As the last reviews for “Captain Mike Across America” trickle through my inbox, it always seems to be more of the same; it’s a poorly made film with bad editing decisions leading to an narcissistic and self-indulgent final product. However, this new review from Insider Online got me thinking a bit more about why Moore made this film and why he would want to release a film like this - especially when it has been received so poorly - right in the middle of his final push for “Sicko”. First, the obvious part - the review of the film itself:
The film itself is nothing spectacular – in fact, as far as tour movies go, it’s not that good. It runs at a long 102 minutes, and begins to get tedious in its delivery rather quickly. There are a few moments that break the mould (when Moore responds to Christian hecklers in the crowd at one of his talks), but for the most part there’s not a lot to take away at the end of it all. Canadians will love it, and it will open to big numbers (as do most of his projects north of the border). In the United States, where it really matters, I’d be surprised to see it get a wide release, much less succeed.
As you can clearly see… same thing; long, boring, tedious, self-indulgent. However, here’s the part that made me sit up and think for a minute:
This film is coming at such a crucial time, before the U.S. primaries that are going to be among the most hotly contested in recent memory, and right before a pivotal election in ’08. In making this film, Moore could’ve taken the opportunity to preach his ideals in a more accessible way, one that will guarantee people see this movie. Because, after all, Captain Mike is less about promoting a democrat agenda, but more about encouraging people – university students in particular – to just get out there and vote. When the 2004 election was won by less that a 5% margin, it became clear that, indeed, every vote counts.
So… is that it? Is Michael Moore attempting to categorize himself as The One Who Gets The Youth Vote Out? Does he hope that the American viewing public, in watching this film, will see him as some sort of savior to the electoral process and a champion of true democracy? Or, more interestingly, does Moore think that perhaps one of the Democratic front runners will watch his seemingly awesome power at driving the youth vote and embrace him into their campaign? If the latter is truly the case, perhaps “Captain Mike” is less of a simple vanity project than it first appeared. Will Michael Moore use this new film to try to launch himself directly into politics and a particular candidate’s campaign?
Of course, for the educated reader, the problem with this whole strategy - and, indeed, the movie itself - is that Michael Moore failed at his endeavor. His Slacker Uprising tour did *not* in fact “get the youth vote out” and his candidate, John Kerry, did not win the election. Nothing that Moore attempted, both on the tour and through his website and mailing, made any significant difference in the youth turnout of the 2004 election. In fact, some have hypothesized that Moore’s passionate appeals garnered him the exact opposite result that he had intended; his vigor promoting Kerry galvanized the right, turning out *their* vote thus sealing the election for Bush. Still, from everything I’ve read “Captain Mike” is clearly edited to show the exact opposite of all of this. In “Captain Mike”, Moore is the dashing hero, the rockstar to whom rockstars themselves flaunt, drawing enthusiastic and passionate crowds of young voters who respond to his magnetic presence with cheers of glory and promises that they will take up his gauntlet and vote for Kerry in the election. And it is this image - Moore as a rockstar, Moore as a galvanizing force, Moore as The One to whom the youth of America respond - that Moore is trying to sell to the public, and perhaps the candidates themselves. The question now becomes who will forget history and buy what Moore is selling? Will this hat-trick of a film have the effect Moore seems to desire?
I don’t know about you, but I would tend to take it as a bad omen when even the World Socialist Web Site doesn’t like Michael Moore’s new opus, “Captain Mike Across America”:
Michael Moore’s Captain Mike Across America speaks indirectly to some of the peculiarities of American political life, in fact, to the essential untenability of the two-party system. It documents Moore’s tour on behalf of Democratic Party presidential candidate John Kerry through a number of “swing” states in the weeks before the November 2004 election. Moore, of course, was riding high on the great success of his Fahrenheit 9/11, which had opened in late June.
The peculiarities of the new film begin with its opening titles, which criticize the Kerry campaign, faulting it for a lack of aggressiveness in response to Republican attack ads and so forth. Indeed, whether Moore has edited it out or not, as far as this spectator could determine, there was not a single verbal reference to Kerry in the remainder of the film. This is a film, in other words, from the failed school of “Anybody But Bush.”
Its politics stay at a very low level, for the most part little more than vague populist attacks on the Bush administration, which would educate and enlighten no one. The signs of a growing radicalization, however, which the Democratic Party is incapable of and hostile to seizing upon, are there in the film. Moore makes appearances in a variety of small and medium-sized cities, to enthusiastic crowds. Aside from pointing to that phenomenon, Captain Mike Across America has minimal value.
Again I say.... OUCH. With this type of response thus far, I can’t imagine this film will do well in American release. Stay tuned....
The TIFF festival has come and gone, and nearly all of the reviews of Moore newest film seem to be in. I’ve taken the latest sampling from both professional critics and personal blog accounts and collected them here for your perusal. Personally, I think the compiled end result of all these reviews is utterly fascinating.
Well, the critics continue to pan “Captain Mike” as if it were the plague itself. Honestly, I’ve seen perhaps one or two reviews that were neutral at best from the professional critics’ circle. The newest review from Variety is particularly scathing:
One could easily carve an interesting hour-long docu out of “Captain Mike Across America,” Michael Moore’s ungainly account of his “Slacker Uprising” campaign to encourage young people to vote for John Kerry—and, more importantly, against George W. Bush—during the 2004 U.S. presidential election. In its current form, however, this repetitious and self-indulgent hodgepodge comes across as a nostalgia-drenched vanity project, with far too much footage of various celebs at assorted gatherings introing Moore as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Theatrical potential is slim, but grassroots circulation of DVDs might prove useful in get-out-the-vote drives for 2008.
