[moki]

Sounds interesting. Too bad Hollywood won't be fawning over this one.

http://www.citizensunited-interactive.org/c41.11/

[Krusty]

Why would Hollywood fawn over it ? Its a movie about a movie maker .. not a presidential candidate. Footage of peacenik chicks saying that they like dictators that provide universal health care is a little less ... ahem ... important than say, footage of the Sec. of State claiming that Iraq is no threat and doesn't have WMD just a few months prior to claiming that, in fact, Iraq such a huge and imminent threat that we need to take him out ...like ... NOW.

Last time I checked, neither peacenik chicks no Michael Moore were being consulted about national security nor are they running for re-election. Therefore, you are right ... it will probably go largely unnoticed even if its a well made and convincing movie.

[icruise]

Hmm... I didn't see much in the trailer to indicate what the movie was actually about (aside from "Michael Moore's lies").

[MindFad]

[demograph68]

I don't agree with the generalization of "either you're with us or against us." Moore and Bush aren't a black and white scenario. I'm sure Bush had good intentions to invade Iraq, being how bad Saddam is... and Moore has made some good points with how it it wasn't necessarily a top priority. But to take quotes out of context and superimpose them on video clips of people being killed by terrorists is a basic form of propaganda. (Vice versa, as with American soldiers dying with Bush speaking,"Bring it on!.") Either way, movies aren't a proper medium for intellectual expression in my opinion. A book would be much more suitable. Movies can tend to disproportionate facts and overwhelm the mind with trite stimuli.