Captain Mike Across America

This film is told in montage about Michael Moore's failed attempt to rally voters, mostly young college-aged voters, who he calls "slackers", who haven't participated in past Presidential elections to come out and vote for John Kerry in the 2004 election. It is framed this way in the very opening of the film, thus setting it as a time capsule at a, arguably, turbulent time in America.

But due to this being first released in September 2007, in Canada, makes me come to the conclusion that this film provides nothing concerning its subject matter. A few IMDb reviews see this film as helping Obama win in 2008 and could be seen as a rallying call to young voters in future elections. I disagree.

Even though the film was re-released in 2008 in the United States, a little over a month before the '08 election, for free mind you, it doesn't help make the case to "go out and vote". It's so focused on anti-Bush/pro-Democrat that it's hard to make that case.

It also makes it hard to find value in watching it years later. Great documentaries have re-watch value in either the evolution of the subject matter over time or any historical insights that are introduced, explored, or discovered in the film or over time.

I see two ways to make the film better.

First, If you keep the majority of the film together, the whole anti-Bush point of view, then make the case by showing "here is where we were in 2004 after one term under Bush and trying to change the tide. We failed. Now look at where we are now at least halfway through a second term." From here you can frame it to help Obama in 2008 and onward.

Second, If you really want to make the point of the film to just be a rallying call for non-voters and new voters to get out and vote, you have to be apolitical about it and be fair. Don't lean so heavy into the anti-Bush/pro-Democrat angle but do show what America looked like and felt in the lead-up to the '04 election. Especially since the driving force behind the election was the Iraq War.

Any open minded person, whether Democrat or Republican, wouldn't get any worth out of this. Especially the further away we get from that point in time. Even if you are anti-bush, either back then or now, it doesn't make a difference. For me, the decisions Bush made and the war seem justified at the time but in hindsight things should've been different. However, it doesn't necessarily mean Kerry most definitely had to win.

If you have to, find it for free, as it was originally released in the US.

I'm glad this was free to download or made about as cheap as a film from a major filmmaker (and say what you will, like him or hate him, it's your right either way, he is a major filmmaker now in America), because it is a lessor effort. Since I am a Michael Moore fan and admire his "big" movies greatly (Roger & Me, Sicko, Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine) it was easy for me to decide to want to watch this. But this does also fall, even for fans, into that category akin to The Big One, which was, as this is, a travelogue of Moore going around on a tour to promote something with him as the focus really instead of something else like guns or GM in Flynt. The only little difference is that Moore is on the road to promote voting- for Kerry in 04 of course- and tries his best to rally up support, even in Utah where a businessman pays 25 grand to *not* have him speak at a school- which is, any way you look at it, commendable.

Now, it goes without saying that people hate Michael Moore. And when I mean hate I mean that he has to have at least one bodyguard, or more depending on the city, in the hopefully unlikely event that he could be attacked or shot or whatever. He is such a strong target for the right and even moderates and a handful of liberals that he still remains a potent poster child for spreading lies and propaganda. This can be argued this way and that, but Moore makes a point more than once during his time traveling around and giving the occasional press conference that he is just one guy making films, and the media has/had a responsibility during the lead up to the Iraq war. He is a target, but not one to stand down. It's hard to at least not respect that. And as for the other side, he gives them some screen time in Slacker Uprising: at least 15 minutes of the film shows how many republicans (obviously the majority but with some vocal power) and bible-thumpers came to protest outside and inside during Moore's speeches. He gives them their just do to speak. And also makes sure to offer them military enrollment forms as they are Bush supporters. He may be many things, but Moore's got balls.

So watching some of these ups and downs throughout the 62 city tour, of both the highs of speaking to tens of thousands of people in venues that are swing states, and some of the controversy stirred due to Moore's polarizing nature, are interesting. The only problem really comes with the fact that, stylistically, Moore goes simple for this one. The musical choices, the actual score, is repetitive and doesn't do much to add to the picture, which is a shame since Moore is usually creative and inspired with his choice in music, and only some moments of his brand of "gotcha" humor creeps in. The actual musical performances from guests Eddie Vedder and Tom Morello and Steve Earle are fantastic though, with Roseane Barr and the other musician in Tennessee just OK (Viggo Mortensen is a nice surprise).

