Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Nice effects though.

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

It's 2003. Rick Caine and Debbie Melnyk take on Michael Moore after infamous anti-war speech at the Oscars. Debbie Melnyk claims to be a big fan of Moore at the beginning. They go on to debunk many of his assertions in his films as they follow him on his Fahrenheit 9/11 tour in 2004.Debbie Melnyk is trying to steal a page from Michael Moore's playbook but it comes off as being naive and silly. It would be better not to be so simplistic. "I thought he liked Canadians." Honestly, she sounds whiny. The narrative is scattered. Coming from other documentarians, this comes close to being jealousy. The best and possibly the only thing about Michael Moore that is revealed is that he's not a documentarian. That's a good revelation but it fails to make GM saints. They're actually digging too far into story. There is also a clash of personalities but it doesn't make Michael Moore evil. There is obvious bad blood with some of Ralph Nader's people after Moore switched his views on Nader's 2000 campaign. The film is trying to push the idea that the left should be a kumbaya movement and Michael Moore is equivalent to the right wing talk show agitators of the Republicans. Honestly, I don't think Moore would mind.

This is a technically well executed film. Unlike the other attacks on Moore, this one is not so obvious. It contains very few facts, mostly relying on unverified report of people who have had dealings (and differences) with Moore. They mostly provide interpretations or opinions. Their claims and recall are questionable, but are never questioned, instead they are presumed to be true, and presented as such. The scene with the film critic is especially pathetic, but very illustrative. First he attempts to ambush Moore, when this fails he provides a very strained psychobabble interpretation of the interchange to explain away Moore's posture of being reasonable. Apparently, being nice to someone who is testing you is evidence of some deep psychological troubles (Christians take note). The implication at the end of the film that Moore was the cause of Kerry's defeat in 2004 is blatantly ridiculous, ignoring the complexity of this election and the many factors that led to the loss (like Kerry himself not responding to the swift-boaters). The filmmakers give away their bias and their true agenda. The scene at the end with Moore hugging the filmmaker was priceless. He may have known what he was dealing with. He is not stupid.

Strategically timed with the DVD release of "Sicko", as is the other Moore-stalking film, "Michael Moore Hates America", a wannabe documentary maker cashes in, again using the same "Fahrenhype 911" rehash and Albert Maysles ax-grinding as Michael Wilson's film used.It's good for people to remind Moore of any factual errors he needs to improve on, which can be done in an article. As to the film's refrain about Moore's film not being a "documentary", Moore has said repeatedly he is not a fan of documentaries, does not watch them and is not trying to make them. People keep putting his films in the documentary category and they win prizes there. So aspiring directors Caine and Melnyk, as with Michael Wilson, latch on to him playing "gotcha" to make themselves famous. Melnyk has the camera focus on herself intermittently as she plays "investigative journalist on the phone taking notes", then puts forth the message in her film that Moore's including himself in his films is bad film-making. Sour grapes abound from film people interviewed, at least one of whom defames him personally. As with "Michael Moore Hates America", the crew follow Moore from place to place for interviews. One would think that the fact Moore was himself making a film (Sicko) the past two years might have entered their minds as a reason he might have been busy, but they take their complaints in with them to his public appearances to paint him as a hypocrite. Moore has brought this on himself to a degree by his "Roger and Me" film's style of following Roger for an interview, but in that case it was to try to bring attention to a problem affecting other people. This new crop of directors following Moore are all about manufacturing images for themselves to no particular end since the topic has already been handled in full by Fahrenhype 911 previously.

The film makes an important distinction for those who are still unsure about how to view a "documentary" film. Recently we have seen "mainstream" film makers such as Ron Howard and Clint Eastwood make movies that are based upon actual historical events, but purposely deviate from the truth in order to make a more dramatic movie. Michael Moore has done this in every "documentary" he has ever made. He admits as much, claiming that the words spoken by his subjects are theirs alone, but he is in charge of editing them however he likes. Using this technique, Moore has managed to make films which were more successful than they might have been otherwise. The success he has enjoyed has allowed him to assume the same "fatcat" attitudes which he criticized and parodied in Roger and Me. This is nicely pointed out in this film. One fault with this film is that it starts slow and you wonder if you are in for a very dry and unfocused personal history of Michael Moore. After about 20 minutes, it picks up speed and focus and has a powerful conclusion.