Michael Moore Hates America (2004) User Reviews

Definitely a satire...

[BDB116 · 6/10 · 24 November 2004]

I understand that this is purely a satire. I also understand that the movies that Moore makes need to be viewed in that same manner. Mike Wilson points that out throughout the film. I think this movie had more to do with the fact that Moore is really a satirist than a documentary film maker. I firmly believed that before seeing this movie (and feel the same after watching MMHA). MMHA is in no way a great documentary, far from it. But it's much more "real" than Moore films. I liked the fact that Wilson realizes part way through filming that he in fact was becoming Moore by doing the same things Moore did in his films. Don't be fooled, however - this movie is not a piece that champions the right or bashes the left. It simply points out that both extremes are the problem in this country.

My wish after seeing this film is to have Michael Moore actually meet Mike Wilson and do that interview, and have it televised. While I understand that it's likely that Moore will use it as an opportunity to blast Wilson and yell at the top of his lungs (as he did at the University of MN), it would go a long way to prove Wilson's point.

One sad commentary that this film reinforces is that people will believe the "truth" they want to believe, whether there is any validity to that "truth" or not. And it would be sad to see the real message of the film get overlooked by people looking to validate their own "truths" with this satire. As with anything in this world, do your own "due diligence" and find your own facts. Don't be swayed by message board warriors, reporters, or talk show hosts telling you what to think. Watch this movie and make your own decision.

Nice film

[JTMokko · 6/10 · 25 September 2007]

Interesting film even that the title is provocative. Someone ones said that "cinema lies 25 times a second" - that should always be remembered. Moore's documents, and documents in general, always reflects the documentarist's own visions and ideas. When someone goes on to make a document they usually have a argument which they try to prove and that makes the person prejudiced. Document never tells the truth and nothing but the truth - there is always things which are not filmed or are left on the editing room floor.

Wilson was still quite aware of the difficulty of objectivity and along the document he realized that. Moore should have given the guy an interview - he seems to be intelligent person who can stand up for his arguments and I don't see why he was avoiding Wilson...

Penn Jillette and old-documentarist-guy had the most smartest comments in the film - otherwise there was lots of repeated message that Moore is an a-hole - opinion which should be clear just by knowing the title of the film.

It's funny how American's thing that they are the most free nation in the world and that people in other countries can't fulfill their dreams and be anything they want. I guess that's the part of American (day)dream.:) Hard work is much appreciate in France, Sweden and in Finland too and sometimes you can even be successful outside of America - it's hard to believe, but it's true!

Does some good

[Polaris_DiB · 6/10 · 17 December 2007]

Okay, so I've been unable so far to avoid Michael Moore's documentaries, for the most part. However, what I have been roughly successful at avoiding is anti-Michael Moore documentaries. I mean, why even bother watching Fahrenhype 9/11? All you need to do to see that Fahrenheit 9/11 is complete bullshit is to watch it and not be so stupid as to claim, "Well, he misrepresents things, but as long as the message is getting out there, then..." I'm sorry, the message is the medium, and Moore skews it up every time.

However, I actually wanted to see this one because it seemed like a pretty good idea: a filmmaker named Michael Wilson gives "Michael Moore a taste of his own medicine" by following him around, Roger & Me style, asking for an interview. Surprise of all surprises: he never gets it.

The whole point here being the revealing of Moore's aggressive and confrontational style by the use of it on Moore himself, very simply: nobody can stand up for themselves when they suddenly find a camera and a microphone in their face. Moore's subjects can't do it; Moore can't do it. It is actually this approach as a whole that angers me the most about Moore, because if he ever did that to me I would punch him in the face.

However, the title isn't entirely ironic; every now and then, especially during the beginning, Wilson states, "But, you know, he kinda does." The absolute best instance of this, however, is when Wilson is interviewing Albert Maysles (yes, THE Albert Maysles), and Maysles is talking about how a documentary filmmaker should approach his topics in terms of curiosity and love instead of judgment and hate, and Wilson's producer behind the camera asks Wilson to give Maysles the title of the film he's making, and Maysles' reaction to it? "Well... I think he (Michael Moore) does... (hate America)." That scene is great. That scene is great because it has that same approach to rhetoric that Moore has in all of his movies, but this time it makes Moore look bad and, even more importantly, a producer, literally behind the camera, asks Wilson on the spot to come out truthfully about what he's trying to do to a person who has just said something that could be taken as against the idea or theme of the movie, and Wilson laughs, says, "I'm being put on the spot," and then does it--something that I do believe Moore could never, ever, do.

