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: 3, Funny) by Grishnakh on Monday December 28 2015, @09:45PM
Maybe that's the key. After we get a Republican in the White House next year and a Republican-dominated Congress, we just need to get Michael Moore to make some movies bashing environmental regulations and single-payer healthcare, and praising the TPP.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2015, @11:29PM
After we get a Republican in the White House next year
Ha ha ha HA! Oh, wait, did you intend that to be a serious remark? Well then, um, sure. Could happen. But I do remember the bumper stickers during the Bush re-coronation period: "Cthulu for President! Why settle for the Lesser Evil?" Maybe it wasn't the Unspeakable hisself, maybe it was the other: "Voldemort for President!", or even more pure evil: "Re-elect Cheney!". But the really, really scary thing is that the post is coming from inside SoylentNews! No, not that; the really scary thing is that any of these three candidates is more reasonable of a choice than any of the Republican candidates.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2015, @12:58AM
I was around then, as well.
I remember the absolutely hapless campaign run by Kerry. I wasn't wild about Bush, and I didn't support him then either, but Kerry left me with my jaw on the floor, wondering where the hell they found this guy.
I was wistfully thinking back to the good ol' Clinton days, and I didn't even like Slick Willy much! I'd have brought him back over Bush and Kerry both, even if it meant an official White House Seraglio for the president's personal use.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday December 29 2015, @03:33PM
You sound like another Democrat fanboy who's completely convinced that the Dems will win the election no matter what. I guess you're too young (or too forgetful) to remember that this exact same thing happened in 2000, and to a lesser extent, 2004. Thanks to dumb Democrat cheerleaders and lame Democrat candidates, we got 8 years of GW Bush. Thanks a lot.
In case you haven't noticed, between all your drooling, the GOP utterly controls the government everywhere except the White House. They control the Senate, the House, and most state governorships and legislatures. The Dems are doing a terrible job in actually getting good candidates out there and getting people to bother showing up at the polls to vote for them. Then the Dems have the gall to complain that their voters aren't putting enough effort into getting out to vote, when the DNC can't be bothered to put out any decent candidates, and instead give us shitty, corrupt candidates like Hillary. Then when an outsider (Bernie, normally an independent) tries running and drums up all kinds of real grassroots support from the younger crowd (you know, the crowd the Dems NEED if they want to actually win, just like they did with Obama in 2008 who courted the youth vote), the DNC led by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz does everything in their power to sabotage his campaign in favor of her buddy Hillary.
So many Dems are pissed about Hillary and the DNC that if she gets the nomination (which looks pretty certain, regardless of the actual wishes of the voters), the Bernie voters are likely to not show up, write him in, or otherwise not vote for her. I've even seen plenty of people say they'll vote for Trump before they vote for Hillary. So most likely we'll get a repeat of 2000: the hand-picked Democrat candidate gets the nomination, and then loses the general election. So yes, I do think we can look forward to at least 4 years of Republican control of the federal government. Of course, Hillary is in bed with the bankers and the TPP, so I don't see how having her in the White House would be any worse.