SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
MovieTickets.com says[1]
This is an expansive, rib-tickling, and subversive comedy in which Moore, playing the role of "invader", visits a host of nations to learn how the U.S. could improve its own prospects. The creator of "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Bowling for Columbine" is back with this hilarious and eye-opening call to arms. Turns out the solutions to America's most entrenched problems already existed in the world--they're just waiting to be co-opted.
[1] Despite just 1 HTML error and 3 warnings, that page doesn't "Degrade gracefully" at all for me without specifying No Style in my browser. (I block everything that is not readable text.)
The Ring of Fire notes Republicans Will Hate Michael Moore's New Movie
"The American Dream seemed to be alive and well everywhere but America", says Moore.
["Where To Invade Next"] is the sort of documentary that will have Republicans sputtering angry America-themed rhetoric and completely missing the point.
From the other side of the aisle, Esquire says Noted Schmuck Michael Moore Just Made a Very Good Movie
Michael Moore is the worst kind of asshole: the kind who's right a lot of the time. He tells us mostly agreeable things in the most disagreeable way, rich in smarm and hyperbole and self-regard. A certain kind of messenger seems to revel in people's occasional desires to kill him. Moore is that kind of messenger.
[More after the break.]
AlterNet reports
"Where to Invade Next" begins with the observation that the United States has not won a war since World War II. It then comically imagines the Department of Defense calling on Moore to step in and save our nation. His plan? Invade nations not to take them over but to take their good ideas. We then see a hilariously ironic shot of Moore on a ship draped in the American flag and heading out on his quest.
Moore then embarks on a tour of a series of European nations and one in Africa where he finds society getting it right. From debt-free education to paid leave, women's rights, prison reform and delicious school lunches, Moore offers viewers a world where people simply live better than we do here.
In a brilliant move, Moore has made his most patriotic film yet without shooting a single frame in the United States.
[...] As Moore moves throughout the film [displaying] the American flag, he isn't just claiming the good ideas of other nations; he is claiming the flag and its symbolic force for those on the [Social Democratic middle.]
[...] Moore's film offers an alternative to the militaristic version of American exceptionalism. And he moves away from the negative politics that have haunted the [Social Democratic middle] since the '60s. [...] Moore realizes that progressive politics need to move [...] [toward] a platform that can inspire the imagination.
[...] By the end of the film "Where to Invade Next" refers as much to invading our apathetic political zeitgeist as it does to invading other nations. The ultimate irony of the film is that all we need to do to improve our nation is change the way we think.
[...] Bush won [...] because the Republicans got out the fear vote.
On the other side of the fence, [many in the center vote against the right], not for anything. And that's where the political potential of Moore's film lies. It asks us to imagine, if the invasion this country really needs is not an invasion of another country, but rather the invasion of the people into our own political process. Now that would be a real revolution.
[...] "Where to Invade Next" has a wide release set for Feb. 12, which is also Abraham Lincoln's birthday and the week of the New Hampshire primary. Coincidence? Definitely not.
[...] So Moore asked his distributors to get on board with a release plan designed to rock the nation: "I said .... give me a month or so to barnstorm the country, me personally, in a big rock 'n' roll tour bus, and we will criss-cross the country showing the film for free, leading up to the New Hampshire primary--because the issues in the film are the issues, the real issues, people want being discussed in this election year." They may also have music and rallies along the way.
TIME has some specifics about what Moore found:
In Italy, workers receive generous paid vacations, extended maternity leave, and two-hour lunch breaks! In France, little kids are fed tasty, nutritious school lunches, including fancy cheeses! In Finland, young students aren't burdened with childhood-crushing homework, while in Portugal, no one is arrested for using drugs! In Slovenia, a university education is free! In Iceland, wicked bankers who threw the country into recent economic crisis were actually convicted of their crimes!
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday December 28 2015, @09:32PM
Well, it probably takes using a heavy hand in dealing with the incompetent bureaucratic bozos running the train service. That's something the US refuses to do, but someone like Hitler has no problem doing.
