Manufacturing Dissent - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Manufacturing Dissent Reviews

Page 1 of 13
½ February 25, 2016
The filmmakers are honest about their respect for Michael Moore, and they seem to genuinely admire and appreciate Moore's contribution to the field of documentary filmmaking, but when they attempt to turn their cameras on Moore they are met with a kind of stonewalling worthy of the 1980s General Motors PR department. A number of people burned by Moore in the past provide critical voices of the filmmaker and many of his filmmaking techniques are put under the microscope in this wonderful documentary that should be watched by everyone who's ever seen and loved Roger & Me. The issue of why Moore didn't include footage of his interview with Roger Smith in his film provides astounding insight into his methods and a really deep look at what has become one of the most influential and greatest movies of all time. Also of interest is material on his upbringing in Davison, not Flint, Michigan, and information about some of the scenes and people in the film Roger & Me.
February 6, 2013
A documentary, though more of an expose, on Michael Moore's underhanded techniques in film making. The makers of this doco set out with the intention to interview Moore during the release of Fahrenheit 911. What eventuates however is a portrait of Moore as an asshole who fabricates events in his documentaries and denies interviews to these filmmakers who are only trying to mimic what he has done himself in previous films such as Roger and Me.

It doesn't take long to begin to dislike Moore through his representation in this film. Regardless of opinion on his actual films he does not come across as a likable person and with plenty of testimonies to back this up you are left doubting his character and in turn his documentaries.

This is of course a one sided film, Moore apparently did not want to do a sit down interview, and the snippets of footage they have in conversation with him illustrate him in a defensive and arrogant way. As they raise the point of not taking Moore's films at face value, so too we should not with this doco. It is interesting, well put together and with a great range of interview subjects the film successfully paints Moore in a negative light and makes the viewer question the power of propaganda in American media today. A good film to get the brain thinking.
Super Reviewer
August 1, 2012
Manufacturing Dissent is an interesting documentary that looks at controversial filmmaker Michael Moore. Canadian documentarian Debbie Melnyk follows Moore's 2004 Slacker Uprising tour while discussing his divisive career, and interviewing his former friends and associates. The film makes an interesting point of how Moore has a pattern of burning his bridges, and alienating or betraying his supporters. To that end, Melnyk begins sympathetic toward Moore but ends up becoming a victim of his tactics of deception and manipulation. Unfortunately, the picture quality is rather low end and there are several times that the narrative appears to lack direction. Yet despite its flaws, Manufacturing Dissent provides an intriguing perspective on Michael Moore's journey.
June 6, 2012
Un film à la Michael Moore... Sur Michael Moore.

Pas besoin de chercher très loin pour comprendre que ce documentaire soi-disant objectif n'est rien d'autre qu'une cible directement pointée sur la tête de Moore lui-même. Si les réalisateurs se disent éclairés et lucides, ils ne tardent pas à se contredire en bombardant le spectateur d'insultes anti-Moore et de témoignages qui ne tiennent pas la route. Entre autre, la première heure se laisse constituer de ''Michael Moore est un menteur!'', témoignages récoltés dans la rue par des détracteurs qui ne le connaissent pas. Toutefois, la dernière demie-heure, bien que dans la même veine, soulève tout de même des points intéressants et, enfin, fournit quelques preuves à l'appui pour appuyer son propos.

Je respecte grandement le travail de Moore, même si je ne respecte pas toujours les manières qu'il utilise pour y parvenir, mais il est intéressant de voir à quel point la globalité de son oeuvre provoque des conservateurs qui n'hésitent pas à entrer dans le même jeu que lui pour tenter de le discréditer.