Ouch. GreenCine Daily offers a plethora of snippets of reviews from a whole bunch of sources, saving me the trouble of quoting all of them. I highly encourage you to click the link and read through the absolutely searing reviews collected here, but here are a couple of new ones I found highly amusing:
“Why did Moore feel that this material needed to be so tediously regurgitated?” asks Ben Kenigsberg at Time Out Chicago. “Rather than inspiring his audience to action, Captain Mike does little other than call attention to the arrogance of the man who made it.”
In contrast, bloggers have been incredibly quiet about “Captain Mike” and the critics response to it. Not many seem to want to discuss the film or its reception, and those that do are still split very much down the middle, with some continuing their defensive of Moore and others panning the project. The latest round seem to be trying to put a positive spin on things, either by focusing on the good parts of the film or by diverting the subject to Moore and politics.
Michael Moore’s latest film received a standing ovation at the Ryerson Theatre last Friday.
Republicans will see his latest work as a propaganda film and some Canadians will call it a complete pile of rubbish. Democrats will love the film and see it as the truth that has been suppressed by the media. This Canadian found it very entertaining…
Love him or hate him, his films are entertaining. The audience at Ryerson couldn’t get enough of his stories. The film will have a limited theatrical release in North America according to Harvey Weinstein who was in the audience. Following that will be a DVD release which will include a lot of extra footage and a show Moore did in London shortly after 9/11. My guess is that all of this will come out next year just before the election (depending on how the Democrats are doing in the polls).
Here’s Balanced Opinions’ positive spin on both Moore and “Captain Mike” - note how quickly the discussion of the film turns into a political debate about Moore’s electoral probability:
The folk who urge a write-in vote for Gore have already picked a Vice-Presidential candidate for him - someone who has equal standing as a tribune of the people. They’ve chosen Michael Moore as his running mate.
Well - this is particularly bad timing. Captain Mike Across America has just universally been hailed as crap - I think “self-praising” and “self-infatuated” were the nicest things the TIFF reviewers could say. In the process, he jumps all over students for not having turned out to vote Bush out in 2004. Well, the so-called youth vote, “slackers” as Moore calls them, never turns out. Following and voting elections interferes with drinking and what youth voters insist on calling fucking. (So do courses; that’s why you can study video games or blogging.) There’s the other safe Gore bloc shot - students. They’d never go for Moore now.
I think it’s safe to call this one now. As it currently stands after it TIFF debut, the critical reviews are positively SCATHING. Virtually one has anything even remotely nice to say about “Captain Mike”, and I can say I haven’t seen a movie panned this badly since “Snakes on a Plane”. Interestingly, Moore’s fans are NOT coming to his defense. Very few bloggers had much to say about “Captain Mike”, and those reviews/opinions were extraordinarily mixed. Only a few were truly positive and almost no one defended him outright. It seems that only the few very faithful die-hard Moore fans liked this film, leaving the rest of the viewing populace scratching their heads wondering what the hell this film was supposed to accomplish. I would call the critical review of “Captain Mike” as 95% very against the film and the blogger/fan reaction as about 50% against the film. If there are more fans out there who liked this film, they certainly aren’t talking about it.
I am astounded at the incredible negativity surrounding this project. Moore and Weinstein promised a limited US theatrical release which may prove problematic given the incredible backlash against the film. I can’t help but wonder how Moore is feeling about these reviews. Is he taking any of this criticism seriously? Will he re-edit the film if it does come out in the US? Will he be able to brush away such harsh reactions to his work or will his anger get the best of him?
I will of course continue to report and update you all on the progress of “Captain Mike” and any further plans or reactions that occur in the future. Stay tuned… ;)
This is, by far, the harshest critique of Moore and “Captain Mike Across America” I’ve seen. To do it justice, I’m republishing it here in it’s entirety.
Enough already of the self-involved Moore
Is this the end for Michael Moore? The controversial film maker has become arguably the loudest anti-Bush voice in America, eclipsing other well known Left-wing activists such as Sean Penn and Tim Robbins with a series of movies that are almost genetically designed to make people lose faith in the American system.
But now, following on from the failure of his last film, Sicko, it seems his latest flick, Captain Mike Across America looks set to be his biggest dud yet. Captain Mike Across America sees Michael Moore making a movie about the person he loves most—Michael Moore.
Filmed a few years ago when the Michigan native embarked a nationwide college tour to impress on students how important it was to (a) hate George Bush and (b) love Michael Moore, Captain Mike Across America premiered to a half empty theatre at the Toronto Film Festival last week, leaving many observers to conclude that the darling of the film festival circuit has made one self-involved movie too many.
It would be nice to think that this is the case, and that duplicitous old fraud has finally been found out, but what is really baffling is the huge popularity he enjoyed in the first place.
Here in Ireland, Moore is virtually idolised by the Left, and it is to the their eternal shame that they adopted Moore to be their Leni Riefenstahl.
Many people first became aware of Moore through his TV show The Awful Truth and then his first feature film, Roger And Me, an apparently damning indictment of the impact of General Motors decision to relocate from a small American town to Mexico, where labour costs were cheaper.
It was like a Woody Guthrie song put to celluloid and was intensely moving. There was only one problem: he had manipulated the truth to suit himself, as well as deceiving at least one of the people who appeared—the woman who sold rabbits for food—into signing away any future royalties.
The lies and deceptions didn’t stop there.
Incredibly, he won an Oscar for Best Documentary with Bowling For Columbine, despite the fact that there were at least 56 proved inaccuracies and distortions.
When pressed, he admitted to manufacturing false footage and using fake statistics and dodgy data, but defended himself by saying that he was entertainer—an interesting defence from the winner of an Oscar for Best Documentary.
But while you could forgive Moore for his many failings, the refusal of so many people to accept the glaring evidence right in front of their eyes was damnable.