It's not any triumph of film-making, wont win any awards, and it certainly shouldn't be paid much for. It's the right choice to offer it up online for free or as cheap as possible on DVD, since those who want it can get it and those who definitely don't can pass on by... unless their curiosity is peaked somehow. It's good for one watch, even for those who want it right away, and then to move on along as it's now four plus years gone anyway. For what it's worth, on its own basic and unpretentious terms, it's not too bad at all.

When I watched this film I was it as the main title of "Slacker Uprising" and it was only after I had seen the film, draw my own opinion together and come here to post a review that I learnt of the "proper" title. I thought it was befitting the film because if you think of the two film titles, they both describe the same film but they both have different subjects as their focal point. So, the question is, which one best describes the film? I ask this because to me Slacker Uprising (the title I prefer) has the same strengths and weaknesses as many of Moore's films. The strengths are there of course and they are the things that his fans and ardent supporters will tell you while not really being keen to discuss much else. In this film it is the spirit of awareness of political involvement and of debate that makes it interesting.

In following the tour of the colleges, the film gets to see any things that are well picked out and depicted. We get to see Republican's attacking the tour for "bribery" (giving out joke gifts to those who register at the event) and then weeks later show us major Republican donors offering money to the student bodies if they will only cancel the tour at their venue. It is a joke of free speech and it is well contrasted in the film. What also works is the chance to hear from real people on both sides. Of course the sound bites selected from protesters against the tour are not the sharpest but it is not that fair to go to the desert and then complain about all the sand – it kinda comes with the territory. I liked it though, I liked to see people engaged, I liked to see them energised for a cause – even if I happened to disagree with (like the hecklers at some of the venues) I liked what they did and I liked that Moore let them have a moment and never mocked them that badly (although of course he makes light of them).

All these things I liked and generally the film was interesting to see the campaign and understand what it was trying to – OK it is more of a record than a documentary but there are themes and discussion points in here that make it more than just a chronicle of events. The problem I have with it is that Moore himself is too much centre stage. Now, I do not mean this physically because of course he was always going be on the stage or on camera but more that the film has this air of presentation that suggests greatness. Now, I will give him credit as I do to many documentary makers and activists, for the work he does to inform and raise awareness – I may not always agree with what he is saying but then I don't want him to stop saying it any more than I want Fox to stop saying what they do. However, he does have this issue that he makes HIMSELF the focus of things at times rather than letting the subject be there with him just the presenter. With this film it opens with the suggestion that the Democrats had blown it totally till he got involved and ends with the implication that Kerry would have won if he had just gotten out of the way and let Moore do it all for him - there are lots of these moments scattered throughout the film and it constantly grates.

The scene with the medal of honour is a keeper – not only that it happened the way it did but that it made it into the final cut of the film. I think he was wrong to take it because the right answer to the offer would have been "your father gave/risked all he had in getting that medal and he did it for us and specifically for you, so your way of life could continue. All I'm doing is encouraging people to do is exercise the rights he defended for us – he would want you to have that and, if you want to give me something to show you support me then get voters out next week – do just what I'm trying to do, I'm nothing special – not like your Dad". It sounds like I'm fixating on this event but beyond the fact he took it of more interest is that it got put in the film and you really have to ask yourself what role that scene serves here other than showing what a hero Moore is to his fans – which is not what I thought the film is about. If this was the only example of this self-focus then I would be fine but it is frequent and just as weird each time.

And so it is. Slacker Uprising is a solid film but, as a document of record it doesn't have a core documentary draft to keep the audience engaged and overlooking faults. Don't get me wrong – I found it interesting but I really wish that someone had taken Moore in hand and said, "this is not about what we did – it is about why we did it, what we were asking people to do and what those people did". But it seems nobody did so the film does have a lot of material that makes it about Moore himself and, as we have seen with his last couple of films, when that happens he weakens his own film and message. And I don't care if the intentions of the title are "ironic" or if I'm accused of "not getting it", the "proper" title should be Slacker Uprising as the "slackers" and the "uprising" should be the focus of the film – not "Captain Mike".