That said, Michael Moore Hates America is also kind of obnoxious in that the mere act of making a documentary against Michael Moore creates the idea that Michael Moore is stating things so seriously that stuff needs to be said against him--in other words, works him out to be more important than I honestly think that he is. This is why I avoid anti-Moore documentaries and why I hope other people avoid them (as well as Moore documentaries) as well. Also, watching this film does become, after a while, an exercise in seeing how many people can say, "I don't agree with him, but the fact that he can say it is what makes this country great." That gets tiresome, and let's face it: these subjects would punch Moore in the face, too.

Made me feel physically ill.

[themanyfacesofcoinman · 1/10 · 13 July 2008]

I'm not a Moore fan (though i do agree with some of his conclusions) and it was originally this and the promise of some insightful discourse on the nature of his technique that attracted me to the film.

But as many have said... the film was completely rubbish. Aside from any previous bias, the propaganda and technique of this film was so heavy handed and basic as to be actually insulting.

Wilson starts out with a few family photographs portrays himself as being an honest American Joe living the American dream (blind hope?) with his unemployed father and being unnecessarily distressed by Michael Moores dissenting opinion. He then goes out of his way to slander him, and put forward his own image of happy go lucky magical America in which everyone, and i paraphrase 'loves everyone around them, and is safe all the time'.

His attack basically summated runs like this - point out obvious documentary theory (nothing in the lens is objective), point out very minor examples (and some bigger ones, but with very little back up to his claims) in which Michael Moore altered a situation to give a situation more emotional impact. On top of that he goes on a crusade to interview real America - in a town of stark unemployment that amazingly consists of only people who own businesses and intersperse with talking heads giving ludicrous commentary in an authoritative tone.

In this entire film Wilson comes up with one original tool for propaganda- he shows himself deceiving someone (very lightly, because he isn't the bad guy here) - him and the producer then have a ridiculous moral conflict about the action - then they show Wilson realizing his mistake and apologizing to the camera. Funnily enough, as opposed to cutting the part he keeps it, with his realization - for fairly obvious reasons.

Suspiciously all the other alterations of fact are left in tact. Every interview is chosen not as a truthful account, but as a vehicle to get across a visceral point. Suburbs are happy, filled with black loving grandma's who feel safe all the time - towns where the infrastructure is ruined are still okay because the American dream lives on in a boy who makes coffee.

When this (perhaps psychologically based) grudge turned veiled objective turd of a film finally winds down and Wilson realizes he has actually made no points whatsoever merely rehashed 1950s corporate propaganda (Everythings Great. Futurism is here! Communism is Evil!) and an attitude so pathetically ignorant and desperate as to be laughable (In America we play hockey! That's how great and happy we are!) - he suddenly makes a sharp veer in his course and ends the film on the note of -

There is no truth, only opinions. And my opinion that Michael Moore hates America is just as valid as Michael Moores opinion that there is an effect on the individual by corporate interest. Because after all, different opinions are what makes America great, and Michaels Moores different opinion that different opinions are wrong is why he hates America and doesn't deserve his opinion.

Still as a sociology student i did walk away with one thing - the complexity of multi nationals, infrastructure and politically influenced neo capitalism don't cause a necessity of poverty - You just have to believe and you can achieve. Damn, someone should tell the Africans to change their lazy attitude!

Finally - the dichotomy between 'objective' and 'subjective' documentary styles was broached upon, studied and had already been split into two very distinct schools as early as the sixties. A commentator in this film said it clearly enough " There is no such thing as an objective documentary, as soon as you point the lens you are capturing something at the expense of everything surrounding it". What everyone failed to mention was that this was widely understood and incorporated into documentary film making. Moore's style is nothing new, and at the very least - he embellishes without fabricating, and is usually cohesive.

I actually finished the film as a Moore sympathizer.