Unquestioningly bashing Bush was the order of the day, as was unquestioningly swallowing anything Moore had to say. It was a shame to see so many otherwise sensible people completely lose their critical faculties and turn any exposure of Moore’s lies into the work of some vast, right-wing conspiracy—a conspiracy theory which, inevitably, was started by Moore himself.
Now it looks like movie goers’ love affair with Moore is over. And not a moment too soon.
I had been reserving judgment about how “Captain Mike Across America” would be well and truly received until it had its public screenings. So far the only people to see the film were critics and reviewers, who, as I have discussed in previous articles, have unanimously and harshly panned Moore’s newest opus. What I wanted to know is if Moore’s diehard fans would see the same flaws and problems in “Captain Mike” that the critics did - even the critics that were self-proclaimed big fans of Michael Moore and his work. The question I wanted answered was would Moore’s fans still like and appreciate “Captain Mike” despite the critical backlash?
Today we had our first answer to that question. Doc Blog, one of the TIFF 2007 blogs, describes in detail the events that occurred at the first public screening of “Captain Mike Across America”. It was, to put it mildly, a huge and unbridled success with the fans in attendance:
Ryerson theatre was filled to capacity tonight for the premiere of Michael Moore’s latest documentary Captain Mike Across America. The crowd received Moore with the utmost admiration, as reflected by the loud applause when he entered the theatre…
Throughout the screening, the audience burst into applause and at times even motional reactions. A woman a few seats from me cried during one of Moore’s speeches about the war and the lives lost because of it. The energy in the theatre was palpable to say the least. The screening felt like an instant part of Festival lore as Harvey Weinstein was in the audience watching for the first time. This continued to the end, where Moore received a standing ovation for about 2-3 minutes. His reaction was that of the greatest appreciation. He said, “This is way above and beyond what I expected. Thank you for that very generous response.” Moore said the ovation was even longer than when he showed Bowling for Columbine here.
When asked if he would do this journey again for a future election, Moore simply answered, “I hope I don’t have to.” He went on to share how the tour was tiring but also physically dangerous. On more than one occasion, Moore’s life was endangered. His efforts will not go unnoticed when the film gets a theatrical release. You can certainly see why his actions are appreciated by many, many people not just in the US but in other countries as well. This film will have you and others in discussion for some time after you see it.
Judging from this first account, Moore’s fans are responding with great fervor to “Captain Mike Across America”. This fan reaction is a complete 180 turn from the critical reaction, which was resoundingly negative. Several questions emerge now. Is this an isolated report or will more positive fan reactions to “Captain Mike” start popping up? If Moore’s fans do indeed love this new film, why did critics have such a different reaction? What are the critics seeing that Moore’s fans are not? And, perhaps most intriguingly, whose opinion will Moore dwell on the most - the fans or the critics?
Only time will tell, and I will be very curious to see how this continues to play out.
A new fan review has just emerged on the web written by a Moore fan from the TIFF festival. The reviewer saw the second public screening of “Captain Mike Across America"… and his reaction was decidedly different from the above review:
I’m not saying anything against Moore’s tactics, but I’m here to review his movie and this movie is just-not-needed. This is Michael Moore’s little love letter to himself. He depicts himself as a hero, standing up on the stage and having us watch him rally these people. And Moore seems to get off having himself large on the screen-even though in his intro he told us how sorry he was for us to be looking at him on a giant screen as he isn’t easy on the eye. Moore seemed to only want to make this to show us how popular he is and how controversial and how he is leading a revolt.Maybe if somebody else made the movie about the tour instead of Moore forcing his vast inspiration on us, I may feel differently. But its still a pointless effort. I like Moore’s films, except “Fahrenheit 9/11, really”, but with “Captain Mike Across America” he is at the peak of his self-indulgent and narcissitic ways. Did he really need to make an entire film about the 2004 elections again? Was there any need for this at all? Maybe if he tookt he footage and cut a twenty minute short on a future DVD of “Fahrenheit 9/11"-which I have a feeling may come out either when “Sicko” comes out on DVD, or right before the 2008 elections.
After the film Moore did a Q&A for the packed audience. Oh I’m sorry, did I say Q&A? What I really should have said was people standing up and saying how much they admire Moore and how his films will change the world without asking anything question, while Moore looked bashful on the stage. No questions. . . no answers. . . nothing. Just a waste of my time. And when the cameraman and editor of the film came on stage, the moderator did ask (because its his job) what the originally intention for this film was. The editor said “When I shot this, we never thought we would make a movie, Michael just wanted to get the tour on film. And then we had this footage and we were wondering what we should do with it.” What I heard as “Fahrenheit 9/11 made over 100 million dollars at the box office, and we have this footage that could probably also make that much money.” “Captain Mike Across America” is really just a self-indulgent little film that is just not needed to see on the big screen. Maybe on TV. . . maybe. Even though the festival screening was like I was at a political rally-and I heard a few anti-American comments by some of the forever Canadian residents, which Moore never really seemed to deny-I sense that Moore fans will see that this is a pointless work. If he wanted to make another documentary so soon he should go in the field instead of releasing dead footage for something that is not needed to see. Come on, the elections are coming up in a year. Do we really need to go back in the past?
Again… WOW. Another scathing review of this movie, but this time by a fan rather than a critic. Will this love-it-or-hate-it trend continue? Stay tuned....
Yet more bad reviews for “Captain Mike Across America” rolled in this morning. I can honestly say I haven’t seen a single good - or even a relatively neutral - review of this movie yet. Here are two more excepts from reviews for your perusal below the cut, with the second one being particularly lengthy and scathing.
