There is also another film called "Michael Moore Hates America", which I found interesting. I saw it on Netflix streaming.
" @Nerx said:
They have. It's called Michael & Us. "
"Someone should do a commentary on HIM "
Wow, it feels like I'm on a really huge poorly moderated message board right now with a bunch of people trolling on Micheal Moore based of a Sankaku article. Really a Sankaku article. -_-' I mean I could be wrong but Sankaku doesn't strike me as a model of journalistic integrity with the exception of if the subject being reported on is somewhat related to sex be it fetishes, some random event that happened in the world, (all the way from rape, to surgery, people getting stuck mid-coitus, and any other thing imaginable) legal issues, trends, lists, etc. The other half of their content being galleries usually themed around some kind of fetish/series/person.
I don't mean to be to judgemental but when I clicked the link to the story (If you read it you know it is pretty much the two quotes John referenced and a comment some people are worried it might be a documentary) isn't exactly filled with any evidence beyond simple rumor-mongering off some quotes that can be construed to be very judgemental if taken out of the jesting context some users are saying it was in. Also, while it doesn't have to do with the article when I got to that story the latest article they were advertising was a two sentance quip of a possible trend in male fashion in Japan based of a picture of men wearing bras in some television show. I'm not sure about anyone else but the more I see articles on Sankaku Complex the harder I find it to take any article that isn't just ripped from some bizzare news headline seriously. Since at least if you track those back you can find indeed some bizzare event (90% of them related to sex in some tangential way) did indeed happen.
Although than again I've only seen two Micheal Moore documentaries before so maybe my tolerance for his style is not warn away as much. The first being Bowling for Columbine in a Civics class in grade 10 with a discussion of gun control both the positive and negative effects of it following particularly in regards to the Canadian Firearms Registry. The film itself I wouldn't say was that bad provided you realise Moore is more personal in regards to his documentaries than most, meaning you should look up more info on what he reports following the film to get a better understanding of the events from other sources that may disagree with him. Although this should be done with any documentary if you want to have intelligent discourse on the subject on any detail the more ways you can have found the data to be interpreted in the more relevant your view can become. The reason being you now have more variables from, which to construct your opinion on the impact the thing being discussed has in regards to whatever number of things and the positive and negative sides of it.
I mean I loved the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? and agree with some of the points he's put forth but don't agree with all of them and believe he missed many other important limiting factors for the success of an electric vehicle in the U.S., like the load it would put on the electric grid at night when presumebly people would charge their vehicles at night before going to sleep, the enormous cost it would be to upgrade that grid to handle something like that not to mention all the new generation that would have to be made, the effect increased power useage would have is quite downplayed given the U.S. is mainly run on coal power due to the abundance of the source and will continue to do so until another option can become financially feasible to name a few.
*rant follows about the falacies regarding wind power and global warming really big tangent feel free to ignore if you wish* (if anyone reading this thinks wind has a chance you're dreaming I could write a very long essay about how terribly inefficient wind power is currently and just due to the nature of the resource will continue to be not to mention the vast majority of companies involved in wind power are related to the oil/gas/coal buisness and their only reason for doing that is because they get government subsudies and people get brainwashed into thinking that they are doing something to battle climate change, which still is contested among the scientific community despite the media telling you otherwise given the recent trend of falling temperatures and data showing this is a reacouring cycle that has been independent of reflecting changes in the mass use of combustible fuels along with the straight up wrong idea by even heads of state that CO2 is the largest contributer to greenhouse gases when it's actually straight up water vapour, which makes sense if any of them could remember the formula for both complete and incomplete combustion along with the properties of water in comparison to CO2, which would show they water vapour has a much greater capacity for energy storage. Space based solar power once it reaches economies of scale however holds much more promise and nuclear fusion given proper funding is diverted to either of these instead of wasting it on bullshit causes that won't produce squat besides make people a few people rich and convince the majority of the others something is getting done when it's not. Anyway I digress)
If people are looking for a documentary without some kind of bias the closest you're ever going to get is by an zoologist or botanist and documenting some facet found in the animal or plant they're studying. For instance from how heavy metal is being influenced by other cultures and influencing them in turn. (Anthropology a large branch of zoology dedicated to the study of humans) For the most part unless someone is really interested in the subject being investegated chances are something that is merely looking at what is happening and if it involves interviews just stating what the interviewee think about the subject without any real interjection by the director in response. I think would probably be fairly dry to most people especially the closer it becomes to a visual thesis or just a bunch of images flashing by with maybe no commentary at all.
Anyway to get back on topic somewhat (I'm not exactly even sure where I was going with that last paragraph) the other film I saw was Sicko since it's the only film of his I know of to get any big attention around where I live mainly because part of it was filmed in London, Ontario (a city 2 hours away and a bit under half a million people) and subsequently there was quite a buzz as the Silver City in the Masonville Place mall was the North American premire of the film (complete with the bug guy himself there)
I also saw Canadian Bacon, which was just a funny satirical comedy and the last film to have the comedic legend John Candy in it.
It’s way too long, haphazardly plotted and teases on being more than a joke machine without really following-through, but I laughed more at Anchorman 2 than almost any other comedy this year.