Wilson trips over his own tricks

[azynkron · 1/10 · 26 August 2008]

Sometimes you have to take things to a point to make a point. Michael Moore has many times been accused of lying or being naive and not showing the whole picture but the truth is that if you are documenting the type of phenomenons that he is you have to take things to the very edge to be able to show your point of view. Even further, you can't tangle yourself in semantics and rhetorical endless discussion if you want the regular ordinary man on the street to get interested. This is Moores dilemma. He's trying to make very complex matters simple and it's not an easy task.

Now, I'm the first to agree on that he's not always accurate and sometimes not even right, but he finishes his mission which is; To make people think! And this is far more important sometimes than being 100% true.

He even got Mr Wilson to make a movie about him. And that's why we are here.

Wilson is trying to use Moores own rhetoric back on him. He is even got a attorney / author (sic!) to claim that Moore has some personality disorder. He uses the same techniques as him and gets the man on the street to air his opinions and as a coincidence, they are the same as Wilson's. To boil it all down, he is trying to make a Fahrenheit 9/11 about Fahrenheit 9/11.

Now, of course you should challenge Moore's ideas. Of course you should make up your own mind and try to find the facts yourself. That's the whole point of democracy. But where Moore is brilliant with expressing his points and political viewpoint, Wilson is far too blunt. It even gets to the point where you get the feeling that Wilson is not even challenging Moore but is in it for his own personal witch hunt out of some personal dislike. Which is exactly what he's accusing Moore for doing to Mr C. Heston and G.W. Bush. And this, of course, is not good since as a fact he then becomes Moore.

At a point I could almost see him crying off camera because Moore doesn't return his calls. And, come on Wilson, why did you try to make a point about if he cursed or not? A big difference between Moore and Wilson is also this; Where Moore gets people to speak their mind, Wilson will get to use the interviews as long as "they don't look bad". Don't look bad? That's the whole point of investigating journalism, if it looks bad it probably is and you should bring it out in the open. Not the corporate approved statements and views.

Further more, the sections with Penn (yes, Penn from Penn&Teller) screams "You should only show what is government approved". I can't help to recall what the late Bill Hicks said: "You are free to do what we tell you! Here's 16 channels of American Gladiators to choose from".

Now, it might be that we in Europe are more used to harsh journalists that dissect everything, but I get a feeling that Wilson does not fully understand how and why you do an investigating documentary. If peoples toes are going to be stepped on? Sure. If people are going to get mad because things are shown that wasn't supposed to be? Of course. If this is wrong? Not a bit.

A cause, belief or movement that can't stand to be investigated or made fun of, is not meant to survive. It's as simple as that.

I could go on and on and point out the errors I think Wilson is doing this film. The truth is that Wilson should have practiced a bit more first before taking on a challenge as this. He is accusing Moore of editing his movies and then he does the same thing himself. He makes a point of Moore using comments and interviews out of context and then, yes you guessed right, he does it himself. He twists and turns from challenging Moores movies to challenging Moore himself. It all turns into a amateurish soup where you have no real thread to follow. I even felt, after the shop door incident, that he was trying to do a "Cops" episode.

No, Wilson, this is not good. You should have practiced by making some Youtube movies first to get warm in the clothes before going for the trophy; Michael Moore.

Enlightening and entertaining without the vitriol of Farenheit 911

[david_larson · 9/10 · 5 May 2006]

Even if you are a Michael Moore supporter, you can't help but scratch your head about the famous "documentarian" after watching Michael Wilson's film. Obviously, this documentary was made as a result of Moore's Farenheit 911, although aspects of it is similar to Roger & Me. Wilson could have, and possibly should have titled his film, "Michael & Me" since the most controversial aspect of it is the title itself. Certainly, Moore could not have taken issue with such a title since he himself lifted his film's title from Ray Bradbury's classic "Farenheit 451".

Overall, it is a highly entertaining examination of Moore's rationale behind his film making style and subject matter. Instead of leading the audience to a single, specific and politically one-sided conclusion as Moore's films do, it challenges the audience to think for themselves and not necessarily take the word of the film maker as gospel,including Wilson's film. I feel the film maker respected my intelligence and my time.

Is this about America or Michael Moore?

