I initially felt that Moore's film would strike a blow against documentaries as an art form, but it's possible that it is only an example of opinionated, selective documentary filmmaking gone a few steps too far. I argued with my friend that there's a difference between selective presentation of true facts and outright lies, but he wasn't having it. He gets kind of obstinate whenever people disagree with him. He said I can't comment until I see the film. I say that's bullshit, since I only had to watch 20 minutes of "Rider Without a Horse" to know it was full of shit. I think the fact that I know he lied is enough to indict him on those grounds, leaving out any of the variables of filmmaking skill. Still, the film may serve as a reminder that all documentaries whose agendas are easily visible must be taken with skepticism.
[This message was edited by Bucky Wunderlick on 01-21-04 at 09:23 PM.]