Fahrenheit 11/9 (2018)

Moore is reinvigorated and potent in this analysis of Trump's rise, demolishing targets including Democrats and using effective stunts and montages, with a strong section on parallels to Hitler.

Moore has about the right number of irons in the fire and strikes the living hell out of every one in this fullest, most original and urgent film, one of the most urgent ever made.

Moore strikes an alarming tone rooted in grim realities but this angry movie spotlights the potential for a new chapter of activism and resistance.

Moore channels outrage in a messy but powerful way that shames the left as often as it demonizes the right. The film is a dire warning and impassioned call to action that leaves one feeling the best course is to get out and fight rather than wish or hope.

Moore is angrier than ever but directs much of his outrage at American society as a whole for enabling Trump rather than solely at the president. The film is scattershot but ultimately Moore’s best in years for its simple, nonpartisan call to get mad and take action, with strong sections on the Flint water crisis.

Moore places the blame for Trump's election, prospects the consequences and exhorts the resistance. The film is most compelling on the Flint water scandal and the betrayal of Moore's hometown.

Moore's enraged but scattered documentary replays the 2016 election shock and explores broader issues like the Flint water crisis with righteous anger, but feels unfocused and behind the times.

Moore’s showmanship is intact as he targets Trump and the broader failures of American politics and media. The sections on the Flint water scandal are infuriating while the hope offered by young activists provides some relief amid the existential dread.

The film starts as nose-thumbing satire then dives into the Flint horror before becoming a powerful warning about fascism and the destruction of democracy. It is not a screed but a wise call to take action now or risk losing the opportunity.

The critic finds the film an uneven but rousing attack on Trump that makes its main points with upsetting potency about the slow-burn failure of American democracy. It is praised for its examples of grass-roots insurgency but criticised for being scattershot, protracted and losing focus by including tangential elements like the Flint water crisis.

Moore takes aim at both sides of the political establishment in a scattershot survey of Trump’s America. Segments on gun violence and grassroots activism hit their stride, with a strong message of hope offsetting the horror.

Moore tackles a wide range of America's ills in a roving overview that frustrates as much as it rouses by bouncing from topic to topic. It grows more confident on the Flint water crisis and Moore’s empathy for the victims.

The critic finds Moore's fury at Trump evident but the film incoherent and rambling, failing to deliver a focused counterattack despite strong sections on Flint's water crisis.

Moore's film is a jumpy state-of-the-union review with multiple targets, less focused than his previous docs, but offers food for thought with passion and humor; criticizes Democratic establishment and draws provocative Trump-Hitler parallels.

Moore’s saddened, irate, and scattershot film tries to understand Trump’s victory but represents an opportunity missed. It is stirred by his rueful awareness that in an emergency the call to action should override the pleasures of irreverence.

The film is a sloppy, scattergun rant that proves Moore's best days are behind him, with an overdone Hitler analogy and preaching to the converted.

Moore's circus-showman duplicity is as crass and abhorrently self-promoting as that of Donald Trump, though the film offers a more coherent overview of Democratic Party machinations and a strong section on the Flint water crisis.

The critic calls it one of Moore’s most effective films in years, an angry, provocative and rousing conversation starter that mixes hope and heartbreak, uses music and editing masterfully, and deconstructs corruption across the political system while inspiring action.

The review notes that the film goes beyond a direct attack on Trump to explore the Flint water crisis, Parkland student activism, and a West Virginia teachers' strike, while also critiquing Democrats and the broader system. It calls the documentary one of Moore's most powerful since Fahrenheit 9/11 and praises its timely call to action ahead of the midterms.

The critic sees the film as a mixed indictment of Trump that is strongest when focusing on the Flint water crisis and Moore's advocacy style from earlier works. It is described as cluttered and free-wheeling but gripping, serving as a clarion call for its audience.

The critic sees the film as a necessary intervention that holds the audience accountable for complicity in the political system rather than just attacking Trump. It singles out the hopeful focus on young activists and Parkland survivors for praise, calling it Moore's most engaging doc in years.

The critic questions Moore's relevance in the current noisy political climate but finds the film a timely return to form and a committed call to arms. It singles out the unsparing examination of Trump's rise and Moore's classic style for praise.

The critic describes the film as bigger, messier, and more sprawling than anticipated, shifting focus from Trump to a broader indictment of the American system and a rousing call for citizen action. It singles out extended segments on Flint, West Virginia teachers, and Parkland students as the emotional core while noting the enthusiastic TIFF audience response.

The critic views it as an interesting and at times hugely entertaining narrative that preaches to the converted and fails to bring anything tangible to the discourse or fully expose certain issues, while praising its moving sections on Parkland survivors and moments uniting people against greed, racism and inequality.

The critic views the film as agitprop that mixes strong emotional segments on the Flint water crisis with weak, overly simplistic political arguments. It praises Moore's ability to elicit responses but complains about the lack of concrete ideas for change.