[Max_Simpson · 1/10 · 27 December 2007]

Well, this is just a bunch of pointless people (elderly film makers, psychiatrists, failed showmen, some angry psycho called Andrew, the film-maker him self, etc) trying to make Moore look bad, mostly by calling him names (check out Penn Jillette swearing! what the f.. was that about?). No real arguments are made here about the subjects of Moore's documentaries, besides that these people have just discovered film editing - wow! maybe they should also check out how the evening news are edited. Nothing here but a boring and desperate attempt to convince us that everything is fine in America, while trying to make Moore an America hater and a liar, in a country that is full up to the neck, with lies.

To everyone who has not seen this film:

[logisti · 9/10 · 5 April 2005]

Resist the temptation to be polarized by the title. First and foremost, this documentary has a non-adversarial tone that is refreshing and well-executed. The title is truly terrible from a marketing perspective, but it's there for two very good reasons:

1) It is an extremely ironic jab aimed at the growing number of people who shun rational debate in favor of screaming shrilly that they are right and everyone who opposes their views is evil, be they "Conservative" or "Liberal". I promise you that this film has none of that, and in fact it is that attitude (why people have it, why it's a bad thing) that this film spends the most time examining.

2) In the end, the question of how Moore feels about America seems to keep coming up throughout Mike Wilson's search and he goes to experts and common-folk alike to get their honest opinions, often without telling them the title of his film (at first) so-as not to influence their response.

This movie will leave you feeling good in a way you haven't realized you've been missing, and it gives a fresh new take on the documentary film genre that's brings it back to its roots. It proves that documentary filmmakers taking the "high road" can still entertain their audience, and perhaps even stimulate discussion between opposing viewpoints in a way no "low-road" documentary ever could.

I highly recommend this for anyone who enjoys documentaries and doubly so for anyone who has an opinion on Moore, because chances are that no matter what your opinion of Moore is, messiah or madman, after this film you will find yourself revising it, at least a little bit.

P.S.: Sadly the vote breakdown at the time of this writing seems to be split almost exclusively between 10's and 1's. I implore people to actually SEE this movie and make sure they vote their honest opinion AFTERWARDS instead of just giving their opinion of the title. This film deserves that much, at least.

A bit meandering but ultimately worthwhile

[bean-d · 7/10 · 18 March 2010]

I've seen three or four Michael Moore films. While I often hear people deride Moore, I can't deny his importance as a documentarian--he literally changed the face of documentary film-making, for good or ill. For example, "Super Size Me" or "Bigger, Stronger, Faster" would not have existed without Moore first. Having said that, there is much to criticize about Moore. I think only the most hardened partisan wouldn't realize that he plays fast and loose with the truth. This film exposes some of the problems with Moore's films. Should that disqualify Moore? No. But it should serve as a warning to all people that when they view a documentary they should be on their guard. All documentaries, no matter how objective they appear on the surface, have been manipulated. I will agree that there are levels of truthfulness, but no one can ever achieve complete objectivity, and you're naive if you think a documentary can be a window on the world. At least Moore doesn't hide that he has a perspective. (And I must tell you that I'm a conservative, so I don't generally care for his perspective.) As a final note, I think the title of this film is horrible: it's almost false advertising because Wilson's documentary is much milder. The title prepares you for a conservative hatchet job. I would have advised Wilson to come up with something different. ("Bowling for Michael"? I don't know.)

Opportunist finds niche for self

[maryindie · 8 November 2007]

Michael Wilson has a thesis and pretends he doesn't. The thesis is in the title. He sets out to prove it, locating people happy to get attention slamming Moore like Maysles and puts out the film just in time to cash in on the release of Sicko. Wilson figures his own deceptive practices can be excused by admitting them, but when you're out to slam someone else for doing the same thing, one should practice what one preaches. Moore should have granted the interview; the film would then have lasted about 10 minutes. There's nothing unique here that hasn't been done to death on numerous "Moore-watching" boards or the earlier film "Fahrenhype 911". This is about someone making a name for himself off Moore's career.

It's helpful that the film again reminds Moore to be more careful about errors and improve. But the film is not a work of note, just a work feeding off the creativity of others, namely that of Fahrenhype 911 and Moore. Wilson puts the spotlight on himself by showing us his family photos at the beginning and portraying himself as intrepid reporter on the beat throughout while complaining that Moore is making films about himself.

