mount a viable critique of Mr. Moore." Criticisms of the production The Boston Globe and The New York Times both questioned the reliability of some of the individuals interviewed. The Globe called the experts "occasionally dubious" saying that they "offer[ed] drive-by disses and plain untruths". Manohla Dargis of The New York Times was particularly critical of the film for not detailing the extent of Mansoor Ijaz's investments in the Middle East or "just how intimately familiar he was with the nonsense of the Clinton White House". Both publications, however, spoke well of the contributions of Fred Thompson with The New York Times calling him "thoughtful" and the Globe adding that "with his level head and reflective words, [he] makes partisanship seem dignified." Several critics felt that insufficient time had been spent on the film. Maitland McDonagh of TV Guide said that it "bears all the hallmarks of having been thrown together in a heated rush", a criticism echoed by Robert Koehler of Variety who called the editing "choppy". Wesley Morris of The Boston Globe described the film as "a seemingly last-minute series of talking heads and montages". A number of critics compared the style of the film to that of a PowerPoint presentation. Overall response to the film Opinions of the arguments advanced by the film varied widely. Michael Graham of the National Review said that the movie "does a solid job of logically confronting the (for lack of a better word) arguments Moore makes against Bush". Desson Thomson of The Washington Post concluded that "there are some very thought-provoking points, and the movie deserves a balanced listening-to." Tom Keogh of the Seattle Times felt that the arguments presented were "lightly persuasive" but that "there is nothing new here or usefully evenhanded." He eventually concluded, "It's not that Moore's film doesn't deserve an argument. But it does deserve a more thoughtful one." Duane Dudek said that "some of the film's charges are troubling", although he went on to note that "the film's arguments are the echo chamber opposite of Mr. Moore's". Wesley Morris of The Boston Globe called the film "a crude polemical mush". Maitland McDonagh of TV Guide called it a "shrill, repetitive screed" Stephanie Zacharek of Salon.com said it is "so bad it's almost like performance art". Michael Atkinson of The Village Voice wrote a particularly stinging review calling the movie a "desperate four-waller" and "a cut-rate vision