Good cast. And airing it during the next election will be interesting.

zz9 | September 25, 22:01 CET

Wow, what an amazing cast. Tom Wilkinson as well.

NotaViking | September 25, 22:18 CET

Wow! What a great cast, and of course this will cause a lot of controversy and interest. This is so great!

embers | September 25, 22:19 CET

That was actually a snotty reporter woman. But yeah, yay for Danny Strong and pfft to her.

dreamlogic | September 25, 22:42 CET

thanks for the tip, dreamlogic! going to edit it right now...

ladygrey | September 25, 22:45 CET

That is so great for Danny! Yay!!

Harmalicious | September 26, 00:20 CET

Oh my God, that is a great cast.

UnpluggedCrazy | September 26, 00:22 CET

Pulled the "take that, snotty reporter woman" bit. As Simon would say, play the ball, not the (wo)man.

zeitgeist | September 26, 01:06 CET

Just have to eb curious from this particular room of the far right wing how fair Danny and the director have been , fair being opposed to partisan in this case. That's not a criticism in advance but an honest question.

DaddyCatALSO | September 26, 03:08 CET

That's not a criticism in advance but an honest question.

And a question no one can answer, except Danny Strong himself - who would at least show that he did a hell of a lot of research into the situation before writing the script.

Of course, the film likely is biased... toward the truth of the matter. Many mistakes were made at that election on numerous levels. And the Supreme Court elected George W Bush President. As long as he sticks with the truth, there's enough drama there.

crossoverman | September 26, 13:13 CET

With the benefit of hindsight, I don't see how even the most right wing American voter can doubt that something untoward happened during the 2000 election, whether by malice aforethought or simple incompetence we may never know.

That said, the Democrat response wasn't exactly geared towards a non-partisan resolution to the issue, they seemed more concerned with scoring points than finding the truth.

(and the whole debacle was as good an argument for minimising the use of computers in ballots as i've seen to date)

Great cast, if Danny et al can avoid the temptation to demonise the "other side" and just let the story tell itself it should be good drama. If though, a la Michael Moore, they can't resist the urge to "embroider" then I guess they'll end up fodder for the right wing response and an opportunity will have been wasted. Only time will tell.

Saje | September 26, 14:50 CET

That's a better cast than most movies.

bivith | September 26, 15:43 CET

Here's hoping they can resist the urge to 'embroider' as Saje says :)

zeitgeist | September 26, 15:51 CET

as a states'-rights type, I had my own misgivings...somebody at "another website" mentioned the Florida Supreme Court used Federal law in their reasoning making aFederal appeal appropriate. "Yah vell."

DaddyCatALSO | September 26, 16:26 CET

Should I feel ashamed to thoroughly enjoy Michael Moore's embroidery?

UnpluggedCrazy | September 26, 17:54 CET

I don't think you need feel ashamed about enjoying it UnpluggedCrazy so long as you're aware he's, to say the least, economical with the truth when it suits him.

My problem with that is a) it provides the right with plenty of (legitimate) ammunition to shoot down his (often worthwhile and also legitimate) claims as well as allowing them to claim to be on the side of truth as opposed to those woolley headed liberals with their spin, bias and rose coloured spectacles and b) it means he ends up preaching almost solely to the converted i.e. if I was a moderate right-winger and watched a less sensationalist presentation of almost all his ideas then i'd be given more pause for thought.

As it is, his films are entertaining and give those on the left plenty of opportunities for mutual back-slapping and self-congratulation without really reaching out to the people that need convincing or affecting much in the way of real change (all just IMO obviously).

Saje | September 26, 18:16 CET