It has a lot of information; but it falls short in backing up many of its premises. The one that comes to mind is whether people actually have to line up in Canada for health care as they do for a movie in this country. These accusations sound like sound bites; and sound bites usually lack substance. As far as the impact of Michael Moore's other movies: what is the basis for the writer's judgement that they lacked impact? Deciding to ban guns would have been an extreme reaction to "Bowling for Columbine". The impact of that movie was a more subtle shift in attitudes about guns in general; and that shift, whether it is a fact is not backed up by any polls (before and after).