Captain Mike Across America is an interesting proposition: Michael Moore documents his tour across America in the run-up to the 2004 Presidential elections; a tour that notably failed to turn the tide of the election against George Bush. As Moore is more skilled in creating passionate (if flawed) polemics than he is at documentary film-making, someone else should have taken the reins. In Moore’s hands, this is a weird, confusingly-edited rush between states with occasional musical interludes (it’s nice to hear the Finland’s national anthem) that leaves you wondering: “Where on earth is this going?” The answer, of course, is nowhere (Kerry was a lame duck) and Moore’s glib explanation is unintentionally dispiriting. 1/5
Michael Moore’s new documentary opens with a title card explaining that we’re in Tallahassee, Florida the night before the 2004 election and immediately I thought: Uh, yeah—I think I recall how this one turned out. Chronicling Moore’s 2004 Slacker Uprising Tour—a get-out-the-vote series of speaking engagements in 20 ‘Battleground’ States—Captain Mike Across America is easily Moore’s weakest film, a self-congratulatory mess that has nothing to say about the American political process and tells you everything you need to know about the numbing cult of personality that’s sprung up around Moore. It’s not so bad that there’s a cult of personality around Moore—as I’ve said of Moore before, some Americans are so desperate for someone to speak truth to power that they’ll settle for someone saying anything to it. What’s bad is that Moore seems to be buying into his own myth, now, and here that seems both narcissistic and futile.
Moore wants to keep old grudges alive—anger about the ‘Swift Boat’ ads that ran against Kerry, anger about the decision to go to war in Iraq, anger about the 2000 election Supreme Court decision that ended Al Gore’s presidential ambitions. It’s like watching a demented cheerleader scream their lungs out over a game that was lost years ago—and was rigged in the first place. And yes, I just compared the American electoral process to a rigged game…
The Weinstein Company is distributing Captain Mike Across America, and while I rarely talk about business and distribution decisions in reviews, I do have to say this: Whatever they paid, they got taken. The film feels more like a home movie, shot on DV by Moore’s crew during the tour and incorporating newsclips obviously ripped from Tivo (they have that low-rez blur to them). And the tour itself earned speaker’s fees for Moore; his controversial appearance at Utah Valley State College alone netted him $50,000, and it was one of 62 stops. (Some of which, I’m sure, were pro bono, but still.) Captain Mike Across America couldn’t have cost very much to make—a pocket-lining vanity project on par with Bill Clinton’s gigantic, say-nothing autobiography or John McCain’s ghostwritten profiles in courage.
And it’s worth even less to watch. Moore used to be engaging because he spoke up in the face of power and he actually had something to say. But with Captain Mike Across America, he’s saying nothing, or at least nothing we haven’t heard from him before: I am angry. You should vote. I dislike George Bush. I am angry. Recently—with Bowling for Columbine, Sicko and even to a certain degree Fahrenheit 9/11-- Moore’s been making engaging, informative, opinionated and intriguing films from a passionate point of view; Captain Mike Across America is an information-free, narcissistic and self-congratulatory high-pitched whine from a sore loser.
Again… WOW. I can hardly believe my eyes at some of these reviews. It seems I’m not the only person who’s wondering why Moore has released this film and what he’s hoping to gain out of it. Again, I do believe it’s too early to call this one, but it seems that “Captain Mike Across America” is destined to be Moore’s first huge flop. This, of course, begs another question from me. If this film does truly turn out to be the cinematic flop it seems to be, how will Moore handle such a harsh rejection of his work?
Well, the reviews have started pouring in for Moore’s latest opus “Captain Mike Across America”, and so far the tone has been unanimous in nature. Unanimously harsh, anyway.
Yesterday afternoon, I opted for the Moore, which, as you’d surmise if you read a synopsis, is not actually a film. Rather, it’s just reassembled footage from his 2004 Slacker Uprising tour, during which he toured colleges in swing states with celebrities (Eddie Vedder! Um, Roseanne Barr!) and tried to get out the vote for Kerry.
And we all know how that turned out. Captain Mike Across America doesn’t have anything new to say about the 2004 election; it doesn’t even have any new footage. It’s almost entirely videotaped speeches and interviews with students—some of them already featured in docs about Moore, like Manufacturing Dissent and This Divided State. Why did Moore feel that this material needed to be so tediously regurgitated? So he can show off the moment when one student gave him his uncle’s Purple Heart? (”He’d have wanted you to have it.”) Rather than inspiring his audience to action, Captain Mike does little other than call attention to the arrogance of the man who made it.
From Salon.com:
One of the weirdest records of the ‘70s was “Having Fun With Elvis On Stage,” which consisted wholly of spliced-together patter from the King’s live shows, a full two sides of Elvis repeatedly muttering “Thank you very much!” and asking for a drink of water. “Captain Mike Across America” is Michael Moore’s “Having Fun With Elvis On Stage.” I’m not sure exactly why this movie exists, although in a twisted way, maybe it’s somewhat admirable: It seems that Moore has finally made a 102-minute commercial for himself, which possibly has been his dream all along.
I saw “Captain Mike Across America” at a press screening here on Thursday night, at the end of the first day of the Toronto International Film Festival. The screening was held in a theater with a capacity of about 580. I arrived very early, fearing the thing might be crowded—but I’d be surprised if there were 100 people there, maybe even as few as 50. Is Moore losing some of his magic with the festival-going press, which he could always count on for a reasonable amount of support, or at least some copy? I could almost hear tumbleweeds blowing through that theater; that could be partly because the screening began at 10:15 p.m., by which time any moviegoer’s energy level might be a little low. Or could it be that Moore’s dud logic and relentless self-congratulation are finally starting to grind down even those who essentially agree with his politics.
This story is intercut with news footage, and performances from special guest musicians and comedians. This is where the film often goes off track, trying to be something it clearly isn’t. It’s great to show the many special guests who appeared on the tour to support the cause, but to stop the story for a musical number is to sabotage plot and story for the sake of spectacle (and mostly b-rate spectacle at that). Special guests include Eddy Vedder, Steve Earl, REM, Joan Baez, Viggo Mortensen and Rosanne Barr. Some of them are entertaining, most are not. And I could have done without one sequence where Moore is dancing off stage.
