You are aware that his entire body of work has been based on his physical presence in the movie?

:checking: This is Salon, isn't it?

This is taking potshots at his personality, not about the movie.

Are there no liberal magazines left? One after another, going to "balance".

Going to see it now. Thanks. Wasn't sure before.

Wow -- M. Moore is a self aggrandizing fool! He's in every shot! A movie maker likes the sound of his own voice!

Not unlike writers, non?

A film review is one thing (I agree with all the statements about his films here) -- but taking away from his message is another. Why doesn't Salon do a better job of pointing out the injustices? Why don't they shame those in power into doing something about it? Because at the end of the day, they sell memberships, and ads.

Little different than M. Moore. At least he's found a way to bring the bs of America to the forefront of popular media.

Or the glue factory.

So does he get that we get it already?

are already peeing a little puddle...

Although I haven't seen this film yet, I think this sounds like a pretty reasonable take on MM. The guy's heart's in the right place, but his populist shtick and catch phrases underestimate the intelligence of his audience. I remember seeing him on CNN, interviewed by Wolf Blitzer about Sicko. Moore was right to challenge CNN's and Blitzer's indifference to the actual justice and legitimacy of his causes. But then he kept repeating that a single-payer universal health system would mean 'free' health-care. It's this sort of simplification, if not demagoguery, that gives ammunition to the right and undermines his message. Rather than make an argument that would take into consideration potential trade-offs between universal coverage and, say, higher taxation, Moore takes the easy route. Similarly, I'm sure, with 'Capitalism.' What alternative is Moore proposing? Does he advocate communism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, agrarianism, European-style social democracy, or just a return to a more progressive tax system? Most likely, he offers no actual positive policy or political proposals at all in this film.

MM is one of the few people in this country prepared to offer a real left perspective, and for that he deserves credit. But stirring up passions without doing the hard work of actually thinking through alternatives to our current political dilemmas puts Moore in some unfortunate company, don't you think?

Having seen this film I can say with honesty that this so called film reviewer has lost her faculties as a reviewer. We get it you got a thing against Moore. You left out all the info that even those of us who weren't in caves, that paid attention to what was going on, were shocked to see for the first time.

If this reviewer hates a film I know I will love it. Salon let her go and get yourself a reviewer who actually knows what a film is.

Who better than to lecture those of us who work for $65K per year than a grease ball faux socialist with a $175,000,000 net worth?

And you thought Republicans were hypocrites.

Given Stephanie had already expressed her irritation at Michael Moore's style in her review of Sicko, the tone of this article is not all too surprising. However, who would have that flack from Salon readers would get her into such a lather as to extend this crusade to Moore's supporters.

Morever, this review again expresses irritation in such personal terms, that it detracts from her professionalism as a film critic.

I haven't seen Capitalism: A Love Story, so I can't comment on the film itself. It's this review that is completely unsatisfying.

What, precisely, is wrong with the content of this film? What is the film saying, and what is it missing? Can the reviewer perhaps address the issues without interjecting the type of cutesy celebrity put-down that you see in the really cheap grocery store tabloids?

It seems to me that what happened this past year in the financial markets merits serious discussion. If this film fails to deliver (and I don't mean to suggest that I disagree), so does the review.

Michael Moore is "pretending" the average American doesn't know what happened to the global financial system last year? Whether this is an effective or tedious and condescending way of introducing the subject, what I fear is that he doesn't need to do much pretending. I don't get the sense that the reviewer knows what happened -- just that she really, really, like, resents Moore's assumption that she doesn't.

If Moore is pompous, and repetitively pompous at that, let's agree that's a bad thing. Now could we please get back to what the movie has to say about the modern capitalist system? Oops, we're out of time.

Yeah, but it will be interesting to see how they dismiss his film given that they've made many of the same criticisms against Wall Street (and Congress).

Michael Moore has long been accused of using his films as a vehicle to promote himself. As someone pointed out, in "Roger and Me" he presents himself as an "Aw shucks" kinda guy in a baseball cap as he goes about looking for Roger Smith. In reality, he's a seasoned journalist who could have easily gotten press credentials to set up an office interview. The last thing MM wants is to meet RS. He knows full well he will never be admitted to that exclusive executive's club and indeed he's asked to leave.

When he finally does confront Roger Smith the man appears quite hypocritical, preaching the holiday spirit of helping the less fortunate while having no interest in actually meeting them himself. Whether he is personally culpable for their plight, like Michael Dukakis and Willie Horton, it's devastating to his image, enabling Michael Moore to drive home his point in a movie that is both entertaining and very sad.

Had he made a documentary about what's left in the wake of de-industrialization, nobody would have seen it. I myself was once driving through Michigan and pulled off to tour Flint, recognizing the jail from "Roger and Me."