The Big One (1998)

Simply Perfect

Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

The Big One fails on the two levels it aims at: political consciousness and entertainment.First the entertainment level. Michael Moore's "documentaries" are meant as half entertaining, half political much like his show "TV-nation" (BBC). The entertainment often takes the shape of embarrassing his enemies in front of the camera by confronting them with suggestive questions for which they are usually unprepared. This can be funny but a lot of times I just felt sorry for the people who were confronted by his blunt questions. Often it was like the Charlton Heston visit in Bowling for Columbine which was the weakest part of that documentary. I thought the majority of the DVD was boring and lacked structure. The first half I was wondering, what is this about? The Big One was all centered around Michael Moore's book tour, promoting his latest book. Who even cares about that stuff? I wanted to see him confront high-level executives from large corporations or government officials, with sharp questions, but I got to see none of what I had hoped for. The other level The Big One fails at is political consciousness. It lacks depth. The corporate management people he visits are always lower management (except for the Nike official), who don't have any authority on strategic decisions that force their plants to shut down locally and move to cheaper countries. Despite that, these people show themselves quite capable of defending their company's policies with rational arguments: they need to stay competitive in their market to survive, they are not charity after all. But Moore never really listened to them or even thought about their arguments. He just tried to keep waltzing over them repeating cheap suggestive questions like "how do you live with yourself" etcetera. Moore did have a point criticizing the government paying welfare to companies but failed to focus on one simple subject. He could have focused on just that one issue, or the Nike factories in Asia, or the factories that were shut down. That way he might have been able to put the finger on the REAL problems in all those cases, but I doubt it. I'll give it my two cents:-The main problem with companies that downsize is that they don't hurt the people that can take the biggest blows because they make the most money in those companies: the UPPER MANAGEMENT.-The other problem with companies that fire their people despite profits is they usually communicate badly and don't give enough time and compensation to the people that are sacked. The "right to have a job" is an outdated communist notion. Let these people look for a new job, just help them finding it!-Having factories in third world countries, even when they have a dictatorial regime, is NOT "unethical". These people would be off much worse without those factories. In fact in those countries most people are jealous of the people that do work in Nike factories because they can help support entire families. The people that have to get by with their own farms and other "native" means of making money have far more miserable lives and have to work even harder. The only thing that I would agree on is that Nike should hire more people and let them work less hours (keeping their costs the same), while improving working conditions.If you like Michael Moore: Fahrenheit 911 and particularly Bowling for Columbine are far superior. Despite their flaws (often presenting fiction as fact) they are entertaining and serve a purpose in broadening people's perspectives by displaying a different view on the subjects of terrorism and violence than most of the media.

The Big One remains my favorite Moore film yet, even though I found `Bowling for Columbine' to be more `well-made' (i.e. – slick). What I find The Big One, a documentary shot during Moore's book tour for `Downsize this' has is more humor, more heart and less histrionics. While Moore continues to champion for the little guy against big corporation who have wronged them in the name of Capitalism, there is none of the preachiness that can be interpreted within Bowling for Columbine. Instead, Moore follows in the tradition of `TV Nation' and his eventual brilliant Bravo/BBC series `The Awful Truth' and makes his point with some humor for good measure. It doesn't surprise me that Bowling for Columbine was more criticized and hit America's radar screens a lot heavier than this relatively unknown film. The Big One's content and crusades against Corporate America are less inflammatory than addressing gun control and attacking Moses. Rather, The Big One comes across as Michael Moore `light.' Despite the fact that I relish in watching Moore take on the guys that I can't, I still enjoyed this one the most so far, probably because in my opinion, Moore's intelligence and heart are captured best in this film above any other and remind us that he is someone who isn't just going for publicity, but is also someone who really does do what he does to help people.--Shelly

Michael Moore's second film is a little more accessible than the original, but at least he takes on the private sector with the same vigor he showed in the first film. Often times dragging, the big moment in this film is Moore's interview with NIKE founder Phil Knight. Not only is this part shocking, it redeems a film that lags in some spots. A solid follow-up to Moore's first film and his television show TV Nation.

Michael Moore's latest documentary focuses on his new book and more assorted attacks on corporations which he deems as inferior or greedy. Although it is somewhat interesting, it is nowhere near as important as 1989's "Roger & Me", which was strongly valid in argument. (When GM CEO Roger Smith laid off thousands of workers just for cheap labor in Mexico, it was probably one of the most dispicable things anyone with four limbs has done.) But the bad timing is nowhere near severe as the hypocrisy. For example, shortly before the messy 2000 Presidential election, Salon magazine surfaced Ralph Nader's 1999 tax returns revealing that he owns a mutual fund with stocks in Walmart, The Gap and an affiliate of Halliburton Oil (all of which came under fierce attack from the Moore/Nader team) This crusade courtesy of the Naderites may have erroneously lead to the wrong guy being in office, and the Moore/Nader team have taken no responsiblity to their actions, or the hypocrisy which surfaced when the Green Party candidate's stocks appeared. This just goes to show that investigative commentary can lead to contradictions and often diminish credibility in argument.