This shouldn't be called a movie

[xdj · 1/10 · 12 February 2005]

well I have now found a movie worse than "darkness" MMHA has officially won worst movie of 2004, although "movie" is a mis-leading description.

A guy named Mike (coincidence) names a movie "Michael Moore Hates America" then sets out trying to get an interview with M. Moore. Odd that Moore rejects his request, I am sure a lot of people would invite a film maker into their lives, especially if they insult them even before the interview starts.

So in tradition of "Roger & Me" our film maker chases Moore around America, quite comedic watching just how elusive Moore can be without even trying. Mike can't find Moore, so instead Mike(film maker) tries to prove a few of Moores points as being false, out of hours and hours of movies and interviews, Mike (FM) goes to the bank from "Bowling For Columbine" they tell him at the bank that Moore called ahead to get his gun, the bank was running a promo at the time, if you opened an account you would receive a gun, showing how stupid of an idea this was, Moore opened an account, and surprise Moore got a gun, but wait a minute it was a lie, well sort of, Moore did open an account, he did receive a gun, but he wasn't supposed to get it at the bank. Moore is shown to be a liar, because he didn't tell people that the bank gave him the gun, which was against their policy. Moore just proved how even worse the bank promo was.

Then Mike interviews a soldier who was in Fahrenheit 9/11, I must point out that I have seen this guy in 4 movies so far, in each one he says exactly what the camera wants to hear.

In the end, which can't come fast enough, it is apparent that this guy had no clue what to make a movie about, had absolutely no story, no credible answers or facts to support his title.

I would say try again, but then I would be lying.

top ten worst movies of all time.

Not Oscar great - but worth the money

[mwilk74 · 8/10 · 23 December 2004]

I know... you look at the title and cringe. Either you love the title because you hate the guy, or you hate the movie already because you respect MM.

But I had been following this kid (not really a kid - probably late 20s) for a while. He followed his dream - he wanted to make movies. He lost his job, spent all of his money - just to make the film.

So I did something I never do - I bought the movie without seeing it. Ebert and Roeper gave it two thumbs up, so I knew it wouldn't be a total waste. I was pleasantly surprised.

It wasn't an all out attack on Moore. It did criticize his methods (the more shady ones) and acknowledged his talent. The movie was more of a feel good story... he talks to real people and funny things happen. The director (Mike Wilson) is completely open and honest about himself and his shortcomings. It wasn't laugh out loud humor (although Penn Gillette, who's in quite a bit of it IS laugh out loud funny at parts).

The best part of this movie is that you are smiling at the end of it. It actually felt good to help this guy achieve his dream of making a movie and pocketing some coin. You just know he is a decent guy - at one point he sends an apology email to an interviewee because he feels badly about deceiving him.

This movie is worth your investment if you like a good story and want honest-to-goodness independent entertainment. I am a movie snob and I really recommend it to anyone who has a few bucks to spend after Christmas.

Much better than its rating would imply

[coreysguard-imdb · 7/10 · 26 May 2005]

The average rating is so far from reasonable that one can only conclude that many who voted did not actually see the film, and were just responding to the provocative title.

This sort of behavior is of course in line with many of the themes presented in the film. Not so different from the scene where the filmmaker is shouted down after asking Micheal Moore a question. Micheal Moore is a zealot magnet, so getting a crowd to judge the film simply on its merits is too much to hope for. I would suggest that the title chosen for the film was also a mistake, since it prevents the film from being taken seriously from the start. Something like "Micheal and me" would have been more appropriate, though it would not have attracted as much media attention. I have shown the film to big Farenheit 911 fans, and even they found merits in it. Anyone who enjoyed "Roger and me" (as I did) would particularly appreciate this film for the way it turns the cameras around on Moore some 18 years later. It's worth giving this film a chance, regardless of how you feel about Moore.

The film has missed the point

[fdog9 · 1/10 · 24 September 2004]

The title says it all, this guy is just another "shrill" voice doing a hatchet job. Moore is taking on the establishment. Moore is speaking for our soldiers dying for big business in Iraq (Fahrenheit 911). He is speaking for the guys losing their jobs to places overseas (Roger and Me). He is speaking for all the victims of gun crimes in this country (Columbine). This guy is supporting the establishment. He can try to market himself as a "maverick" or "guerilla" film maker, but it can't fool me. He's just another mouth piece for the rich. I guess good for him--he'll have a nice career at the Faux News network---we distort--you comply.

