What did he mean by this?

>libtard
>last name translates to "honest"

kek

>Literally "anyone who besmirches my God Emperor should be ignored"

There has never a more cultish group of dumbasses in mainstream American politics than Trumpettes.

his lb reviews are seriously terrible

yes

this guy is so ugly and disgusting looking

>haha I look like shit, dude Flint and workers lmao
>we wuz cars n shieet
>btw vote for open borders and open trade

Why have all these "radical, anti-corporate" fags turned into shills for the candidate backed by the big banks?

No its cause these pussies like you and the critics will give positive reviews to anything michael moore craps out in 4 days

Makes a strong humanist case for the candidate that wants to start a war with Russia and use drones to kill Syrian children

What did he mean by this?

If you rate a movie good not because it's actually good but because it furthers your political opinions then you're not a reviewer.

Did Trump pay Lardass?

Moore could literally be making a film explaining grass is green and green grasser's would be ashamed to be associated with him.

>Le reviewers aren't just opinions meme

They're not supposed to be opinions on politics.

It's like how people can critically appreciate Birth of a Nation (the real one) whilst disregarding its political content

Only children can't separate the two

>>Le reviewers aren't just opinions meme

What did he meme by this?

Good to know that constitutes as a positive review.

That's one way to look at it. However, when it's a documentary, it's logical that it would also be judged on the basis of whether or not it presents an idea in a comprehensive and compelling fashion. There isn't just one way to critique a film.

At least it was better than that """""""""""""movie"""""""""""" that shitskin made about Shillary.

Documentaries are more than just arguments. If you just want arguments go read an essay

ITT: Meme now, for your tears will be all the more delicious in a couple short weeks.

I see good ol Moore is still producing slanted liberal propaganda as usual.

comprehensive and compelling ≠ logical

how is someone supposed to know if a documentary is logically correct if the documentary topic is something they are unfamiliar with

You're missing the point. Documentaries are obviously going to be judged on 2 levels. Why is this unacceptable? Could it be because conservatives often make shit documentaries, and as a result, appropriately get shit on?

It's like the complaints about the elections being rigged... unless Trump wins of course, then it's fair and not rigged at all.

Part of the reason you imbeciles like Trump so much is because he's as much of a fucking whiny bitch as you are.

>They're not supposed to be opinions on politics.
They are opinions on films and their content.
This film is political, so is its content.

Fucking deal with it.

That retards on here expect reviews to be some god given analysis utterly free from bias, subjectivity and opinion.

>Could it be because conservatives often make shit documentaries, and as a result, appropriately get shit on?

Or they get shit on because the reviewers aren't conservative

>Part of the reason you imbeciles like Trump so much is because he's as much of a fucking whiny bitch as you are.

I literally didn't even mention Trump you weirdo

It's politics, not particle physics.

You mean like Trumpkikes did for "Hillary's America"?

>"""""""""""""""documentary"""""""""""""""

The term you're looking for is "propaganda piece."

Why do critics call dinesh d'souzas documentarys propaganda, while michael moore's are considered informative?

Yeah, sure.

Why do you americans always have to frame everything according to your shitty elections? It's impossible to have a dialogue with you people, I don't give a fuck about Trump and I never mentioned him.

>logically correct

You mean factually correct, surely?

Funny you mention that.

Yea and you know the intricacies and ins and outs of politics right? you watched that john oliver clip about trump so now you're an expert right?

Why Dinesh's a documentary and Moore Propaganda?

>I literally didn't mention Trump
Gee, how unfair of me to assume

Holy shit, even the critic consensus is anti-conservative political bullshit.

>Hillary's America finds D'Souza once again preaching to the (right-wing) choir
>Michael Moore's shitty Trump film is compelling and is surely not just for people who already like Clinton. It is Michael Moore after all.

hmm

It's more like:
>Michael Moore is and has always been a conniving, lying piece of shit manipulator that's given a pedestal because he's such an obnoxious leftist extremist faggot

Nothing to do with Trump. Michael Moore is just a fat faggot who has literally never done anything worthwhile.

Accuracy of the facts presented in the documentary. Moore is famous for staging events or outright fabricating claims in his documentaries. Dinesh isn't.