From Rotten Tomatoes:
In the months leading up to the 2004 presidential election, Michael Moore embarked on a 60-college tour with speeches and musical guests (I hope someone YouTubes Eddie Vedder’s gorgeously tender cover of Cat Stevens) to motivate the dormitory dwellers into the voting booths. Yet despite all the time Moore spends onscreen, Captain Mike Across America comes off as oddly impersonal documentary. Moments of drama are all too brief (like Republicans suing him for allegedly bribing students with instant ramen and underwear) and the film is dispassionately shot from the audience’s perspective. Considering how much manpower it must’ve taken to organize the tour and how it ultimately failed to turn the presidential tide, it’s a disappointment there’s no real behind-the-scenes or candid response footage from Moore. We’ve gotten used to him as an approachable humanist after Sicko, but here he insists on remaining a distant icon.
And the longest review I’ve found so far, from Twitch:
Ostensibly chronicling his failed Slacker Uprising Tour - the traveling get-out-the-vote roadshow he embarked upon prior to the 2004 presidential elections with the express intent of bringing down President Bush, Captain Mike Across America is actually about nothing more than servicing Moore’s own enormous ego. A ninety seven minute continuous wank job the film is a smug and self congratulating attempt at self-canonization. It is intellectually hollow, shallow as a puddle, and has nothing to say about anything of any lasting importance to anyone other than Moore himself…
Now, successful or not, the tour could have - and SHOULD have, dammit - provided an excellent launch pad to enter discussion on any number of important issues. A study at social resistance? Could have done that. A primer on grass roots activism? Could have done that. A dissection of a badly flawed electoral system? Could have done that. An ass kicking diatribe against rampant voter apathy? Could have done that. Moore does none of these things. Absolutely none of them. Shockingly for a film supposedly chronicling a series of political rallies, Moore can’t even find the time to present the on-stage content of those rallies as anything beyond a handful of brief sound bites. What he does find time for though, and lots of it, is shot after shot after shot of himself entering packed out arenas to thunderous applause, fans requesting hugs as though he were the lost fifth Beatle, a man giving him a relative’s world war two Bronze Star, and every word of praise that the rock stars and celebrities who joined him on tour had to send his way - Joan Baez gives a particularly lengthy ode to Michael - while cutting out just about anything of substance any of them may have said from the stage. By my count the film opens with a solid twenty minutes - nearly a quarter of the total run time! - of this sort of hollow self promotion before making even a half hearted attempt at even raising any sort of larger issue.
You’ll have to pardon me if I don’t talk about any issues raised by the film, it’s just that there aren’t any. Moore says nothing in this film beyond the fact that there is a large faction of people out there who like him rather a lot and that he agrees with them wholeheartedly. Mike? You’re better than this. And you’d better remember it before all of those adoring people forget why they cared about anything you had to say in the first place.
I must admit I’m rather speechless. I have never seen such uniformly harsh reviews of Moore’s work, particular from those who begin their reviews by stressing they are indeed Moore fans. Of course we’ll have to wait for further reviews to make a more accurate judgment call, but I think it may be safe to assume at this stage that “Captain Mike Across America” is a flop. All of this, of course, make me beg the questions once again… why on earth did Moore release this film? What did he hope to gain from it? Time will only tell.
A set of seven new photos from Michael Moore’s new movie “Captain Mike Across America” have been released. Upon looking at the stills, nothing seemed remarkable to me about them. However, this small caption from the article suddenly caught my eye:
The photos look like the film will surprise many people who were expecting something completely different. The film seems like it was aimed at the Bush supporters who crashed the 2004 tour.
This of course made me take a second look at the batch of photos and, sure enough, almost all of them were focused on the Bush supporters outside the rallies rather than Moore and the rally attendees themselves. Ummm… why? I cannot imagine what message Moore is trying to send with this movie or what goal he is hoping to accomplish. I for one will be interested to see how this plays out when the movie finally sees a release.
We witnessed the reassignment of Dan Rather, rather than his firing. We still see Ward Churchill on the payroll of the U of C. And now, we see the University of Akron’s Theater Professor Susan Speers found “not guilty” of fraud by a committee of her peers (The Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committee).
The Associated Press reports that a University committee has ruled that Speers did not commit fraud, when she brought Michael Moore to speak to her “Introduction to Theater through Film” class at a University facility just days before the election. The issue is that no fees were charged for the use of the facility. U of A’s indoor facilities may be used for political purposes, but not at the expense of taxpayers, thus, the sponsor must pay a rental fee for the facility. Speers paid nothing to the University for the use of the facility.
The committee informed Speers that she was off the hotseat in a letter which stated that “"there was no fraudulent intent” on her part. I don’t know what barometers the committee uses to gauge “intent”, but based on Speers own words; she certainly knew the Moore Speech was going to be political in nature.
In fact, she told Madelin Equivel, a reporter for the Akron Beacon Journal, in an interview that; ( it’s a subscription site, if you look hard enough, I’m sure you will find a link.)
``Now I can let the cat out of the bag,’’ she said. ``It is political.’’
The Beacon Journal reports:
Film lecture a ploy; it’s all about voting
By Posted on Sun, Oct. 31, 2004
Michael Moore urges action, stumps for Kerry
By Madelin Esquivel
Beacon Journal staff writer
For those coming to University of Akron professor Susan Speers’ Introduction to Theater Through Film class to hear guest lecturer Michael Moore talk about the influence film has on society, Saturday’s class was probably a disappointment.
For those coming to hear why Moore thinks U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., should be president, it was a pleasure.
