Why do I find this movie unsuccessful? They pretend to be unbiased, and clearly have a point of view. The filmmaker begins by saying that she really liked Moore and his movies and even his beliefs, but as she attempted to have a meeting with him, during the heat of his crazed Fahrenheit 9/11 press junket, his inability to make time for an unknown filmmaker led her towards the dark side of Moore. The truth is, she set out to film an expose, and failed miserably.<br /><br />It's a shame - all the research, all the interviews, and all the back story would have simply made an entertaining biopic of a larger-than-life man who's actually had an impact. Instead, she magnifies insignificant details of a man's life that demonstrate not Moore's missteps but her own.<br /><br />She tries time after time to show that Moore's films aren't flawless scientific reports on their subjects. Is it a surprise that a film might not be a perfect, exacting list of empirical data? Moore's films have always been under extreme scrutiny, specifically Bowling For Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, and now Sicko. Moore is open and honest - he refutes each and every claim of error on his website, backed up with links to the official reports and sources for his information and facts. So the attacks change to "Yeah, but Moore's film made it SEEM like...", that his films somehow imply things not offered into evidence. I think everyone's hope is that NOTHING is taken at face value - if it is, the fault is with th ignorant viewer.<br /><br />Much is spent demonstrating that his "image" of being poor, hapless, slovenly and angry is manufactured. In fact, as a whole I consider the entire piece to be an ad hominem attack on Michael Moore's work via attacking Michael Moore. It's a logic fallacy tool used by debaters lacking actual evidence.<br /><br />Going back 20 years to the filming of "Roger & Me", the filmmakers are unable to find confirmation that Ted Koppel had canceled coverage of a town hall meeting (a quick humorous mention in the movie is that the satellite news van was stolen so Koppel's report couldn't be broadcast live). This movie then goes so far as to convict Moore of actually manufacturing not one, but all elements of the story. There WAS no town hall meeting. No news van. No Ted Koppel report. They even filmed a phony news reported commenting on the town hall meeting, Ted Koppel and the stolen news van. Of course, nobody mentions this in 1989 when the movie is seen and scrutinized by millions. But 20 years later, they can't find evidence so it must be a fraud.<br /><br />In short, the movie fails because it aims an empty gun at Moore and fires repeatedly. Moore is imperfect. He's certainly got a point of view. But he makes great, honest films that serve to enact real change. The casualties are his enemies, not the truth.