If you happen to already be of the opinion that Michael Moore is not the lovable man of the people he appears to be, then this news probably won't be changing your feelings about him anytime soon. One month after Moore offered up free downloads of his latest documentary, Slacker Uprising, Torrent Freak reports that "In a letter dated September 25th, lawyers representing Westside Productions LLC, owner of the Slacker Uprising copyright sprang into action, demanding the removal of a torrent linking to the movie from any and all international sites."

Moore's latest was compiled of footage from his recent college tour -- a tour in which he traveled to colleges in the so-called 'swing states' to speak to students in an attempt to energize young voters. The film is a re-edited version of Moore's 2007 doc, Captain Mike Across America, which screened at TIFF in '07 to lukewarm reviews. Moore initially said the reason behind the free download was both a reward to fans who have supported him over the years, as well as a way to get out his message prior to the upcoming presidential election.

The download was offered only to those living in the US and Canada, but it didn't take long for the film to start popping up on numerous torrent sites outside of North America. Moore's lawyers inexplicably sent their letter to the DNS service (easyDNS) of one of the international sites pirating the flick, which is not required to comply with US law. A co-founder of easyDNS responded to Moore's lawyers with the following: "...Anybody with half a clue knows the net doesn't work like that. In any case, I've sent them our standard 'we're not the web host, we're just the lowly DNS service', but I did point out this seeming contradiction in Michael Moore's message vs. his lawyer's actions."

So while Moore may have every right to control how his film is distributed, maybe someone should have explained that old saying about the internet and pee in a pool.

The latest documentary from Michael Moore will be released exclusively online beginning September 23. FOR FREE. Yes, that's right, and it's a dream come true for both Moore's fans and those millions of anti-fans that despise him. For the followers it's obviously good because they don't have to wait very long to own a copy of the movie. For the enemies it's good because they can check out the movie without giving the man a dime. Or be witnessed buying a ticket.

The 97-minute film is titled Slacker Uprising (formerly Captain Mike Across America), and it's about Moore's 62-city tour during the 2004 presidential election, as he attempts to rally young "slacker" voters. The premise doesn't sound quite as intriguing as his last election-year release, Fahrenheit 9/11 -- which may be part of the reason this one is not receiving a proper theatrical opening. But Moore also says this method is particularly to thank his fans as the 20th anniversary of Roger & Me approaches.

You may have heard that spoof veteran David Zucker's newest project, An American Carol, is a takedown of Michael Moore. You can now have a look at the trailer, online at Yahoo!. And then you can riddle me this: Does An American Carol look like a clever parody of Moore's documentaries, or just a partisan attack on the filmmaker? Or, put another way, is the clip of Bill O'Reilly slapping around Kevin Farley's "Michael Malone" a commentary on the rivalry between the two, or right-wing wish fulfillment? One thing to note before answering is that O'Reilly appears in the film himself, while Moore does not.

Moore is obviously fair game; I've enjoyed his films, and sympathize with (some of) his politics, but I'd eagerly watch a skillful spoof of the pudgy, faux-working-class provocateur. I think parts of the trailer are pretty funny ("Here I am on the island paradise Cuba!"). But if the point is just to pile on the guy, with a rah-rah patriotic, stop-hating-America message at the end, then I'm significantly less interested.

The thing is, the trailer really doesn't make clear what's going on. On one hand, prominent conservatives like O'Reilly and James Woods appear to deliver literal and figurative blows. On the other, "Michael Malone" gets accused of being a slaveowner, which sounds more like a parody of conservative attacks on Moore than of Moore himself. And is Trace Adkins poking fun at his image here, or is he for real?

We know that Zucker is himself conservative, and that the movie is political -- which is fine. But is it political in an incisive, worthwhile way, or in the brainless beatdown mode of Ann Coulter et al? What do you think?

It's one thing to disagree with somebody. It's another to censor them. That's the central problem with the United Kingdom's decision to condemn The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary by Martin Durkin arguing exactly what its title implies.

