Editing Celsius 41.11 (section)

==Response==
In common with ''Fahrenheit 9/11'', ''Celsius 41.11'' proved to be a contentious film.<ref name=BBC/> It received 42 out of 100 on [[Metacritic]] based on 11 reviews<ref name=Metacritic/> and an 11% rotten rating on [[Rotten Tomatoes]] based on 18 reviews.<ref name=Rotten/> The [[BBC]] described the newspaper critics response as "irk[ed]" commenting that "many newspapers, while not disagreeing with the facts of the documentary, have not been impressed with it as a piece of entertainment."<ref name=BBC/>

Reviewers generally agreed that the film would appeal most to those who were already convinced supporters of George W. Bush and was unlikely to change the views of those who opposed him. Kerry Lengel of ''[[The Arizona Republic]]'' said, "''Celsius 41.11'' isn't going to change many minds."<ref name=Arizona/>  Michael Graham of the ''National Review'' said, "I just don’t think there are a lot of people left willing to be persuaded. Some conservatives will watch and say “See, I told you so!” Liberals will watch and dismiss the arguments as partisan. Undecideds…well, they won’t watch it."<ref name=NatRev/> Desson Thompson of ''[[The Washington Post]]'' and Robert Koehler of ''[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]'' said that the film preached to the choir.<ref name=Variety/><ref name=WashPost/> Some reviewers said that ''Celsius 41.11'' felt like a campaign ad for Bush<ref name=Variety/><ref name=VillageVoice/><ref name=Salon/> or, possibly, an attack ad against Kerry.<ref name=WashPost2/>

===Comparisons to ''Fahrenheit 9/11''===
[[Michael Graham (radio personality)|Michael Graham]] of the ''National Review'' praised ''Celsius 41.11'' saying that "unlike Michael Moore’s film, ''Celsius 41.11'' is an actual documentary" and that the film was "far more logical" than ''Fahrenheit 9/11''.<ref name=NatRev/> However, Graham also added that "41.11 isn't nearly as emotionally powerful as Moore’s film",<ref name=NatRev/> a view with which Duane Dudek of the ''[[Milwaukee Journal Sentinel]]'' concurred.<ref name=Milwaukee/> Philip Kennicott of ''The Washington Post'' described Moore's film, ''Fahrenheit 9/11'', as "well crafted" believing that, while Moore had angered the targets of his film he "went the extra mile, creatively, to do so". In contrast Kennicott described ''Celsius 41.11'' as "dull, lazy and inconsistent".<ref name=WashPost2/> ''Celsius 41.11'' was criticised for sharing some of what reviewers perceived to be the flaws of ''Fahrenheit 9/11''. For example, Desson Thomson of ''The Washington Post'' (although generally positive about ''Celsius 41.11'') said that in the case of both films "the spleen factor could poison small children".<ref name=WashPost/> Writing in the ''Milwaukee Journal Sentinel'' Duane Dudek said, "as with ''Fahrenheit 9/11'', it's impossible to separate the facts and analysis presented in ''Celsius'' from the filmmakers' intent."<ref name=Milwaukee/> However, ''Celsius 41.11'' was additionally criticised for failing to share what the reviewers perceived to be virtues of Moore's film. Robert Koelher of ''Variety'' said that "..."Celsius" shares Moore's blatant [[Agitprop|agit-prop]] but none of his humor or entertainment sense".<ref name=Variety/> Similarly, Michael Atikinson of ''[[The Village Voice]]'' regarded the film as "deliberately ap[ing] Michael Moore's modus operandi, minus the humor or any sense of sympathy for real people."<ref name=VillageVoice/> Wesley Morris of ''[[The Boston Globe]]'' concluded that "..."Celsius 41.11" doesn't have anything on anyone as pointedly damning or funny as some of what Moore shows of the current Bush administration."<ref name=Boston/>

