Stoutor It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

ChicDragon It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

Whitech It is not only a funny movie, but it allows a great amount of joy for anyone who watches it.

Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

MisterWhiplash I'm glad this was free to download or made about as cheap as a film from a major filmmaker (and say what you will, like him or hate him, it's your right either way, he is a major filmmaker now in America), because it is a lessor effort. Since I am a Michael Moore fan and admire his "big" movies greatly (Roger & Me, Sicko, Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine) it was easy for me to decide to want to watch this. But this does also fall, even for fans, into that category akin to The Big One, which was, as this is, a travelogue of Moore going around on a tour to promote something with him as the focus really instead of something else like guns or GM in Flynt. The only little difference is that Moore is on the road to promote voting- for Kerry in 04 of course- and tries his best to rally up support, even in Utah where a businessman pays 25 grand to *not* have him speak at a school- which is, any way you look at it, commendable.Now, it goes without saying that people hate Michael Moore. And when I mean hate I mean that he has to have at least one bodyguard, or more depending on the city, in the hopefully unlikely event that he could be attacked or shot or whatever. He is such a strong target for the right and even moderates and a handful of liberals that he still remains a potent poster child for spreading lies and propaganda. This can be argued this way and that, but Moore makes a point more than once during his time traveling around and giving the occasional press conference that he is just one guy making films, and the media has/had a responsibility during the lead up to the Iraq war. He is a target, but not one to stand down. It's hard to at least not respect that. And as for the other side, he gives them some screen time in Slacker Uprising: at least 15 minutes of the film shows how many republicans (obviously the majority but with some vocal power) and bible-thumpers came to protest outside and inside during Moore's speeches. He gives them their just do to speak. And also makes sure to offer them military enrollment forms as they are Bush supporters. He may be many things, but Moore's got balls.So watching some of these ups and downs throughout the 62 city tour, of both the highs of speaking to tens of thousands of people in venues that are swing states, and some of the controversy stirred due to Moore's polarizing nature, are interesting. The only problem really comes with the fact that, stylistically, Moore goes simple for this one. The musical choices, the actual score, is repetitive and doesn't do much to add to the picture, which is a shame since Moore is usually creative and inspired with his choice in music, and only some moments of his brand of "gotcha" humor creeps in. The actual musical performances from guests Eddie Vedder and Tom Morello and Steve Earle are fantastic though, with Roseane Barr and the other musician in Tennessee just OK (Viggo Mortensen is a nice surprise).It's not any triumph of film-making, wont win any awards, and it certainly shouldn't be paid much for. It's the right choice to offer it up online for free or as cheap as possible on DVD, since those who want it can get it and those who definitely don't can pass on by... unless their curiosity is peaked somehow. It's good for one watch, even for those who want it right away, and then to move on along as it's now four plus years gone anyway. For what it's worth, on its own basic and unpretentious terms, it's not too bad at all.

