It is certainly worth seeing, yet I feel it should have been re-edited to leave out some parts that were quite misleading. There is dramatic tension between the good parts and the major falsehoods in this film. The good parts reveal a surprising amount to a thinking viewer, such as when the spokespersons for "the other side" are allowed to speak freely. The major falsehoods occur when the filmmaker jumps to conclusions or mixes exaggeration and satire with very sober (and sobering) facts. These 'falsehood scenes' (which I am talking' about) are sometimes humorous sketches and sometimes editorial comments by Moore. Unfortunately, Moore is truly, truly not an expert and that is probably why, several times, he offers botched conclusions and hack history. An example of the falsehoods: a short cartoon film about American history where paranoid early Pilgrims in America proceed to shoot all the nice Indians and then the Pilgrims go on to burn each other as witches. My understanding is that burning witches ended in Europe and did not cross the ocean. Also, that cartoon film fairly strongly implied that paranoia is something the "white" people have and the other colors did not. Sorry, but I am not going to name all the errors. I simply claim that historical rigor would oppose several of Moore's main points.
The film is worth watching but with a disclaimer:"This film is not a reliable source of detailed background information or analysis but conveys almost an hour of good, worthwhile data about its chosen subject."
The film is worth watching but with a disclaimer:"This film is not a reliable source of detailed background information or analysis but conveys almost an hour of good, worthwhile data about its chosen subject."