Product Description

Studio: Peace Arch Home Entertain Release Date: 03/11/2008 Run time: 95 minutes Rating: R

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #28392 in DVD
• Released on: 2007-10-16
• Rating: R (Restricted)
• Aspect ratio: 1.33:1
• Formats: Color, DVD, Full Screen, NTSC
• Original language: English
• Number of discs: 1
• Running time: 95 minutes

Ebert and Roeper, October 30, 2004
"Two Thumbs Up"

Variety, October 6, 2004
"Far more jocular, good-natured and thoughtful than Moore partisans might expect...

Customer Reviews

Do not judge by the title
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.

Don't let the title fool you
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.

Honest, Earnest, & Fair
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.