By the way I've seen Moore speak and he doe not hate America. Talk about shrill.

Should not be judged by its title

[kedunlap · 11 December 2004]

First of all, 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 to the point that he apologizes for it: at the end of his interview with the extremely ethical documentarian, Albert Maysles, he sheepishly reveals the title, apparently expecting to be rebuked and possibly scolded. To his surprise Maysles simply responds, 'Maybe he does.'

The film is really about ethics in the making of documentary films, using scenes from Moore's 'Bowling for Columbine' and to a lesser extent 'Roger and Me' (both of which I have seen) as a basis for the comments of recognized experts such as Penn Jillette, Albert Maysles, and David Horowitz as well as people whom Moore chose to interview in making 'Bowling for Columbine'. When viewed in that light, the film is quite interesting and worthwhile for any avid movie fan.

Some IMDb reviewers, along with other 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 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 apparently agree with Moore's cause, seem to agree that he does the same in that movie.

Telling lies in historical movies is not new, (I believe it may have been John Ford who said that when a director is forced to choose between telling what really happened and telling what should have happened, he should do the latter) and I would say it creates no major ethical problem when it simply fills in material that is unknown, such as unheard (fictitious) conversations that clarify issues for the benefit of the audience, or is of no major importance. Of all 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 and is presented as true. 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. To his credit, Wilson points out his flaws in this regard. This, however, is not an excuse that applies to the films of Stone and Moore.

Some reviewers indicate that the truth doesn't matter as long as a film is entertaining. Fine, as long as the fiction is advertised as such. The problem I have with Michael Moore is not so much that he is unethical; rather 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 and will certainly encourage other film makers to follow his lead. This will mean that documentaries will no longer serve as credible sources of information. Since that is the primary reason documentaries exist at all, that 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. Still, it sure is a pain in the butt to be forced to expend time doing major research on every significant issue in order to have a reasonably accurate view of the world.

Of course, for those who view factual truth as no big deal, ethics are no big deal either.

The best review of this film by an American. (no spoilers)

[fulcrum9 · 1/10 · 5 June 2005]

Michael Wilson started with his own idea and his own dream to make a movie but it is easy to see that his ideas soon became the property and domain of Brian Cartmell (executive producer). It is obvious that this film's creators were banking on the name alone. The actual content of this movie is no more then a lucid collection of the same partisan punditry you see tearing our country apart with big money and big government. The random interviews with people on the street and an occasional celebrity were not well thought out or established in the film as anything but shameful attempts to hint at something or make suggestions with more suggestions. A tactic Michael Moore himself has been known to incorporate in his own work but at the very least Moore includes at least SOME fact or reasoning why his ideas or suggestions are the way they are. Wilson's work lacks substance entirely. Weather this is a direct result of Cartmell's involvement is in the eye of the beholder. Wilson does not seam like a very intelligent person and he is easily the kind of person that could be bought and sold. From interviews with Wilson and from his own documentation of this film's creation it is easy to see that he has no idea what he is doing.

Brian Cartmell made the mistake of taking on this project and then going against everything the first amendment stands for by suing and harassing people when it was HIS TURN to come under the scrutiny of the public eye. Particularly that of the Internet public. People who have every right to remain anonymous or publish satire were suddenly being harassed and incriminated by this multimedia bully. He also made the mistake of trying to hide his own past involvement in the porn industry and the use of the Internet to manipulate the media and spam Internet users. Brian Cartmell is still involved in a lawsuit that has dragged his reputation and the reputation of this film into the gutter. Wilson knew about Cartmell's actions and history but only encouraged this kind of activity without thinking of the consequences to his own work.

This film is the product of people who hate the rights and freedoms of Americans more then they could EVER hate Michael Moore. So by example it turns out that Brian Cartmell and Michael Wilson are the ones who really hate America.

*It should be noted that Michael Moore did consider and suggest suing Michael Wilson for libel and slander but he found the wisdom not to go through with it.

