"Yeah a lot of people are dissing the movie without having seen it. Just think of that as a good way of finding out who is a bigot."

What's equally interesting is the number of people who reject any review or critique of the film that isn't favorable without reading it. Several of these reviews I've seen aren't reflexive rejections of the movie; they're thoughtful analyses by people who've seen the film and thought about it. I'm surprised to see some significant people who've taken the time to review the film being written off with lines like "well, they've proven they're not liberal anymore" as if a critique of the film is to be valued only if it's by someone with the right (er, left?) credentials, someone who automatically loses those credentials if they are critial of the movie. Never mind the validity of the points being made.

I understand that you can like or even love a movie that critics hate. I understand that it's a movie that mixes fact with Moore's peculiar view of the world that isn't always supported by facts and sometimes resembles propaganda more than art. A propa-docu-comedy? If the movie makes the pretense of being a serious discussion of events, why show such disrespect for someone who offers a serious discussion of its flaws, often without reading them? How is that different from rejecting the movie without seeing it? There's a moral high ground here? Who's the bigot?

I see that the Paris newspaper Le Monde's review of the movie was pretty scathing, too, btw.