Toutefois, c'est sans grand succès... Qu'est-ce qui est le plus populaire? Manufacturing Dissent ou Fahrenheit 9/11?
May 2, 2012
On pourrait reprocher à ce "Polémique système" le fait d'être platement réalisé et bêtement factuel...tout à fait à l'opposé du boulot de Michael Moore en somme, lequel se montre souvent brillamment tourné mais se contrefout des faits ! Avec ses documentaires coup-de-poing visant tout autant le port d'armes que la guerre en Irak et le système de santé américain, l'homme à la casquette a fini par énerver beaucoup de monde. Ce qui est surprenant, c'est qu'il est même parvenu à énerver des gens qui, fondamentalement, soutiennent les mêmes causes que lui : Rick Caine et Debbie Melnyk ont décidé de découvrir pourquoi. Les deux documentaristes sont canadiens et de gauche, on ne peut donc guère les soupçonner d'être à la solde des Neo-Conservateurs et d'avoir voulu accrocher le scalp de Moore à la porte de leur ranch. Le duo semble d'ailleurs sincèrement navré des faits qu'il soulève car, malheureusement, le tableau ne joue guère en faveur du natif de Flint (né en réalité dans une banlieue prospère de cette ville). D'anciens amis et soutiens le décrivent comme un arriviste mégalomane, n'hésitant pas à mentir si besoin est et pas vraiment concerné par l'objectivité et des méthodes de travail à l'avenant : citations extraites de leur contextes, emploi d'acteurs pour simuler ce qu'il souhaite présenter comme la réalité, travestissement des chiffres et des faits, refus du dialogue avec ceux qui ne partagent pas son point de vue,...en fin de compte, ce documentaire ne fait que consolider ce que beaucoup soupçonnaient déjà, et on se rend compte par la même occasion que le problème n'est pas ce que Michael Moore est mais bien ce qu'il prétend être. Indiscutablement, l'homme est un polémiste compétent et parfois drôle, une version gauchisante et obèse de Ann Coulter ou de Rush Limbaugh, qui possède un réel talent pour (se) mettre en scène. S'il était reconnu comme tel, il n'y aurait pas grand chose à lui reprocher et il représenterait même exactement ce dont les Etats-Unis ont besoin pour enclencher une dialectique vicieuse avec ses alter-égos républicains. Mais que jusqu'en Europe, on le présente comme un chevalier blanc, promoteur de la vérité et dernier rempart de l'objectivité face à la propagande républicaine; que lui-même entretienne ce mythe sans jamais remettre en question la validité de ses méthodes, voilà qui pose problème et m'autorise à lui accoler l'étiquette de de "gros connard" et à ses panégyristes, celle d"imbéciles naïfs". Rien qu'en se "contentant" de la vérité, les documentaires de Michael Moore seraient pourtant déjà de sérieux réquisitoires anti-républicains. A manipuler l'information de la sorte, il ne fait que prêcher à des convaincus et indisposer les indécis. L'impact politique de son travail est donc à peu près nul ; les rentrées financières qu'il génère ne le sont pas et c'est peut-être sur ça que repose sa volonté de persister à dénoncer sans relâche les horribles tares de l'empire américain. Un explication que ce documentaire canadien ne privilégie pas explicitement mais qu'on l'entend quand même penser très fort...
March 24, 2012
This movie about the complications and manipulations of Michael Moore is a useful companion piece to Roger and Me and Fahrenheit 9/11. Even if you don't agree with its politics, the film will at least get you thinking
October 25, 2011
All Michael Moore disciples need to watch this
½ May 30, 2011
gonna' guess the low rating owes to the large "fanbase" this traitorous douche bag has.
March 27, 2011
Proves that Moore never lets the truth get in the way of a good story.
February 19, 2011
An above average Michael Moore style documentary on the documentary film maker Michael Moore. Moore comes off as a dishonesy asshole.
February 5, 2011
Not great and doesn't hit the same points that Mike Wilson's "Michael Moore Hates America" film but there's one part that really hits the point across. Much like most politicians and powerful people do when they're faced with tough questions or put under the microscope, there's a scene that stands out. The filmmaker and her crew are kicked out of attending a Moore event by Moore's own sister because they're filming for "commercial use." The filmmaker brings up that all television networks: ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, MSNBC can be argued are 'commercial-use' because all footage they use is technically for their own personal use. They wreck the filmmaker's camera and toss them out.