I give this movie a 2 because Wilson himself started in good faith, it makes good material to show WHAT NOT TO DO and without this film we would not know that Brian Cartmell is a complete hypocrite.

Reactionary Crap

[Kurt-15 · 1/10 · 27 March 2005]

Once again the reactionary right, instead of challenging the assertions of their detractors plot character assassination. Case in point: MM hates America.

"Hates America" is the buzzword for the reactionary right for anyone who disagrees with or criticizes Bush. This is in response to the way that liberals would accuse Kenneth Star, Newt Gingrich or Bill O'Reilly of hating America when they criticized Clinton.

This film is a simple exercise in stupidity. Rather than deconstructing Moore's conclusions of Saudi duplicity or Bush's incompetence, the filmmaker here tries to make Moore look bad by using Moore's own guerrilla film-making style against him.

Does it work? WHO CARES. For the radical right to care about truth is crazy, when there is someone to smear.

Good Movie, Misleading/Bad Title

[flyawaynow · 8/10 · 16 June 2005]

I always knew Michael Moore distorted things, but it never really bothered me. I like Bowling For Columbine, despite the gimmicks and misrepresentation that goes on in it. Those films (while not "documentaries) are a sort of "stand up" journalism and it was entertaining at least. F/11 was an inappropriate forum for Moore's style, went too far and was simply tasteless. That said, I don't hate Michael Moore, I sort of pity him. Anyway... I was reluctant to see this movie mainly and shallowly because of the title, but it was actually pretty good. There were a couple sophomoric parts I disagreed with, but the guy who made it (Mike Wilson) seems like a genuine guy, and is not mean spirited at all. The movie is not really about Moore, but rather what America means to Wilson. He is a very simple person with simple views - not stupid, but simple. The parts that involve Michael Moore are essentially about his approach to documentary making, and what objectivity means - especially if one is pursuing it. It's worth a watch - don't get freaked out by the title. Wilson explains the title is more a comment on the shrillness of political discourse in America right now. (I would have gone with a different title still.) All in all go rent it.

unfortunate

[dstern1 · 1/10 · 7 October 2004]

I left this film wondering what is the point which Michael Wilson intends to be making. It claims to be a documentary; it is not. By definition, a documentary portrays a point of view; in his zeal to counter the view of a true documentary film maker, he forgot to make his point.

I rest assured that this film will be primarily screened in film schools as an example of what not to do. Any theatrical distribution will be by accident.

Instead of using a title which is intended to defame a true film maker, he should have figured out what he wanted to say. Nothing in the film supports his title!

A noble attempt to expose a hypocrite!!!

[flicklover · 8/10 · 12 June 2005]

I have to say that I am not a fan of Michael Moore. He makes very entertaining films, he has a good sense of humor, but it is an insult to call him a true documentary filmmaker. His films are really propaganda pieces to promote him as a working class hero. He makes himself the story. This film is by Michael Wilson, a guy who wanted to give Moore a taste of his own medicine. This documentary follows Wilson's attempts to interview Moore, a la Moore's own film Roger and Me. He is avoided by Moore at every turn, at one point he attends a speech by Moore, and in an open question session tells Moore the title of his film, and Moore shouts him down. It is a tactic that Moore uses, but when Wilson puts him on the spot he lashes out. It is ironic that a man who has become a multi millionaire by confronting people hates when it is done to him. It was great to see Wilson interview Moore supporters after the incident, and disagree with the way Moore had treated him. They were Moore supporters but had no problem with someone that disagreed with them.

To be fair, Wilson borrows a lot from Moore's style, the film is very much like Moore's own work. The difference is the tone, it is obvious that Wilson is not a Moore fan, he views America with a more positive perspective, for some people that would mean that Wilson is some right wing nut. He makes no real political proclamations, his point is that we should be able to debate without being so shrill. Both sides have bomb throwers, Moore is really just that, a bomb thrower that wants to wallow in how bad it is in America without offering any solutions. The right has Ann Coulter, she is just as bad as Moore. This film is not scandalous or inflammatory in any way, it does point out that Moore has every right to say what he has to say, but it exposes how he slickly puts his films together to get his messages across. He seems to be a very savvy and cynical filmmaker. Michal Wilson chooses to view his country in a hopeful light, Moore sees it in a bad way. Does "Michael Moore Hate America"?, as the titles says, I don't know, but this film makes a pretty good argument. But what this film does is that it champions his right to think and say what he wants, and that is the way it should be.

