of his rightwing critics? I got the impression that Moore sees himself as being on a crusade not just against the political right, but also against ivory-tower leftwing intellectuals. He wants to reinstall a street credibility to the political left. With detractors such as Debbie Melnyk of Manufacturing Dissent, I choose to praise Moore rather than to bury him.

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.