===Comparison to ''FahrenHYPE 9/11''===
[[Manohla Dargis]] of ''[[The New York Times]]'' compared ''Celsius 41.11'' unfavorably to ''[[FahrenHYPE 9/11]]'', another documentary film aimed at rebutting the arguments made by Michael Moore. While Dargis felt that the purpose of ''FahrenHYPE 9/11'' was the detailed rebutting of the arguments put forward by Moore's film, she felt that the purpose of ''Celsius 41.11''  was to "make you afraid — very, very afraid". She stated that ''Celsius 41.11'' "presents a vision of the world verging on the apocalyptic". Dargis concluded "finally [the film is] interesting only because it represents another unconvincing effort on the part of conservatives to mount a viable critique of Mr. Moore."<ref name=NYTimes/>

===Criticisms of the production===
''The Boston Globe'' and ''The New York Times'' both questioned the reliability of some of the individuals interviewed. The ''Globe'' called the experts "occasionally dubious" saying that they "offer[ed] drive-by disses and plain untruths".<ref name=Boston/> Manohla Dargis of ''The New York Times'' was particularly critical of the film for not detailing the extent of [[Mansoor Ijaz]]'s investments in the Middle East or "just how intimately familiar he was with the nonsense of the Clinton White House".<ref name=NYTimes/> Both publications, however, spoke well of the contributions of [[Fred Thompson]] with ''The New York Times'' calling him "thoughtful"<ref name=NYTimes/> and the ''Globe'' adding that "with his level head and reflective words, [he] makes partisanship seem dignified."<ref name=Boston/>

Several critics felt that insufficient time had been spent on the film. Maitland McDonagh of ''[[TV Guide]]'' said that it "bears all the hallmarks of having been thrown together in a heated rush",<ref name=TVGuide/> a criticism echoed by Robert Koehler of ''Variety'' who called the editing "choppy".<ref name=Variety/> Wesley Morris of ''The Boston Globe'' described the film as "a seemingly last-minute series of talking heads and montages".<ref name=Boston/> A number of critics compared the style of the film to that of a PowerPoint presentation.<ref name=NYTimes/><ref name=Milwaukee/><ref name=Boston/><ref name=Dispatch/>

===Overall response to the film===
Opinions of the arguments advanced by the film varied widely. Michael Graham of the ''National Review'' said that the movie "does a solid job of logically confronting the (for lack of a better word) arguments Moore makes against Bush".<ref name=NatRev/> Desson Thomson of ''The Washington Post'' concluded that "there are some very thought-provoking points, and the movie deserves a balanced listening-to."<ref name=WashPost/> Tom Keogh of the ''Seattle Times'' felt that the arguments presented were "lightly persuasive" but that "there is nothing new here or usefully evenhanded." He eventually concluded, "It's not that Moore's film doesn't deserve an argument. But it does deserve a more thoughtful one."<ref name=Seattle/> Duane Dudek said that "some of the film's charges are troubling", although he went on to note that "the film's arguments are the [[Echo chamber (media)|echo chamber]] opposite of Mr. Moore's".<ref name=Milwaukee/> Wesley Morris of ''The Boston Globe'' called the film "a crude polemical mush".<ref name=Boston/> Maitland McDonagh of ''TV Guide'' called it a "shrill, repetitive screed"<ref name=TVGuide/> [[Stephanie Zacharek]] of ''[[Salon.com]]'' said it is "so bad it's almost like performance art".<ref name=Salon/> Michael Atkinson of ''The Village Voice'' wrote a particularly stinging review calling the movie a "desperate [[Four wall distribution|four-waller]]" and "a cut-rate vision of flabby white men defending their own bloodthirsty opportunism".<ref name=VillageVoice/> Selecting it as one of the five worst films of 2004, Matthew Lucas of [[The Dispatch (Lexington)|''The Dispatch'' (Lexington)]] said of the film, "Displaying nowhere near the artistic flair that Michael Moore possesses, this film shows you that no matter what your political affiliations are, Moore makes a much more entertaining case."<ref name=Dispatch/>