ads

Slider[Style1]

Style2






(Review originally written at 8 November 2005)

Some more objectivity wouldn't had been a bad thing. This documentary is extremely one sided and is nothing more than an 2 hour Bush-bashing. I'm not a Bush fan, not at all and I dislike his politics and personality but it doesn't seem fair that they only showed one side of this story in this documentary. A documentary should in my opinion be always objective towards its subject, or else it loses its power and credibility.

I liked "Bowling for Columbine" very much, so I also expected some great things from this documentary. Although the end result wasn't that bad, it still disappointed me.

The documentary does provide some new good insightful information but the documentary was really like Oliver Stone's "JFK" at times, it features lots of conspiracy theories that all don't sound really implausible but at the same time also are quite far fetched.

The documentary is not always told in the right way. It tries to put too much information in it and handles a bit too many subjects. The documentary begins with how Bush 'stole the elections' and ends with the Iraq war. Not everything in the documentary feels really connected. Also ending the documentary with a mother's grief just didn't feel right and it was cheap that Michael Moore used this to proof his point.

Michael Moore obviously has something personal against Bush and he is extremely biased with this documentary. I like his style of documentary making but he didn't handled the subject of this documentary very well. I'm still interested in seeing his next projects but at the same time I'm hoping for some more objectivity next time.

6/10

Watch trailer

About Frank Veenstra

Watches movies...writes about them...and that's it for now.
«
Next
Newer Post
»
Previous
Older Post

No comments:

Post a Comment


Top