Yea and you know the intricacies and ins and outs of politics right? you memed that rare pepe about trump on Cred Forums so now you're an expert right?

I never said either WEREN'T propaganda

Liberals are completely blind to liberal propaganda, they've bought it hook line and sinker

...

>OMG FUCK YOU DRUMPFSTER
>I'm not talking about Trump
>HAHA YEAH RIGHT DRUMPFSTER

You people are insane

The hypocrisy...

Everyone has their opinions on political matters, so naturally their opinions are going to inform their perspectives on documentaries. Why would critics be any different?

Btw, yes, I know everything there is to know about politics -- that's exactly what I was trying to convey.

Go do your homework, user, it's getting late

Both are trying to sell you on a political worldview. Dinesh just uses facts, Moore makes shit up. For me the dividing line between propaganda and documentary is if you knowingly lied and staged situations for your movie to make it look worse than it is. Moore is a propagandist.

>indie
>jew
>thick-rimmed glasses
>pathetic excuse for a beard
>so far left he's outright shilling for Shillary, who even the average liberal has some serious reservations about

How little self-regard must you have to allow every aspect of your identity to be defined by a fad? There's not a single element of independence and individuality to this man.

That's fair. Even as what ypoypou might call a liberal I think Moore does !ore harm than good to any debate he weighs in on.

>Liberals are blind
Isn't it fairer to side both sides don't consider their own views as propaganda?
Isn't it also somewhat disingenuous to call Moore propaganda as opposed to Masturbatory?

He isn't going to change minds with this. His audience will watch this to feel congratulated and vindicated. Its going to be the equivalent of a Trump Supporter Cringe Compilation.

To be fair, many documentaries force narratives be it through goading emotional responses or even angles and sad music.

That said, Moore is pretty indefensible. Even if he's in the right, his methodology undermines him.

>Everyone has their opinions on political matters

Yea i'm sure you have very strong opinions on the city ordinances of portugal

Everyone thinks they're a fucking pundit, everyone wants to be fucking jon stewart or some shit but they're all so fucking uninformed and retarded like apes, being able to pick the color red or blue. Critics should be mocked in the street and served at one of michael moores fucking dinners

>city ordinances of Portugal
Kek. I'm not Portuguese, you fucking moron.

>everyone thinks their a fucking pundit, but they're all uninformed
You seem like you think you're some kind of authority on these matters, user.

Anyway, I'm done stepping over your strawmen. Blocked

>Kek. I'm not Portuguese, you fucking moron.
Yea but there's an equivalence to your knowledge of that and your knowledge of us politics

>You seem like you think you're some kind of authority on these matters, user.
I'm not and I don't pretend to be, your understanding of politics is the same as some 16 year old smug "film fans" favorite director being Nolan. You should be laughed at every time you talk out your stolen ass

It doesn't matter if you never mentioned him, we're talking about a fucking movie about American politics you dumb fucking third worlder. Get the fuck off my planet.

>there's an equivalence
Yes, a false one.

I hate Trump but this trend of reviewing purely based on politics, and even when it only has the most tenuous connection to the film, has to fucking end.

>Politics
>tenuous connection to the film
>Michael Moore

That's like saying Ghosts have a tenuous link to Casper.

>ftw he has a better jawline than me

I meant the Magnificent Seven remake which is the film they're talking about in that screencap.

>Joshua Rothkopf
>Ehrlich
>Dargis
>Schersthul
>Zacharek

geez

Yeah, some of those do seem a little forced as connections go.

But then again, reviews are opinions, not objective. They are only ever meant as a tool to help us decide if we will like it.

If we were an SJW tumblerina, we may want an SJW tumblerina to review a movie for us and provide trigger warnings or prompt us on what asine meaningless thing we can choose to make a mountain out of.

If we were a cuck obsessed alt righter we may want to be warned if it features a black man or a woman outside the kitchen by a fellow red pilled Aryan.

Totally agree with this. Part of it is just the general zeitgeist, and the fact that the internet has turned us all into obnoxious cunts who are almost pathologically obsessed with social issues. But I also think that critics are turning to various cultural "lenses" (more than usual, that is) largely because of a shameful lack of art and substance in films.