Synopsis: <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SfM2uXPmZfY&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SfM2uXPmZfY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

I'm sure this will be another fair documentary by Michael Moore Republicans = bad, democrats = good.

I know he's biased as anything, but his movies never fail to entertain, I'll be there...

I think the word you meant to use there is "always".

Great teaser. Can't wait to see this film.

Anyone who's ever watched his movies knows he doesn't like any politician who seems to be influenced by lobbyists, including Democrats (such as his bit on Hillary Clinton in Sicko).

Michael Moore is anti-corporate more than anything else.

Well it was fun tracking down all the false information in Bowling For Columbine...

I'll give Mike this much, the teaser was very good.

I'll believe it when I see it, especially the latter part.

I don't take what he says seriously, but his movies do entertain me.

Not something I'll have to see in the theater though.

= J

The only reason he went after Hillary in 'Sicko' because she was going against Obama in the primary, as he has always been a big supporter of Obama.

In saying all of this, his movies are entertaining, so I do give them a look when they come to cable. I don't mind if he has a bias, but a true documentary tries to give both sides of an argument, and Moore's documentary NEVER give both sides, they advance his ideology and many people buy it hook line and sinker.

I like to think he's referring to Obama's bailout but I'm sure I'm wrong.

While he eventually did endorse Obama, he did not do so until fairly late in the race. I remember him doing so on Larry King.

I always hear this argument about "true" documentaries whenever Moore's name comes up, yet I can't think of a single documentary that doesn't take a side either for against its subject. As far as I'm concerned, no documentary has to present both sides of an argument. The whole idea of "fair and balanced" is impossible. There are no rules. Everyone has an agenda.

A perfect example is the documentary 'Thrilla in Manila' about Ali/Frazier III. It was interesting as hell, so I would recommend it to anyone, as it was shown on HBO earlier this year. Ali of course could not be interviewed, but Frazier talked alot about that fight and how Ali treated him through the years. I thought the documentary made Frazier sympathetic, and Ali sort of the villain, because he turned Blacks against Frazier by calling him an 'Uncle Tom' and a 'Gorilla'. But there were interviews with people from Ali's camp, Dr. Ferdie Pachecko, and others, so it does give you an insight on both sides. One can walk away from that documentary thinking Ali was a dick and turned the whole black race against Frazier, or one could say that Ali was just a showman, and was just selling the fight, and succeeded.

In Michael Moores documentaries, it is all about getting his ideology across, plain and simple. He interviews people on his side, who agree with him, and rarely gives credence the 'other opinion'. He rarely talks to anyone from the other side who may rebut his position, except going to a 75 year old Charlton Heston's house and going after him on the NRA, when it later came out the guy was on the road to Alzheimers! If Moore put in leading republicans, who can actually rebut points on his documentary, I would actually defend him.

I like Moore and his documentries. He's a guy with a viewpoint he cares about.

His whiney narrating voice is a bit annoying.

It never fails that a thread about Moore is always entertaining.

Those wacky Liberals and their thinkin'.

"Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate... things." -- Dan Quayle

I look forward to Moore's new film. They always entertain. And anyone who thinks he just goes after Republicans and leaves Democrats alone are the same people who think "Bowling For Columbine" was all about how we need to get rid of guns and the 2nd Amendment.

I think he's referring to Bush's bailout of Wall Street that Obama also supports.

Sicko was filmed before Obama even became a presidental candidate. And it was first shown only about 3 months after Obama announced his candidacy.

Everyone knew Obama was going to run the day after the midterm elections in 2006, as Obama finally announced in Feb 2007, as Sicko was released in late June 2007.

I don't know when Moore finally endorsed Obama, but liberals like him always loved Obama over Hillary, as she was the status quo candidate and he was the liberal candidate.

I can only pray that he goes off on a tangent and badgers Oprah over the KFC coupon fiasco.

I think this is a bad example of a 'fair and balanced' documentary. The entire film was sympathetic towards Frazier and Ali was portrayed as the bad guy. Yes, there were a few comments from Ali's camp that didn't back up Frazier's claims, but if that makes it 'fair and balanced' than I guess Michael Moore adding clips of Bush quotes in Fahrenheit 911 made that balanced as well.

The only reason one would come away from Thrilla in Manilla seeing both sides of the argument is because they have seen so many other documentaries/interviews/films about Ali. Anyone who saw this film and had no idea who Ali was would surely come away with a negative view of Ali.

BTW...anyone who hasn't seen this needs to, it's great.

Oh boy, I can't wait to never watch it!