bob the moo When I watched this film I was it as the main title of "Slacker Uprising" and it was only after I had seen the film, draw my own opinion together and come here to post a review that I learnt of the "proper" title. I thought it was befitting the film because if you think of the two film titles, they both describe the same film but they both have different subjects as their focal point. So, the question is, which one best describes the film? I ask this because to me Slacker Uprising (the title I prefer) has the same strengths and weaknesses as many of Moore's films. The strengths are there of course and they are the things that his fans and ardent supporters will tell you while not really being keen to discuss much else. In this film it is the spirit of awareness of political involvement and of debate that makes it interesting.In following the tour of the colleges, the film gets to see any things that are well picked out and depicted. We get to see Republican's attacking the tour for "bribery" (giving out joke gifts to those who register at the event) and then weeks later show us major Republican donors offering money to the student bodies if they will only cancel the tour at their venue. It is a joke of free speech and it is well contrasted in the film. What also works is the chance to hear from real people on both sides. Of course the sound bites selected from protesters against the tour are not the sharpest but it is not that fair to go to the desert and then complain about all the sand – it kinda comes with the territory. I liked it though, I liked to see people engaged, I liked to see them energised for a cause – even if I happened to disagree with (like the hecklers at some of the venues) I liked what they did and I liked that Moore let them have a moment and never mocked them that badly (although of course he makes light of them).All these things I liked and generally the film was interesting to see the campaign and understand what it was trying to – OK it is more of a record than a documentary but there are themes and discussion points in here that make it more than just a chronicle of events. The problem I have with it is that Moore himself is too much centre stage. Now, I do not mean this physically because of course he was always going be on the stage or on camera but more that the film has this air of presentation that suggests greatness. Now, I will give him credit as I do to many documentary makers and activists, for the work he does to inform and raise awareness – I may not always agree with what he is saying but then I don't want him to stop saying it any more than I want Fox to stop saying what they do. However, he does have this issue that he makes HIMSELF the focus of things at times rather than letting the subject be there with him just the presenter. With this film it opens with the suggestion that the Democrats had blown it totally till he got involved and ends with the implication that Kerry would have won if he had just gotten out of the way and let Moore do it all for him - there are lots of these moments scattered throughout the film and it constantly grates.The scene with the medal of honour is a keeper – not only that it happened the way it did but that it made it into the final cut of the film. I think he was wrong to take it because the right answer to the offer would have been "your father gave/risked all he had in getting that medal and he did it for us and specifically for you, so your way of life could continue. All I'm doing is encouraging people to do is exercise the rights he defended for us – he would want you to have that and, if you want to give me something to show you support me then get voters out next week – do just what I'm trying to do, I'm nothing special – not like your Dad". It sounds like I'm fixating on this event but beyond the fact he took it of more interest is that it got put in the film and you really have to ask yourself what role that scene serves here other than showing what a hero Moore is to his fans – which is not what I thought the film is about. If this was the only example of this self-focus then I would be fine but it is frequent and just as weird each time.And so it is. Slacker Uprising is a solid film but, as a document of record it doesn't have a core documentary draft to keep the audience engaged and overlooking faults. Don't get me wrong – I found it interesting but I really wish that someone had taken Moore in hand and said, "this is not about what we did – it is about why we did it, what we were asking people to do and what those people did". But it seems nobody did so the film does have a lot of material that makes it about Moore himself and, as we have seen with his last couple of films, when that happens he weakens his own film and message. And I don't care if the intentions of the title are "ironic" or if I'm accused of "not getting it", the "proper" title should be Slacker Uprising as the "slackers" and the "uprising" should be the focus of the film – not "Captain Mike".

Juliokal I use to be a big fan of Michael Moore in his early documentary days. He has now turned into a Socialist nut case. So nothing has happened good in the eight years of the Bush administration? Nothing!?!?!? For a man that flies first class on his trips, America has worked out nice for him.How could anyone vote for a party that wants to "Spread the wealth around"If everyone had to wake up at 6 in the morning and put in 8 hours of work, let's go "Spread the wealth around" When I and maybe 30 million people like I go to work on a Friday that has to hold up this economy, while a majority of the rest of the country sits on their butts and does nothing and has more children. Yeah, America is pretty fair, play by the rules and you get screwed.Hey Michael, put down the taco too.

Kurt Tappe I'm a rather serious fan of Moore's work and lean heavily liberal in my politics. And even so, this film got tedious and felt very self-serving on Moore's part. There are good parts, no doubt, but did we really need to see him signing autographs and hugging women with "Hug me Michael" signs? What on earth is that besides self-aggrandizement? I can't imagine what he was thinking other than "I need some more filler here."Michael: We've seen you do better. Much better. And your timing here is very suspect--you are releasing this in the final days of the 2008 election season because you think people will, in their fervor, watch your film for some input about the election. Yet you have little-to-nothing to offer. You're looking four years in the past here while Obama is looking forward. Sure, your message "the young should vote" is currently applicable, but I think Mr. Obama has already done an amazing job of getting that out.Overall, this is somewhat interesting for us die-hards, but I can't see it being all that captivating for the masses.