Slacker Uprising (Michael Moore, 2007)

Message

Antoine Doinel · #1 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:50 pm

Michael Moore will be making his latest documentary (actually completed a while ago, but only finding distribution now) available for free online for three weeks prior to its theatrical bow. Sign up here.

The nauseatingly self-congratulatory trailer is here.

#2 Post by **domino harvey** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:05 pm

His latest soundbite was so ill-worded and conceived that it was astonishing. I knew what he was trying to say but what he actually said was so much of a self-parody that it could have been a Mad TV skit.

justeleblanc · #3 Post by **justeleblanc** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:17 pm

So the revolution he led was the 2004 election?

There's something about the weirdly forced edits and soundtrack to this trailer that makes it feel more like an out-of-touch Christian Rock promo that tries to get "in" with the cool kids. I can imagine, given Moore's gift for the loquacious and obnoxious, not to mention his acute sense of hygiene, that being one of the cool kids was always out of reach. And I blame him for stirring up the counterrevolution sentiment in 2004 that handed Bush the election.

tholly · #4 Post by **tholly** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:06 pm

I think I'm one of the few people who think Michael Moore is a fantastic film maker. I can't wait to get to see this one for FREE!

Nothing · #5 Post by **Nothing** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:16 pm

Why don't you try blaming the Americans who actually voted for the death machine instead.

#6 Post by **Mr Sausage** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:08 am

Slackers aren't motivated enough for an uprising.

Adam · #7 Post by **Adam** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:11 am

Shouldn't the date on this be 2008?

Antoine Doinel · #8 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:15 am

This has been completed for a while and actually screened last year at TIFF. It's only being given a wide release now.

colinr0380 · #9 Post by **colinr0380** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:51 am

Mr_sausage wrote:Slackers aren't motivated enough for an uprising.

I'd be apathetic if I weren't so lazy.

justeleblanc · #10 Post by **justeleblanc** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 12:01 pm

I'm still confused, this takes place in 2004, right?

Perkins Cobb · #11 Post by **Perkins Cobb** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 2:20 pm

I've always defended Moore's ideas and his techniques, particularly against the jealous carping from intellectuals on the left, but I can't see how this is anything other than a cash-in attempt and a terrible career move. What was he thinking?

AWA · #12 Post by **AWA** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 2:22 pm

Surely the tragic ending to this is completely spoiled.

justeleblanc · #13 Post by **justeleblanc** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 2:32 pm

AWA wrote:Surely the tragic ending to this is completely spoiled.

He lives?

#14 Post by **mfunk9786** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:04 pm

Perkins Cobb wrote:I can't see how this is anything other than a cash-in attempt and a terrible career move. What was he thinking?

Giving away a little movie about his fans/supporters for free for three weeks is a cash-in attempt?

colinr0380 · #15 Post by **colinr0380** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:08 pm

justeleblanc wrote:I'm still confused, this takes place in 2004, right?

Yes, according to the Chicago Sun-Times:

The film, ''Slacker Uprising,'' follows Moore's 62-city tour during the 2004 election to rally young voters.

An account of Ohio filming, along with a later post from 2004 that seemed to be making some of the footage available.

#16 Post by **domino harvey** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:11 pm

This sounds like it will be in the same vein as his worst film, the Big One

Antoine Doinel · #17 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:20 pm

To me, it doesn't compare to The Big One (which I liked) simply in that here Moore seems to be painting a revisionist history of himself circa 2004, as some sort of patron saint to young voters. While I don't buy into the argument that he lost the election for the Democrats (they did a pretty good job of doing that all on their own), he certainly wasn't and isn't the political revolutionary he thinks he is.

#18 Post by **mfunk9786** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:27 pm

Especially as his films become increasingly sensationalized, Moore is really losing his relevance. Sicko was going along just fine until the trip to Cuba. He needs to learn that if he sticks to facts [however distorted in his favor], it's the best way to make any point. Once you have an audience watching your film, go ahead and be a little drier and present facts and figures, people aren't going to running.

Someone going into a Moore film knows they're seeing a political documentary, they're not going to leave because he's not on screen making a big ass of himself. Quite the contrary.

Nothing · #19 Post by **Nothing** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:18 pm

what was wrong with the trip to Cuba?

Grand Illusion · #20 Post by **Grand Illusion** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:46 pm

I actually thought Fahrenheit 9/11 handled facts better than Bowling for Columbine, due to less deceptive editing techniques.

I wonder if Kerry would've won if this would've been released in theaters on the eve of his potential reelection rather than streamed on the net for free.

margot · #21 Post by **margot** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 7:55 am

I'm one of the few people who actually likes Michael Moore and his films and this looks like complete and utter trash (and what's worse, really boring) even to me.

CSM126 · #22 Post by **CSM126** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 7:58 am

Antoine Doinel wrote:Moore seems to be painting a revisionist history of himself

Michael Moore? Do something deceptive? No! Say it isn't so! His other movies are so gosh darn truthful.

Being surprised at Michael Moore rewriting history is like being shocked that the sun rose again today.

hearthesilence · #23 Post by **hearthesilence** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 11:17 am

wtf, stringing together a bunch of rallies doesn't make a movie, and the fact they're from 2004 makes them relics at best. then again, he had the footage, so why not make something of it, even if it sucks?

justeleblanc · #24 Post by **justeleblanc** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 11:40 am

hearthesilence wrote:wtf, stringing together a bunch of rallies doesn't make a movie, and the fact they're from 2004 makes them relics at best. then again, he had the footage, so why not make something of it, even if it sucks?

so this is essentially a "i'm hungry but i only have mayo and cheese in the fridge" type film.

exte · #25 Post by **exte** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 3:32 pm

2008, no?