Sometimes you have to take things to a point to make a point. Michael Moore has many times been accused of lying or being naive and not showing the whole picture but the truth is that if you are documenting the type of phenomenons that he is you have to take things to the very edge to be able to show your point of view. Even further, you can't tangle yourself in semantics and rhetorical endless discussion if you want the regular ordinary man on the street to get interested. This is Moores dilemma. He's trying to make very complex matters simple and it's not an easy task.<br /><br />Now, I'm the first to agree on that he's not always accurate and sometimes not even right, but he finishes his mission which is; To make people think! And this is far more important sometimes than being 100% true. <br /><br />He even got Mr Wilson to make a movie about him. And that's why we are here.<br /><br />Wilson is trying to use Moores own rhetoric back on him. He is even got a attorney / author (sic!) to claim that Moore has some personality disorder. He uses the same techniques as him and gets the man on the street to air his opinions and as a coincidence, they are the same as Wilson's. To boil it all down, he is trying to make a Fahrenheit 9/11 about Fahrenheit 9/11. <br /><br />Now, of course you should challenge Moore's ideas. Of course you should make up your own mind and try to find the facts yourself. That's the whole point of democracy. But where Moore is brilliant with expressing his points and political viewpoint, Wilson is far too blunt. It even gets to the point where you get the feeling that Wilson is not even challenging Moore but is in it for his own personal witch hunt out of some personal dislike. Which is exactly what he's accusing Moore for doing to Mr C. Heston and G.W. Bush. And this, of course, is not good since as a fact he then becomes Moore.<br /><br />At a point I could almost see him crying off camera because Moore doesn't return his calls. And, come on Wilson, why did you try to make a point about if he cursed or not? A big difference between Moore and Wilson is also this; Where Moore gets people to speak their mind, Wilson will get to use the interviews as long as "they don't look bad". Don't look bad? That's the whole point of investigating journalism, if it looks bad it probably is and you should bring it out in the open. Not the corporate approved statements and views.<br /><br />Further more, the sections with Penn (yes, Penn from Penn&Teller) screams "You should only show what is government approved". I can't help to recall what the late Bill Hicks said: "You are free to do what we tell you! Here's 16 channels of American Gladiators to choose from". <br /><br />Now, it might be that we in Europe are more used to harsh journalists that dissect everything, but I get a feeling that Wilson does not fully understand how and why you do an investigating documentary. If peoples toes are going to be stepped on? Sure. If people are going to get mad because things are shown that wasn't supposed to be? Of course. If this is wrong? Not a bit.<br /><br />A cause, belief or movement that can't stand to be investigated or made fun of, is not meant to survive. It's as simple as that. <br /><br />I could go on and on and point out the errors I think Wilson is doing this film. The truth is that Wilson should have practiced a bit more first before taking on a challenge as this. He is accusing Moore of editing his movies and then he does the same thing himself. He makes a point of Moore using comments and interviews out of context and then, yes you guessed right, he does it himself. He twists and turns from challenging Moores movies to challenging Moore himself. It all turns into a amateurish soup where you have no real thread to follow. I even felt, after the shop door incident, that he was trying to do a "Cops" episode.<br /><br />No, Wilson, this is not good. You should have practiced by making some Youtube movies first to get warm in the clothes before going for the trophy; Michael Moore.