Michael Moore in TrumpLand

This is Michael Moore at his very best—very thoughtful and penetrating, and hardworkingly committed to fostering understanding of some of our fundamental political challenges.

I felt he did an excellent job of presenting the view that Trump's rise on the national political scene is a warranted but ultimately very destructive reaction to the neglect and abandonment of countless Americans by our economic and social order.

"Michael Moore in TrumpLand" is full of genuine humanity and surprisingly gentle humor.

I'm doubtful Moore's efforts in making this film stand much chance of having an impact on the electoral outcome, but I still think it's great that he has given us an offering of such quality.

I must say on an anecdotal note that upon being re-exposed to typical TV coverage of the election after having left a screening of this movie, I felt as though I'd gone from a sane place to a place of true barbarity. (I was really, truly surprised to find how super-barbaric what has grown all-too-familiar of late suddenly seemed.)

Treasonist. Not in all of history has a traitor or a treazonist been hailed as a hero? Sorry Anonymous, with your Guy Fawkes masks, Guy Fawkes Day is actually a celebration of the King's survival against the attack. Which considering your atheism is a paradox, since it was a religious act of terror, a Catholic assault on Anglicanism. But who cares what a liberal or progressive thinks. You really don't think too much. But really? When in history has a traitor or treazonist been hailed as a hero? Never. Stalin is despised by those who lived under Soviet Rule. 50 million dead. Che Guevara is despised in his birth place of Argentina. They destroy every attempt to resurrect his name in honour. Mao killed 100 million of his Komarades. All your heroes are traitors and treazonists. And what does that make you? A hero? No. Try coward on for size. I suspect that will fit.

This is not like producer-director Michael Moore's other, award-winning documentaries. While the opening is cinematic, the bulk of this material could best be described as Mr. Moore performing "stand-up comedy" for a movie theater audience. He sits down, too, on a sparse stage set. His language is frequently vulgar. There are a few interludes that include video, tape and photographs of 2016's US Presidential candidates Donald J. Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Moore appears to have done this film quickly, with his "TrumpLand" being Wilmington, Ohio. His initial aim is obvious; of course, Moore is working to defeat Mr. Trump. Anyone who thinks "Michael Moore in TrumpLand" is going to support Trump doesn't know Moore. He is not going to give you a "fair and balanced" view of Clinton and Trump. Moore is an admittedly liberal (or progressive) filmmaker and presents himself honestly...

What may be surprising is Moore's persuasive argument for Ms. Clinton. This is a film about her, not him. Moore's conversion includes his sometimes mixed feelings about Clinton and her long biography. Interestingly, he enlarges old photographs of Hillary Rodham as set backdrops. After all the demonic contemporary photos and older "hippie" pictures on social media, it startling to see Hillary was quite a beautiful young woman...

The main point of "Michael Moore in TrumpLand" is to garner votes for Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump. No surprise, there. Moore treats his audience with calculated respect. As aforementioned, he is honest about his personal views and how they developed. He hopes Clinton will be more liberal in office than most assume, as was the case with the present Pope Francis. However she governs, Moore prefers Clinton to Trump...

Moore directly appeals to older white males who have suffered economically and must now live in a county where they are a dwindling minority. The voters who believe President Obama is a Muslim born in Africa, and Hillary Clinton is the Anti-Christ, are not going to be convinced. Moore amusingly siphons those voters off and goes for the voter he believes might vote for Clinton, after a persuasive argument. He separates the bigots with visual allegories by "building a wall" around Mexicans (Guatemalans count, too!) in the audience and separating Muslins into a section guarded by a symbolic drone. Moore appears to have researched his target voter very well and the film shows heads nodding in agreement. Those nods mean the staged and directed voters on screen were convinced. We will have to see if real voters agree on November 8, when the new President wins election. Everyone should get out and vote.

******* Michael Moore in TrumpLand (10/18/2016) Michael Moore ~ Michael Moore, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump

Although his name is in the title of this filmed one man show, Trump isn't in any way the focus, however Clinton very much is – starting with the large pictures of her mounted all around the stage. I had come to this show not knowing what to expect but interested by what little I had heard – and for context I was watching it on the weekend where the FBI dropped the shock announcement that they were looking into more electronic information they had found related to the Clinton email investigation earlier this year.

Moore starts his show with honesty, about not being a Clinton voter, and not being a big fan of hers. He also delivers quite a passionate piece about why he understands people would turn to Trump as a rejection of a failed system, as opposed to Hillary – the manifestation of every politician to many people. It is ironic that this bit that he delivers seems to be the clip that has taken off – ironic because it shows how bang on the money he was, but at the same time it seems to be a rallying cry now more than a reflection (tellingly the use of the clip I have heard all cut off at "feels good" and loses "for a day, or a week" etc). From here he focuses on Clinton, to sell her as a person, to examine why she is disliked and how she has been treated. Unfortunately at this point the film goes from an engaging discussion style, into very much a sales pitch.

He is not helped by events in this election moving so quickly that his thoughts are already outdated. The leaks of the Podesta emails, the discovery of more information on electronic devices belonging to Carlos Danger, and the general opening up to public view of the feelings of those around her, and the big money dealings of the Foundation – all of these things are understandably absent from the film. However, Moore also skates around some other issues too, and it does feel like he is trying to sell Clinton as a person – something she has been roundly terrible at doing herself.

I did enjoy the clips from her graduation speech, and I did take a lot from his presentation on her treatment and sacrifices as a woman, but in the end the presentation starts to boil down to owing it to her, or owing her to America. This election may well be a 'through gritted teeth' for many people on both sides, but it doesn't make for a persuasive argument when spelt out. Trumpland ends up being this though; it does have moments of interesting discourse and content, but in the end it is an emotional appeal to vote for Clinton without enough in the way of reflection and consideration of the whole picture.

Michael Moore in Trumpland (2015)

** (out of 4)

Even though I rarely agree with Michael Moore, I do enjoy his pictures. As much as I would love to debate him myself, there's no question that he is a talented filmmaker and on that level alone I will respect him even if I don't respect what he often does with his movies.

With that said, MICHAEL MOORE IN TRUMPLAND is without question his least entertaining film. This really isn't a film but instead Moore held what's basically a stand-up act in Ohio where he brought Trump and Clinton supporters together to talk with them. The majority of the rather short running time is baslcally Moore talking about why Clinton should get your vote.

My problem with this film is that it just seems rushed and it certainly doesn't have the quality of Moore's previous pictures. Just check out how nervous Moore seems at the start of this chat. Just listen to how awful his jokes are. He's certainly not a comedian and some of the jokes told are just beyond awful. Even his speech about Clinton isn't nearly as good as you'd expect from him.

The only time that his passion really comes to life is when he's talking about the people who have died due to not having medical coverage. Had the entire film been more of him talking in a serious manor like this then perhaps the film would have had more of an impact. As it stands, it's pretty much the worst film of his career and looks even sillier considering what happened at election time.