A response to the global warming awareness popularized by An Inconvenient Truth, Durkin's film was considered disingenuous from the perspective of British broadcast regulator Ofek, which ruled that Channel 4 violated the country's boundaries of impartiality when it broadcast the movie last year. Apparently, Durkin manipulated his subjects in order make them verify his questionable stance that global warming was a conspiracy.

Now, I find it hard to buy into any movie that puts its ugly one-sided argument right in the title, but there's something to be said for freedom of speech in this case. What's the U.K. doing with these nonsensical impartiality laws? Since when do documentaries have to remain objective and avoid agendas? Even your average PBS program takes a side. The ruling suggests a totalitarian mindset where art is subjected to a group think mentality, and that's scary. What if The Dark Knight were banned for condoning torture? Maybe that's an extreme comparison, so try this one: What does Ofcom think about Michael Moore?

Call it performance art, savage prank behavior or audacious social satire. Call it whatever you want, but there's no question Sacha Baron Cohen is at it again. As Erik reported back in March, the Borat star began surfacing as his Bruno alter-ego in a variety of absurd situations likely intended for the movie starring the effeminate European character. Wearing chains at a Kansas church? Check. Weirding out Ben Affleck? Check. Airport dancing? Yep. Now, bizarre reports of a cage match in Arkansas, where attendees paid for admission expecting to watch a fight and instead witnessed two men get naked and lock lips, suggests Cohen is still at it, more than three months down the line. Not only that, but he appears to have pulled the stunt twice: First on June 5 at the Four States Fair Grounds in Texarkana, then again at Fort Smith's convention center, where a character named "Straight Dave" apparently selected a planted audience member to challenge him.

Whether or not you agree with Cohen's brash style -- he claims to take inspiration from Michael Moore's stunts --
the actor definitely constructs his gags with very specific ideas in mind. Borat took a stab at American stereotypes of foreign cultures, but Bruno looks like it's geared more towards attacking homophobia -- specifically as it manifests in middle America. However, it's hard to say whether or not such excessive spectacles will manage to correct misinformed perspectives or reinforce them.

For everyone who's ever watched a bad movie and thought, "If this is what they produced, I wonder what they threw away?," the Village Voice has found an answer. In an amusing and fascinating article posted today, reporter Tony Ortega says he and a buddy accidentally stumbled across a recycling bin full of paper from Harvey Weinstein's office -- and not just from the office, but from Weinstein's own desk. Ortega proceeds to tell us all the juicy details he learned about the daily work of a movie mogul.

So what is Harvey Weinstein throwing away? Lots of copies of screenplays, naturally, as well as daily sheets (prepared by an assistant, no doubt) listing phone calls he needs to make or return. As you might imagine, the roster of people seeking Weinstein's attention is staggering, with actors, agents, lawyers, producers, and reporters all vying for his time. Michael Moore called him on April 25 and Weinstein didn't return the call for over a month. I'd say being able to ignore Michael Moore for a full month is the very definition of power.

Strangely, Weinstein's e-mails are printed out for him to peruse. (Maybe he gets eye strain from looking at a computer monitor? Maybe he just likes wasting paper?) There were some pretty interesting tidbits in the copies he tossed, including lots of stuff about the Weinstein-produced Project Runway, if you're into that.

If you read any part of that draft of W., Oliver Stone's Bush biopic, which hit the net a few months back, you might think it ludicrous for the film to be likened to Shakespeare. But Stone himself has done so, as part of an L.A. Times set visit interview. Lumped in with a quote in which Stone also contrasts the project to the work of Michael Moore, the Oscar-winning director's statement is in response to the film's level of seriousness: "W. isn't an overly serious movie, but it is a serious subject. It's a Shakespearean story. . . . I see it as the strange unfolding of American democracy as I have lived it."