Google for how the DC Metro train system is doing these days; it's an absolutely disaster.
(Score: 2) by bziman on Monday December 28 2015, @10:18PM
I call BS. The only problem with Metro is that it doesn't go all the places you might want it to go. But to get from my house out in the suburbs down to the Verizon Center to see the Wizards play, or to the Navy Yard to see the Nats, or to basically any tourist attractions, it's the ONLY way to go. It's way quicker and easier and safer than driving.
Oh, and they are having some political issues expanding out into the suburbs, because the rich folks out in the 'burbs don't want to pay extra taxes for a metro system that they won't use, because they'd rather sit in traffic for hours in their $100,000 Mercedes, rather than take a train with *gasp* poor people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2015, @01:42AM
Right. The only problem is those poor people. Got it.
Couldn't have anything whatsoever to do with limited transport options once you get where you're going.
Couldn't have anything to do with the lack of flexibility in your travel plans and schedule.
Couldn't have anything whatsoever to do with the hefty and inflexible employment needs around trains regardless of how full or empty they are.
Couldn't have anything whatsoever to do with limited cargo capacity on the train, or once you reach it.
Couldn't have anything whatsoever to do with the problem of first getting to a station and waiting around - by which time you might as well be on your way.
Couldn't have anything to do with the noise of train brakes, couplings or crossing horns or bells.
Couldn't have a damn thing to do with all the upheaval, expense, noise, dust and other problems that go along with laying track in the first place.
Couldn't have anything to do with the problems, delays, and general fuss around making connections, missing connections, sitting around and waiting for connections, hoping there's room on your connections.
Trains are a good match for the needs of cargo, where they beat road freight by a factor of three or four in terms of efficiency. Not great for all things, and not great for the last mile, but if you have 5,000 tons you need to get from Dubuque to Los Angeles, you could do a lot worse. They're not a great match for people, unless you happen to know for a fact that a large number of people will want to travel precisely from point A to precisely point B at precisely time C - in which case trains aren't too bad.
I ride trains. I like trains. I'll guarantee you I've spent more time on trains than most americans in my life, both local and cross-country. But if you think that the problems begin and end with poor-people-cooties, you're completely out of touch with the real problems presented by trains.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2015, @07:20AM
, and not great for the last mile,
If, as a human, a traveler, a commuter, you are worried about the last mile, I suggest you lose some weight, bro! Just saying! If only rail came within a mile of my destination! I have to hoof it over 20 miles, with a pack-train, just to get to the fire lookout tower. And then at the end of the month, it is the same 20 miles back, although mostly downhill. No roads. No bloody tourists (OK, some in the summer, but then, I am only on lookout in the summer.) So if you think that the problems begin and end with poor-people-cooties or the last mile, you're completely out of touch with the real problems presented by trains.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday December 29 2015, @03:38PM
I call BS on your BS call.
Go read about it: the Metro has a lot of problems for a subway system. They've had fatal accidents, they have ridiculous delays (most thanks to single-tracking), they can't keep competent people around, the controllers and the operators are constantly fighting each other. Washington Post has a bunch of articles about it. The NY MTA doesn't have these problems.
(Score: 1) by number11 on Tuesday December 29 2015, @12:03AM
Well, it probably takes using a heavy hand in dealing with the incompetent bureaucratic bozos running the train service. That's something the US refuses to do, but someone like Hitler has no problem doing.
Google for how the DC Metro train system is doing these days; it's an absolutely disaster.
Ah, that's right. DC governance is ultimately directly controlled by Congress (a body in which they are not represented), isn't it?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday December 29 2015, @03:35PM
It's true, but it's more than that. The DC Metro used to be an good system, back in the early 90s, but it got mismanaged into its current state. The Washington Post has had a bunch of articles about it; here's one:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/metro-says-subway-breakdowns-might-be-adding-to-a-steady-ridership-decline/2015/10/06/4bb59716-6c35-11e5-b31c-d80d62b53e28_story.html [washingtonpost.com]