Yesterday, Chris M was asking me what I thought the tone of this film was and if I thought that it was too anti-Nader about his presidential runs. I actually see the film as very much pro-Nader. But now I'm not sure. Did I read it as pro-Nader just because the people included in the film who ripped Nader just didn't convince me? I'm curious to see what other people think about this.
The first hour of the film traces his amazing career up to the 2000 run. I knew some of the things he had done but had no idea of the scope. Truly amazing. The second hour focuses on the 2000 and 2004 presidential runs. Nader has a lot of defenders and a lot of naysayers and both get their time during this half of the movie. I don't want to rehash points made in the movie but even with all of the backlash, I remain a pro-Nader guy even though I did not vote for him in 2004.
Michael Moore does not come across looking too good here as he goes to the mat for him in 2000 and then completely rips him in 2004 for ruining the country.
A very serious, informative, and entertaining documentary.
Directed by Henriette Mantel and Stephen Skrovan
Super Hero Sammy
1 day ago