Grade: B

Rather sweet and not what the title would imply

[hsfhsf · 7/10 · 23 October 2004]

I could best describe this movie as sweet. Michael Wilson is not tremendously talented (although not untalented), but he goes out to prove Michael Moore wrong, not from a cinematic perspective (as that has already been done enough that anyone who believes Moore a documentarian is fooling themselves), but rather at a 'What does America allow us to do' level. He wants to show that Michael Moore is wrong about America, and does a good job of doing so. In the process, he aims to show that keeping ones morals is as important as getting the point across. As such, he does not really bad-mouth Michael Moore, but rather points out that Americans are good, smart, hard working, and, given the chance, will put themselves on the line to defend Michael Moore's ability to be a questionable (at best) documentarian.

A painful to watch documentary made by someone who Misses the point of his subject

[totodarlo · 1/10 · 5 July 2012]

Now I've seen anti-Michael Moore documentaries before and I've been bother angered and found a giggle or two throughout them based on the stupidity but the fact of the matter is.........making a film to hate-monger a human being is wrong.

So a guy who quite frankly should stay on Youtube makes a documentary with no facts to substantiate his wide claims and proceeds to interview everyone he can find who dislikes Moore.

America is much like great Britain, the government are running it into the ground and are out for themselves not its people. This isn't an opinion, its a fact and all Michael Moore is trying to do is bring awareness of this and many similar problems within society to the people in hope that one day they will rise up and say "No more" This kind of hate-mongering is disgusting and everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves. Dragging a mans name through the dirt in a 90 minute documentary is unforgivable, what right do these people have to do such a thing? If you want a decent documentary to watch then look elsewhere. If you want an uber low budget series of interviews with people who name call and express non-sensical hateful opinions then this is the one for you.

Good for both liberals and conservatives

[cluelesswill · 10/10 · 27 May 2006]

Micheal Wilson's film demonstrates that the little guy can still have his say. It's NOT about liberal or conservative. It's a thoughtful examination of the difference between making documentary films and making propaganda films. It is NOT about politics. It's about political debate.

Go see this movie or rent the CD! Couples who disagree about gun control should see it. Democrats who are married to Republicans should see it. Pot smokers should see it. Mormons should see it. The rich and powerful should see it. Most of all Michael Moore should see it. It's not a mean spirited movie at all, Michael. It won't hurt your feelings but it will make you think.

Michael Moore claims to speak for the common folk. This movie gives the common folk the chance to speak for themselves.

more subjective yet tongue-in-cheek

[killerwolf · 7/10 · 6 May 2005]

Presented as more of a sarcastic look at the mindless objectivity and paranoia of America's fattest talentless millionaire (who isn't a rapper)and although the movie doesn't hit the nail on the head with each of it's points, it's better than listening to Mr Moore(on) wax poetic about something he knows nothing about. All in all, a decent film that raises eyebrows to those not easily taken by idiotic propaganda and conspiracy theories. One caveat - how come none has taken note that Mr Moore(on) never asked any lawmakers in his seditious "film" who actually had children serving in the armed forces the only question he can think of? Even without this movie to state the obvious, Michael Moore(on) does really hate America.

Rubbish

[Pegatron · 1/10 · 10 October 2004]

After watching the trailer to this film, I was completely turned off the idea. I do not like MIchael Moore, as I find his style to be populist (and I read History at university, so I really dislike cheapened versions of the truth) and outright boring sometimes. I am a part-time soldier, yet I disagree with Michael Moore's portrayal of how troops are treated (I'm sorry, but I volunteered in full-understanding of the fact that a soldiers job is, quite often, going to require war, shockingly enough).

However, this film is just a backlash from conservative America against Michael Moore's version of liberal America. The trailer was horribly made (and I work in film and television, it was technically poorly made, even forgetting the message). The concept that America is a 'great nation' is fine, but it doesn't have to be rubbed in and it seems that both groups are trying to show you 'working America' and 'small town America', as if these concepts are somehow good (I personally could not care less). This is simply another cheap documentary waste of our time.