Now... if you were for all points of view than why would you tell someone to leave? And he is good at dodging questions and giving quick, evasive answers and replies. Sure, he's trying to defend his work, but he claims he's staying true to his self and his beliefs, but technically he is a sell-out. He hates corporate America but yet he went to Hollywood to become famous (yes, one of those evil capitalists he rebels against). He claims he's speaking the truth but yet countless films, Internet sources, writers, etc. have proven how fictitious his movies are.

I will give the guy credit for the sole fact that he has a right to his views and to make the movies he wants to make because he is an American and has the right to speak his mind, but if you're trying to be some figurehead whom wants change in America or be a voice for people, you probably should learn to answer your critics, to accept all points of views or be moderate in your approach, and lastly if you're a "against the system"-kind of crusader don't sell out to the system you so humbly rebel against.
½ November 11, 2010
pretty bland, nothin (no info) valuable was taken from it, and it was barley entertainment of any sort...
½ August 7, 2010
Michael Moore is a waste of cellulite.
January 15, 2010
why have i not heard of this until now?
½ October 5, 2009
Not as entertaining as Moore's films but factually accurate and does a great job at questioning his methods and credibility.
October 5, 2009
this felt like a 12 hour long hate fest of michael moore. i don't find MM that fascinating to hate or love him. i've seen most of his films and liked them, however, i'm not going to say he isn't probably a bit of a dick, or megalomaniac. who in Hollywood probably isn't?? but i frankly didn't care much. he's a poorly dressed, fat paranoid shmoe from Michigan. therefore seeing him on the red carpet is good enough for me. let him be the shit in the world's honey. i don't take his films as gospel. i have enough intelligence to weigh my options before i form a conclusion. he's just one side of a perspective. it's probably true that MM is about as factual as FOX news. just because he may or may not be as bad as those he attacks - doesn't mean much to me. i won't be sucking his **** anytime soon. let alone hollywood's.
September 24, 2009
whats up with the commies tonight
½ September 5, 2009
This movie is crap. Based mostly on hear-say and other's opinions. The bottom line is, when a guy like Moore comes around, there will always be people afraid of him. The filming crew gets upset and shout "what happened to freedom of speech" when being ejected from a Moore speech. A) you weren't allowed to be there in the first place because you are not with the media and B) you where filming the speech when you knew you weren't supposed to; and that's why they threw you out. You critisize Bowling for Columbine because the film made it appear that Moore when into a bank, got an account, then walked out the same day with a gun when in reality it took a few weeks for the bank to issue the gun?... THE BANK STILL GAVE HIM A GUN! That's what's supposed to be outrageous and it's still true; so what's the point you're trying to make?
½ August 4, 2009
Even-handed for the most part, and led by a likeable Canadian art-teacher type, Manufacturing Dissent is a nice study of Moore the egomaniac, Moore the paranoid, edgy self-publicist, and the American public. The whole thing boils down to whether or not one feels Moore's means justify the ends he pursues in such a high profile manner, using his face rather than the facts to sell his view..or perhaps it doesn't - maybe it just underlines the old fact we all knew - documentaries always have an agenda, Moore just doesn't make much effort to hide it. Perhaps one could say he's MORE honest for being so blatant. Probably not. That, and he's a crap director.

Extra bonus irony points for the whole 'Moore is evasive and hard to pin down for an interview' thing - y'know, a bit like Roger Smith in Roger & Me!(who it turns out he DID get to speak to. Probably) What a fortunate juxtaposition! Points deducted for interviewing some guy who is owed $10 by Moore from a magazine piece he wrote in the '80s - looks a bit petty, and totally unnecesary considering the top quality accustaions that could be made against the big fat baseball cap wearing tosser.
Page 1 of 13