I lean pretty far left politically, and parts of this low-key made me like the Democrats less. I used to not care about politics, and didn't lean either way... and if I'd seen this during that stage of my life, it would've made me feel even less compelled to go out and vote.

I've liked every Michael Moore movie I've seen so far. Bowling For Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 are among the best documentaries of their decade. This is the first film of his I've seen that I'd call bad. My ratings on this site are all public- you can see how positively I've rated all his other documentaries, if you need to.

It's barely a film, and it's so strange that it came out years after the events it depicts, when the 2004 election was well over. I've seen worse documentaries I guess, but this honestly wasn't very good at all. Nothing particularly funny, nothing particulalty clever. Even Michael Moore In Trumpland is significantly better, more engaging, more useful, and better thought out than this one.

Oh and the music sections were so awful, and I reckon just there to get it to feature length.

I won't call it the worst documentary I've ever seen, because I think it had somewhat good intentions... but of the political documentaries I technically "agree" with, I think it's the worst. Skip it, even if you're a fan of Moore like me.

I voted against Bush in 2004, but the film was actually pretty boring and didn't bring anything new to the table. He had promised he'd throw his next documentary online, maybe he threw out this stuff because he didn't want to skimp out on the earning potential of an actual decent documentary he's making.

I had thought he was making a documentary showing all the things corporations have been getting away with in the last four years, but actually it's about Michael Moore's tours around the country for the 2004 elections. Literally it's just footage of his speeches to different universities and local press conferences when he toured several cities in swing states. Moore didn't present anything new we hadn't been hearing for the last 8 years and he said absolutely nothing about the 2008 candidates.

The format of the video was depressing. Moore says bring back the troops, kick out bush for a while to a cheering audience, it shows a random musical guest or celebrity then it shows a news caster talking about what the polls show to give a little time effect. While there's nothing particularly wrong with format, that's all there is to this film, it just repeats over and over as he tours different cities.

What the heck just happened? The blip.TV embed does not allow seeking so I couldn't just skip to the end to see if he had something more aggressive or interesting up his sleeve. Moore is know for stirring up controversy and attacking what he feels are the "bad guys" straight-on. There was no face-to-face talks and interviews, only speeches to loving supporters and in a few instances, quips to the opposition that also showed up. He should have made a real documentary or at least critical review of the 2008 candidates, the slacker uprising could have been a DVD extra at best. Edited footage of him as super hero almost changing the tide in the swing states will only gain support from the hardcore Michael Moore fans. Moore brags in the film about how 30 - 40% of republicans that watched Fahrenheit 911 ended up liking it. The same cannot be said for this film. There is no investigative journalism like his previous documentaries. It's Moore talking to his supporters and registered democrats in addition to having the benefit of editing his "best of" moments.

Republicans that watch it will only get annoyed. The film starts by saying Kerry was in the lead until the Bush admin ran an unfair smear campaign on Kerry. Kerry did nothing and his popularity dropped among veterans. Moore countered this pretty well in the movie, but he didn't counter the footage of Kerry saying he would have voted for the war even if he knew the intelligence was false at the time. A few moments in the film would drive zealous republicans crazy like: allowing a guest to sing the Finland national anthem to a confused crowd that wasn't properly told why, his comments on immigration, some of Roseanne's over the top jokes, and finally Moore insanely accepted, I believe it was, a bronze star that belonged to the grand father of one of the people in an event. Literally a guy went up and offered a family war metal from a deceased relative. I cringed as Moore seem to give as little humility to it as someone offering to pay for his dinner, "Really are you sure? Wow thanks." It's a waste. People fight to defend their country but more so to defend their family. You just can't take something so personal to someone's family history when its completely meaningless to yours. Democrats who watch this movie will get bored, since it's the same rhetoric we've already heard. Go watch several of Obama's speeches or check his website instead of watching this movie. Republicans who watch it will get annoyed and have more to complain about, further outlining the divisions between the parties that we should instead work to break.