The Times piece, which reports from Shreveport, Louisiana, where Independence Bowl stadium fills in for the Texas Rangers' Arlington Stadium, is very filling for anyone with an appetite for more W. updates. Included are a description of and dialogue from a scene between George W. Bush (Josh Brolin) and George H.W. Bush (James Cromwell), details on a "baseball-oriented fantasy" sequence, Brolin stating that he's not out to do a SNL-style caricature and admitting his initial hesitance to take on the role, a general overview of the project's coming together, and, best of all, a picture (seen, cropped, above) of Brolin as the future Commander in Chief looking like he's just had the crap beaten out of him. Also a fact I'd somehow never known prior to reading the article: Stone was "briefly a Yale classmate of Bush."

Over at indieWIRE, Anthony Kaufman has an excellent piece up on Michael Moore's proposal that theaters across America designate a night each week at "Doc Night at the Movies." Citing the dismal box office returns for docs in the past year (only Moore's Sicko, No End in Sight, and In the Shadow of the Moon grossed over a million dollars), Kaufman seems intrigued by Moore's proposal, if somewhat skeptical it would work. Kaufman raises some interesting points about the feasibility of a "Doc Night," including these questions:

• Who will select the documentaries that are chosen? And on what basis will they be chosen?
• Will the documentaries already have distributors or not? Or will there be a mix?
• Will participating filmmakers pay a fee? Or conversely, will they get a split of the ticket sales?
• If most multiplexes are film-only, and the majority of documentaries are finished in a high-definition digital format, how will they be screened? Will expensive projectors be rented? Or will filmmakers need to pay for costly film transfers?

... and perhaps the most interesting question: Will Moore's next film also go out through the program?

Back in January, we wrote about director AJ Schnack's (Kurt Cobain: About a Son) efforts to create awards for non-fiction filmmaking that would be ... somewhat more relevant than the Academy Awards. Back when the Oscar shortlist for docs came out, Schnack wrote an angry diatribe about the process and the films selected (and, more importantly, those that were not selected) that echoed the sentiments of many of us who write about, or make, documentary films.

Although I'm not at all displeased that Alex Gibney ultimately won the Oscar for Taxi to the Dark Side, and would have been equally happy if No End in Sight had won, there were some glaring omissions in the Oscar shortlist that were truly appalling, most notably In the Shadow of the Moon and King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters.

Documentaries and foreign films, for the most part, are thrown into a cinematic void in North America. If not on PBS, or featuring Al Gore or Michael Moore, the docs usually don't get seen. The same goes for films that have, gasp!, subtitles. Both are pretty unfortunate, considering the amazing selections that each offers. Yet even with breakthroughs like An Inconvenient Truth, Amelie, or The Passion of the Christ, documentaries and foreign films hit a very low ceiling when it comes to mainstream viewing.

And this is really ticking off Michael Moore. The Hollywood Reporter has posted that the documentary filmmaker is "mad as hell" about the fact that both types of films are shut out of theaters, and he is itching to change it. Moore says: "My new year's resolution is to sit down with the heads of exhibition chains and have them devote one screen in their multiplexes to nonfiction and foreign films." (Another option they're looking into: one night a week, like the usually-weak Monday nights.) He continues: "People want to see documentaries, but there's a disconnect between that desire and the exhibitors out there. We're not asking for charity. This could be on the 15th screen of a multiplex that would otherwise have the sixth showing of the new Harry Potter movie. Some of these films make $200 or $300 per screen."

I would love to see this happen. However, I worry about what happens after the initial rush. It's so very easy to say, if the starting box office take is week, that it wouldn't work. Hopefully, they'll realize that it takes some time to foster. Many people might shun the possibility, but then there are those who will take a chance, fall in love with what they see, and not only bring their friends, but have their eyes opened to two huge, and wonderful areas of cinema. Then again, I'm wishing big, in hopes that original films can start thriving instead of the continual barrage of remakes.