Capitalism: A Love Story (2009)

Moore returns to his roots with a timely, fiery exposé of corporate greed and its human cost, full of shocking revelations and moral fury. The film succeeds as an entertaining, inflammatory call to arms even if it is preachy and archive-heavy.

By returning to his roots, Moore turns in one of his best films, skewering the banking industry and explaining the meltdown accessibly; it has plenty to annoy critics but delivers a pugnacious, upbeat message despite some sentimentality.

The film speaks eloquently at times through archival footage of FDR and revelations about corporate practices like dead peasant insurance and derivatives, but Moore's message is sometimes unclear and he offers no clear solutions beyond faith in democracy.

Moore picks a timely big subject and retains his provocateur skills and comedic instincts, but the scattershot approach means the film is the sum of its parts; it reveals him as a New Deal Democrat rather than a socialist.

Moore's punchy, entertaining documentary takes on bankers and the bailout with his familiar mix of stunts, revelations and victim interviews. The critic is won over by the energy, wit and pertinence despite familiar format and omissions.

The critic finds the film a typical Moore work that is funny and over-the-top with dubious documentation but makes strong points about corporate America's impact on ordinary people. It is less focused than his earlier films due to its abstract subject but features genuinely moving personal stories.

Moore's broadest film lands some telling blows on Wall Street despite seeming skittish and unfocused. It mounts a persuasive case that something is rotten in the economic system.

The film is a blend of angry indictment and palliative reassurance that leaves it contradictory and less powerful than it could be. Moore's passion and provocative highlights are still evident despite the confusion.

Moore goes after the capitalist system itself after years of targeting big business, but the film lacks real answers and is limited as mainstream socially minded filmmaking; it is a tragedy disguised as comedy and entertainment.

Moore excels with impactful stunts and addresses the US audience on capitalism’s social harms and incompatibility with democracy or Christianity, but offers no cohesive argument on the subprime crisis or bailout. The thesis on social consequences is credible though familiar to European viewers.

Moore delivers another entertaining rallying cry against corporate and political injustice, effectively summarizing Wall Street greed and transgressions under Bush while defending socialism. The film is overly optimistic about Obama and relies on familiar stunts and illustrative cases.

The review describes the film as simplistically charming but ultimately not adding up, critiquing its approach to the financial crisis subject.

Moore indicts capitalism as a betrayal of FDR’s Second Bill of Rights and targets the sub-prime American working class with emotional stunts and personal stories. The film lacks analytic rigour and historical perspective, functioning more as didactic agit-prop than investigation.

The critic finds the film an unfocused diatribe that relies on slick tricks rather than deep thinking, turning complex issues into something simplistic like 'Capitalism for Dummies' and failing to dig deeply despite covering a lot of ground.

Moore's most personal film yet effectively shows small-scale stories of victims but stumbles on the big picture and remedy. It confirms him as a provocative entertainer who fails to sustain his argument.

The film is an entertaining but infuriating look at capitalism and the economic crisis, delivered with classic Moore style and spectacle. Its value lies in the timely message that will anger and resonate with audiences struggling with the fallout, rather than in its moviemaking.

The critic calls it Moore's most entertaining film yet for its skillful mix of humor, editing, and historical context around the financial crisis and FDR-era ideals. Some familiar Moore techniques feel overused and the film preaches mainly to the converted.

The critic describes Moore rejecting capitalism outright as an evil system that subverts democracy in favor of the wealthy few. Moore is praised as a shrewd filmmaker who taps public outrage through humor and personal stories, though the analysis is seen as open to debate.

The critic finds the film manipulative and indulgent, with its sledgehammer style and stunts overshadowing any insight into the financial crisis. He criticizes Moore's familiar targets, cheap melodrama and outdated optimism about Obama.

The critic views the film as another sloppy Michael Moore effort that relies on sarcasm, clumsy links and emotional manipulation rather than fresh analysis. He notes it feels like old news after a year of coverage on the banking collapse.