The event that drew 400 enthusiastic people, mostly Kerry supporters, to UA’s Knight Auditorium was originally called ``an educational opportunity’’ so that Speers could use the facility free of charge.
``Now I can let the cat out of the bag,’’ she said. ``It is political.’’
Speers jokingly said it was a good thing the class had the word film in its title or she couldn’t have pulled off the event.
She even paid for the security—five bodyguards and campus police—out of her own pocket.
Did you notice the date on that interview? It was four months ago. That’s plenty of time for this committee to investigate and find the story. If they did find it, they sure ignored it to issue a statement that they found “there was no fraudulent intent”. What kind of crack-pot committee is doing the investigating when they can’t see fraud, especially when the person being investigated ADMITS fraud?
I’ll tell you what kind, a cover-your-ass-look-out-for-your-own-kind committee. They just choose to ignore their own rules, rather than enforce them as long as the person being investigated is a good Liberal Crony.
I wonder if they are aware that the actions of Speers , a State Employee, were not only against the rules of the University, but also against Ohio State Law, as noted in this excerpt from Governor Taft’s Memorandum, which took effect way back in 1999?
BOB TA F T, G O V E R N O R, ST A T E O F OHIO
M E M O R A N D U M -~~-~-~~~-
Cabinet Advisory No.: 99-26
TO: Department Directors
Chief Legal Counsel
Governor’s Senior Staff
FROM: Governor Bob Taft
Bill Klatt, Chief Legal Counsel &&
. DATE: August 6,1999
RE..
Political Activity Policy
This policy sets forth guidelines for state employees who want to participate in political activities or run for elected office. .At the outset, we emphasize that state employees are strongly encouraged to exercise their Constitutional right to vote and to actively participate in our political process to the extent permitted by law.
However, as set forth below, unclassified employees have far greater latitude than classified employees to engage in political activities. Even if a political activity is permitted, state employees are prohibited from participating in such activities while on state time or on state owned or leased property. State time does not include lunch hours, vacation, compensatory hours earned or personal leave. Nor may state employees use state equipment while engaged in political activities, including but not limited to, computer equipment, copiers, bulletin boards, or state vehicles.
State employees who participate in any political activity prohibited by Ohio law or by policies established by this Administration are subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.
Is this the biggest deal in the world? No, of course not. It may be a small infraction, but these things are starting to add up. Professor Speers should be disciplined when she returns from her “sabbatical”. Will she? I doubt it, just as Moore got a pass when he violated election law several times during the campaign both in the US and Canada.
At least we now all know the back story to the “Professor Acquitted” headlines we have been reading everywhere. Another broken law, and more complacency from the powers that be.
The Democrats are going to have a very hard time winning the next election - the Republicans have a number of star players and the Democrats have a lot of wimps and losers. Did the liberal democrats ever get their shit together? The Democrats show up to a gun fight with a butter knife and thus they lose. It was a disgusting sight and indicative of who the Democrats are - they are lazy and they’re cowards and I’m just hoping that, the more they continue to act like that, the more it will encourage Americans to run against them. I’m sure many of them have lost their moral compass and it makes me very sad, unfortunately, I think it’s the American people who will pay the price.
*UPDATE*
New Moorewatch Rule- If you are too stupid to click the *more* button to read the rest of this article, you are hereby deemed too stupid to send me an e-mail , declaring me a horrible person for saying these nasty things about the Democrats.
Yes, I know that sounds harsh, and probably some of you Democrat faithful are a little angered to see those words, but you are obligated to believe every one of them.
That’s right, you are obligated.
Why?
Because Michael Moore spoke those words this week in his first live webchat from the UK on channel 4. He actually spoke all of those words, and I simply cut and pasted them into place for you to read from the transcript
What’s that? Did you just ask if they are in context??!!
No, the words are not in context, why do you ask? Or better yet, why do you care.
You didn’t seem to care that Dr. Rice’s and President Bush’s words were taken out of context in F911, so why would you possibly be the least bit conerned with a little snip-snip here and there? Actually, most of what Moore said was about Democrats, but those statements were smattered throughout a long conversation, but I cut and pasted to illustrate my “opinion” of what I think Moore is thinking.
You see, opinionated interpretations are now also fair game. As Moore explains later in the interview:
The opinions in my movies are my own. I happen to think they are right because they are mine. I may not be. Yours may be right. It’s to stimulate conversation and debate and I hope I have done that.
That’s right, we’re all just stimulating conversation here. It’s just harmless conversation, right?
Looks like SpongeMike Sweatpants is playing the race card again. Race-baiting should be beneath anyone, ESPECIALLY someone who claims to be progressive. But we all know Mikey’s about as progressive as David Duke.
Hey...umm...where’s his outrage at the fraud in Washington state? Anyone? Bueller? Does fraud only matter if the Democrats lose? Just asking.
In the wake of their latest embarrassing electoral defeat, Democrats are speaking openly about what changes their party has to make to appeal to more normal voters.
While Applebee’s was the one-word key for Sosnik, another Democratic strategist at Tuesday’s DLC panel discussion, Will Marshall, personified the party’s woes in a name: Michael Moore.
“Let’s let Hollywood and the Cannes Film Festival fawn all over Michael Moore. We ought to make it clear he sure doesn’t speak for us when it comes to standing up for our country,” Marshall said.
“Democrats have to make it very clear to the electorate that we believe that America is essentially a force for good in the world,” he argued.
“Sometimes in our zeal to condemn Bush policy, we can go overboard in ways that really make them wonder whose side we’re on,” he said. “It is one thing to say the war in Iraq was a mistake; that’s a legitimate position held by many thoughtful people. It’s another thing to say it’s an expression of some grasping new American imperialism, some kind of plot to grab Middle East oil or, even more ludicrously, all just about putting more money into Halliburton.”
