The linked review appears to have been written before Michael Moore became an object of hate and derision by the right. The OP review was written many years after Moore produced additional films and wrote books to specifically annoy the right. I suspect that you would have had an entirely different take on Roger and Me had you written this review when the movie first appeared.
I haven’t seen Roger and Me, so I don’t have a frame of reference to comment with.
Though if I were feeling snarky, I’d observe that the OP is a demonstration that Moore’s loudest critics are incoherent and unfocused… 
Look fucktard, how about you lay off of grandmas cough medicine and come back and write something coherent for us?
That’s about as coherent as rjung gets, I fear.
So, this is basically a description of the movie. Right? I don’t see you bashing Moore, and I can’t think why you would want to. The movie is a clear satirical view of the world, from both ends of the spectrum: the rich and the poor. Moore makes fun of everyone here, for the hell of it. If anything, Michael Moore can be criticized for his dependence (as usual) on one of the “characters” to carry the whole movie. He always feels the need to vilify someone.
The only thing Moore should criticized for is Candian Bacon. For this, he should have been shot.
No offense, but it’s pretty clear that most of the movie went over your head. I’ve never seen the movie but it’s pretty much the consensus of everyone, even his worst enemies, that Moore is an effective documentary filmmaker. People may love or hate his message but nobody is disputing he has a message and is capable of conveying it.
But the message of Roger and Me seems to have missed you - your review just talks about various things you saw without explaining what message they were supposed to be conveying. It reads like you were reviewing a film that was made in a language you don’t speak.
You’re kidding, right? I think he’s a charlatan.
My hamsters do satire better than Moore. (Congrats to 3-month old Georgina by the way, who had her first litter today.)
The only person that Moore ever does an effective job of making fun of is himself, the lumbering jackass that asks dumb questions and thinks normal rules of courtesy and manners don’t apply to him.
Which character?
Very possibly - typically the losers whose (ill-defined) causes he purports to support.
Little Nemo, how could I take offence at what you write? Shake my head some, perhaps…
I give this review a 3 and a half out of a possible 4 stars. Loved it. Just the right amount of mock respect blended with a sprinkle of good humored mis-trust.
But then again, What the hell do I know? I’m wonderfully drunk and cranking up #3 “Eroica” trying to decide if it’s my favorite or not.
I haven’t seen any of Michael Moore’s films, but I agree that Flint is pathetic.
That is all.
Ditto.
Psycho Pirate, that was a truly BRILLIANT meta-review. A masterful piece of work.
roger, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that if I’d actually SEEN Roger and Me, your review wouldn’t be utterly incomprehensible. So… good show!
As Sinatra said, you either have or you haven’t got style, and you got it in spades, man.
So you finally finished your interviews, huh? Time to let your hair down, get the old Strato-whatnot out, and jam some. I had you down for the Seventh, which I heard in Singapore recently conducted by Mehta. Moved me to frickin’ tears.
You know first time Ludwig conducted it, the concert-meister or whatever had told the players not to take any notice of Beethoven since he couldn’t hear a thing, and to follow the first violin. Beethoven got all pissy because the orchestra were 8 bars adrift of him, and he couldn’t understand why they were playing such a slow tempo.
The point I’m about to make has been debated here before, and it really isn’t my intent to start it up anew or to hijack the thread, but Moore is not any kind of “documentary” filmmaker in my opinion.
Any documentary I’ve ever seen prior to the ascendancy of Moore was one in which the filmmaker’s politics and/or particular axe to grind, if any, was not in evidence. Documentaries, by their very definition, are supposed to be objective.
Moore’s work is more propaganda than documentary.
Narcissism, I would say. It’s ‘Portrait of the Arriviste as a Young Man’, followed by ‘Portrait of the Arriviste as a Bearded Man’, followed by ‘Portrait of the Arriviste as a Manhattan Man’. As self-portraits go, Van Gogh he ain’t. Not stuff you’d want to return to again and again in awe of the work of someone with talent.
Well said, my erudite friend. Van Gogh was a man of unquestionable genius whose work can be viewed over and over again, with something new to be gained from each new viewing. Moore, on the other hand, is just a plain, ordinary, opinionated schlub whose work loses impact and meaning with each new viewing. If he weren’t preaching to the choir politically, I imagine his work would be viewed as having no artistic or substantive merit whatsoever.
Eh… I think Moore’s movies function more like an editorial. He takes the facts (please don’t say… just don’t), which would be the footage, and builds his message, his opinion, upon that. He’s a columnist. Why people fail to see that is beyond me.
Now, roger, I think you’re being pretty harsh on this one. It may be because of your apparent dislike for the man, but I don’t think you’re being very objective or sensitve about the film. I can understand how watching someone who is truly annoying to you ruins the whole concept of “entertainment”, but what exactly is it that puts you off Roger and Me? Aside from your extreme dislike of the man, why do you deem the film so poorly?
Well: Roger. Nike president on the second one, Charlton Heston on Columbine, and George W. in Fahrenheit. It’s an easy way out for Moore. He usually ends with a confrontation with the big bully. He should change that way of storytelling, for kicks.
Because it doesn’t have much merit. None of the three I’ve seen have much merit, with F9/11 being the best in my opinion, but really only for the Halliburton stuff, which we all knew anyway. And we also know that power (and money) corrupts. One only has to look at Moore himself to see that. It’s because Moore is sanctimonious, snobbish, superior, hypocritical, abusive (of his subjects) and phoney that I don’t care for him. Shouldn’t anyone with discernment find that kind of person reprehensible and unlikable?
I don’t follow. Which film are you referring to?
I think most people tend not to view him as a “columnist” for a couple of very specific reasons. For one, he’s almost always referred to in print and on the airwaves as a “documentary filmmaker,” and secondly, columnists use words and are clearly giving only their opinion, not skewing facts and images on film (and don’t forget, a picture is worth a thousand words) in order to deliberately create a false impression so as to fraudulently persuade their readers to their own point of view.
Moore does far more than “give his opinion.” He deliberately attempts to fool people into believing what he wants them to believe, which, of course, is the classic purpose of propaganda.
And I’d forgotten how weasily his voice is. Not to mention his hangdog expression as he pads away after being refused entry to another boardroom, private club. Oh! the injustice! Small wonder he needs to distort things after all he’s suffered in life.