The movie has a new cover, different from the one shown above, to fool people into thinking it is a Michael Moore movie, not a movie about people who don't like Michael Moore. I got fooled myself. It not even a movie about Michael Moore. At first I thought Michael was just having fun letting some of his loonier tunes detractors go at him.Basically is is a bunch of right wingers complaining that Michael Moore says things they disagree with. They think he should present their views in his movies. The way they see it, he is deliberately telling things that are not true, because what he says conflicts with their ideology.It just goes on and on "Michael Moore is a terrible person. I don't like Michael Moore. Michael Moore is a mean s.o.b. Michael Moore tells only lies." without every explaining just what he did or said that was so terrible.It is a movie terrorists might show to convince recruits that all Americans deserve to die. They are a sorry lot of overweight bigots and whiners.It opens with a group elderly unknown documentary makers complaining that Michael Moore is popular, wins awards, and makes money. They figure they deserve this more than he does, so he is evil.I am sure a pointed movie could be made critical of Moore, that might, for example, go after him for stretching the truth about a bank giving away shotguns on the spot, but this movie isn't it. This is a sloppy amateurish, slovenly piece of work hoping to capitalise on the Moore controversy.

My curiosity kept me watching this movie on the Sundance channel when I happened upon it. I agree, Moore can be ridiculously melodramatic in his style, but who isn't in regards to the entertainment industry? It includes documentaries, non-fiction. The makers of this, supposed expose, kinda SUCK. It appears they're trying to show that Moore manufactures much of the content in his movies, & they fail miserably. Yes, Moore does make up some crap to get his point across, but that's a standard practice in our wonderful Hollywood, even in documentaries. The points they make in this movie are equal to a high-school student's project, & the grade wouldn't be above a C. Anyone who likes this movie is either a Bush supporter and/or someone who has issues with Michael Moore's character. They're trying to show how Moore manipulates the facts & shapes the story to his own bias. That's scriptwriting 101, "you morons"! As if that has not been done throughout the history of film making, of scriptwriting for theater, of authoring books and articles. Yeah people, talk about how pointed & biased Moore is in his movies, & then go & watch the History Channel & say that it's documentaries & history on religion are based completely on NON-DISPUTABLE FACTS. I would consider you the easiest MARKS for any con-man who 'says' that he believes in 'YOUR' God & 'YOUR' Jesus. By the way, I'm wondering, did I see Ann Coulter in 'YOUR' movie? I also agree with many, that Moore can be a little, to a lot overbearing at times. Michael Moore can be grating, unfair in his treatment of others, hypocritical at times, but will those unpleasant flaws about his character cause you to despise and disregard his productions? How about it if everybody watches everything that's produced as NON-FICTION, with a critical eye. It's like a film student watching the business end of Hollywood productions that are on TV or at the movie theaters. Where's the product placements, which of our emotions is the script trying activate, who are the villains, the scoundrels & do the roles they play work at all into the politics of today. Politics are in every aspect of your life. Look around yourself, the war, the price of gas, the 4th amendment, the cutbacks. If film makers want to make a left-leaning director look bad, they need to do a lot better than this movie does! Just making Moore look like an inconsiderate assh*** & then letting those who represent the completely opposing views have their say, while throwing all the trash they can on Moore's work, causes me to suspect whether these film makers were ever truly fans of Moore. I don't think so & the proof is in the pudding & even Don Quixote would say that it tastes horrible. OK Bush devotees, point at my incorrect use of that aphorism, about the pudding. Or was it incorrect? Look up the word, "aphorism", in your DICTIONARY, & it starts with the letter A. Or are you like GWB? Is the DICTIONARY, a job for someone else? Oh yes, the "you morons" written above is my tribute to Bill O'Riley, which I think is himself talking to himself and his multiple personalities. If only one of them could be intelligent.

Some plot spoilers ahead.This movie may seem like an anti-Michael Moore screed, but in reality it was a lot more balanced on the issue than I had originally anticipated. I was actually surprised that the filmmakers were able to interview people who worked with Michael Moore, or those who supported the movies he had done. To be fair, this movie was biased towards an anti-Moore bent, but on the whole the criticism was not vicious.It was amusing to see the filmmakers use the same tactics that Moore used in his movies against him, such as using fake credentials to get into an event, or shoving a microphone in a celebrity's face, in this case Moore himself. To his credit, Moore seemed very gracious and respectful towards the filmmakers, unlike the secretaries and company representatives who rebuffed Moore in "Roger and Me."As with Moore's own films, one must be wary of the claims those being interviewed made against Moore, such as the assertion that Moore *did* interview Roger Smith, or that Moore's charity was tied up with some big-name defense companies. Moore has just as much right to deny these claims as anyone who is accused by Moore of doing something suspicious. I recommend doing your own research before you swallow some of the claims presented in "Manufacturing Dissent"; though, to be be fair, those being interviewed, or some anti-Moore book, make the claims against Moore, rather than the filmmakers themselves. The "Donahue" footage, though, seems credible.Some of the best stuff is in the deleted scenes of the DVD, such as the parody of the cartoon from "Bowling for Columbine", which had the same ultra-cheap computer-animated style and fast-paced dialogue and narration. I also liked the discussion of Flint's affinity for "Coney Island Hot Dogs."I recommend this movie as a counterpoint to Michael Moore's bold so-called "documentaries", but be careful with regards to some the claims made by the filmmakers here.

I don't watch documentaries because I believe in a cause, I watch them to get informed. Sometime they may run counter to what I perceived to be the truth, and that's OK. If I learned something, then the film is worthwhile. If I was entertained at the same time, then that's cool.Here, I learned something and was entertained, and that makes this a documentary worth watching.I am not surprised that Michael Moore plays fast and loose with the truth. I don't see my father's name on the cast list for State Fair, even though he was in it. His part ended up on the cutting room floor. Well, some of Moore's work ends up there also. He may not lie by editing, but he is not telling the whole truth either.Do I care? No. He has managed to get the discourse going outside the right wing dominated radio and TV media, and the silent corporate media that we used to rely on for the truth. In that, he is a hero. So what if he has a few character flaws. Don't we all?