Marshall added, “We’ve got to make it real clear to folks that while we believe true patriotism means acknowledging our country’s mistakes and being willing to change course when things are going wrong, as they are in Iraq, we’ve got to repudiate the most strident and insulting anti-American voices out there, sometimes on our party’s left.”
This is 100% correct. The left in this country has, for the past few years, gone apeshit whenever someone has questioned their patriotism, with their “dissent is patriotic” mantra. But what they have always failed to realize is not that we feel that dissent is unpatriotic, but that the type of dissent they were engaging in was so. You cannot stand next to a burning flag, holding a sign that says “USA = World’s Largest Terrorist” and still be a patriot. You cannot praise the fascist insurgency currently killing Americans and still be a patriot. And you damn sure cannot, as a political party, kowtow to people who hold these views and still expect to be able to win over normal, moderate, left-leaning patriotic voters.
So, as a conservative, I beg you: keep Michael Moore in the forefront. Let him set your agenda. Please, your country needs him.
Check out this small editorial from The Telegraph.
Moore means less
Not since Moby Dick has a great white whale been so bloodily harpooned. It took a shocked Michael Moore, director of Fahrenheit 9/11, until yesterday to comment on the US election result. When he did, he made a lame joke, offering “reasons not to slit your own throat”. But if John Kerry’s strategists feel like slitting anyone’s throat right now, it is Mr Moore’s.
This was supposed to be the victory that the podgy sage of Flint, Michigan, delivered for the Democrats by winding up students into paroxysms of anti-Bush rage and propelling them into the polling booths. In the event, he achieved the first but not the second objective. The proportion of young voters did not increase on Tuesday. In the gleeful words of one anti-Moore website, “pot-smoking slackers are still pot-smoking slackers”: they meant to vote Kerry but, like, couldn’t get out of bed in time.
In 2000, Mr Moore’s support for Ralph Nader helped lose Florida for Al Gore. This time, he boosted President Bush by outraging Middle America. Take a bow, Mike: you’ve done it again.
The anti-Moore website in question is our very own MOOREWATCH, and the quoted phrase was written by yours truly.
Note to Mikey: Pot-smoking slacker losers, no matter how much you try to cajole them into voting, are still nothing but pot-smoking slacker losers.
I get special joy — I must get over this — in contemplating the hell Michael Moore might go through if he dwelled on the possibility that he contributed to the Bush victory by so unmistakably signaling his elitist attitudes.
No you don’t. Don’t ever feel like you have to get over gloating when it comes to the likes of Moore and his merry band of sycophants. Regular people? Yes. Don’t gloat over them and rub it in. Moore-ons? Feel free to dance a jig and sing the “You’re a big fat loser” song.
If there was such a song. Go ahead and write one, then sing it at them.
Why do I believe it’s OK to gloat and point and laugh at Moore-ons? Simple. Because they have been the most hateful, vile, despicable voices in the midst of a whirlwind of despicable campaigning on both sides. They take the political and make it personal. They take joy in being hateful. They are not worth reason and civility. They have attacked and tried to demoralize everyone from moderate Democrats to the military to Bush voters. And they refuse to accept any point of view that isn’t their own. Look around you. Even after the election, who are the most hateful and vitriolic of the left? Moore fans. They have no interest in working with the majority. They want to subjugate the world to their point of view.
For all those reasons and more, I do not believe they are worth hiding your schadenfraude. And that goes triple for the Prince of Lies himself.
Moore has become the fringe of the fringe. But mark my words, the arguments from the left over the next few months will shy away from what Moore initially promised would be widespread intimidation and fraud to “the computers were hacked.” And not Diebold’s, either. Why will they arguments shift focus? Because a basic tenant of the Americal Liberal belief system is if you are proven wrong, change the rules, change the argument or change the venue. Never admit you were wrong, just shift focus and keep fighting. The facts are irrelevant: the philosophy is more important than the reality.
I’m not going to waste my time fisking this nonsense other than to point out that all Moore’s proof comes from some of the most partisan websites on earth. I would trust CBS to be more fair and accurate.
I’ll bet money this gets investigated, proven to be nonsense and Moore either never mentions it again or claims conspiracy.
Michael Moore has finally come out of his spider hole to lend a few words to his faithful followers. Since the election, he’s been all but silent, save a few egregious offerings on his website of the names and images of American’s fallen heroes. He also provided a goofy list of 17 reason’s for Bush-haters to not slit their wrists in the wake of their crushing defeat.
Today, Moore offered his first words of thanks to those that made him so incredibly rich, um, saw his movie, purchased tickets to his Slacker tour, and putting his books at the top of the NYT best seller list. I don’t begrudge him for that actually. He should thank his fans. ( and then apologize for lying to them)
Instead, he starts of the next for years by lying to them again!
Contrary to all predictions and to tradition, MORE young adults (18-29) voted in last week’s election than in any other since 18-year-olds were given the right to vote in 1972.
- stating statistics from an editorial by David C. King in the Boston Globe whish states that:
Despite long lines and registration snafus, voters under age 30 clocked the highest turnout percentage since 1972.
However, according to the actual exit poll data, rather than some dude’s editorial:
According to CNN’s exit poll reports, which were supplied by The National Election Pool, also used by Fox, CBS, NBC, the Associated Press and ABC, the turnout of voters ages 18-29 was 17% just like is was in 2000.
CNN reported the same exact number in the 2000 election results, 17% .
Moore is clinging to the idea that since more actual voters in that age range showed up than in 2000, his benefactors didn;t altogether watse their money. He is seemingly ignorant of the population increase of the last four year on people in that age demographic. Sure the numbers went up, but so did the numbers of every single age demographic. The percentage of voters who were 18-29 was exactly the same as it was in 2000, despite Moore’s hurculean efforts to make a difference.
Moore continues:
In the day after the election, the pundits were spewing their hot air about how the youth vote didn’t matter this year. I wonder, even though they have the same facts available to them as I do—the ones I’ve cited above—do they just chose to ignore them because it doesn’t fit into their tired old routine they call “conventional wisdom.” I guess it is easier to simply repeat the same broken down clichés than it is to find out what the truth really is.
Now reading the facts that I just presented, isn’t that just about the most precious statement you’ve ever read?
Moore closes:
Congratulations, 18 to 29-year-olds—you rocked.
I would say that the 18-29 year olds did what they always do, which is to account for about 17% of the votes.
You know, I always thought that College age slackers fell into the 18-24 year old demographic. This was Moore’s real target audience, since he did travel to 60 campuses across the country.
Here’s what the AP has to report on that:
(11-02) 21:39 PST WASHINGTON (AP)—
This was not the breakout year for young voters that some had anticipated.
Fewer than one in 10 voters Tuesday were 18 to 24, about the same proportion of the electorate as in 2000, exit polls indicated. Still, with voter turnout expected to be higher overall, more young people appeared to have come out.
A vigorous push on college campuses by both parties and national mobilization drives had raised expectations that 2004 would be the year of the youth vote.
So even among those to whom he personally spoke, the percentage of vote in that demographic didn’t go up either.
In light of all of this, I think we all know what we can expect for the next 4 years, FOUR MORE YEARS OF DECEPTION!
Oh goodie.
Oh, and let’s not forget the same stuff from Greg Palast , too.
SO many of you have already decimated Moore’s “17 reasons” crap, but I spotted this little tidbit and thouht it was worth pointing out. John Cross over at Drumwaster’s has #17 all sewed up. Once again Mike tries to slip one by his sychophants.
In regards to #17:
Misnomer that a lot of people on both sides are using....yeah both guys beat Reagan’s vote total....however, let’s adjust for total population growth.
Reagan vote total = 54,451,521
United States Population (1984) = 236,581,000
Ratio = 1 voter per 4.345 citizens
Bush 2004 vote total = 59,117,523
United States current population = 294,684,886
Ratio = 1 voter per 4.985 citizens
Kerry 2004 vote total = 55,557,584
United States current population = 294,684,886
Ratio = 1 voter per 5.304 citizens
If Bush carried the same percentage of the population that Reagan did, he would have had 67,825,282 votes.
Oh my. Now that’s a fact Moore would never want to publicize if he had the brains to think it through. See? He’s poison. Too dumb to know when to keep his big mouth shut. Thanks for the assist, Mikey!
(TRUMP:) You. You’re quiet in all this. What do you have to say for yourself? Should you be fired for this loss?
MICHAEL MOORE: I don’t think so.
TRUMP: Why not? What did you contribute to the team?
MOORE: I wrote, directed, and starred in the highest-grossing documentary of all time, a film that bravely exposed the corruption and incompetence of the Bush Administration. I won the Palm d’Or at Cannes, I swept the balloting at the Golden Globes, I won the--
TRUMP: Can I ask you a question?
MOORE: Yes.
TRUMP: While you were winning all these awards, did you ever think to yourself, hey, maybe I should shave once in a while? Maybe, you know, tuck my shirt in? Maybe I could afford to drop a couple dozen pounds? Appearances count in business, Mike.
MOORE: I dress as what I am. I’m a proud son of blue collar parents, a lifetime resident of Flint, Michigan--
TRUMP: Mike, you live in one of my buildings. You pay me rent every month. I know, because you’re always trying to pay me in buffalo wings.
MOORE: But my primary residence--
TRUMP: Is a half mile away from my breathtaking Maya Largo estate in Palm Beach. We belong to the same country club. You practically live at the aromatherapy spa. So, you know, knock it off with the working class hero crap. And, quite frankly, working class doesn’t mean obese and unkempt.
(unsure; turns to Carolyn)
It doesn’t, does it?
CAROLYN: It’s not required, no.
TRUMP: That’s what I thought. Because I know I see a lot of working class women that are in pretty damn good shape. Not as beautiful as my beautiful fiance Maritza, of course. But still-- they put themselves together pretty nice. I’d take a run at them, I’ll tell you that.
BLACKIE LAWLESS: I have a question for Mike, Mr. Trump.
1. You were completely and utterly ineffectual. Your best efforts made no difference at all. You made money, but failed in your primary stated mission. You couldn’t get the job done. You’re impotent in the political arena. All the books, personal appearances, tours and films amounted to one thing: miserable failure.
Please send a copy of this message to your good friend George Soros at whatever monastery he lands in. Feel free to substitute the litany of stuff at the end with “hundreds of millions of dollars.” Be sure to swap his URL for yours on that miserable failure gimmick.
And thanks, Mike. You really helped the Republicans pull this one off. You were instrumental in engineering a loss for the Democrats, so please...don’t give up. We want to see you campaigning at the mid-terms, and for Hillary or whoever they throw up as a sacrifice in ‘08.
If you feel we provide a useful site, even if you just come here to disagree, please consider donating a few dollars to help keep the server going. Thank you.
This page has been viewed 17378524 times
Page rendered in 0.3834 seconds
53 querie(s) executed
Total Entries: 1934
Total Comments: 15763
Total Trackbacks: 1
Most Recent Entry: 03/03/2011 08:45 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 03/05/2011 04:10 pm
Total Members: 69182
Total Logged in members: 7
Total guests: 102
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 03/07/2011 10:01 am
The most visitors ever was 2215 on 07/01/2004 06:32 pm
Current Logged-in Members:
4characters
clintonmcneil25
dino79rogers
geri7g4geskak
osvaldocooke
Seryo
vian5a3alfinto
RSS (Subscribe)