I hear that there was a reasonably pro-Bush documentary awhile back (Travels with George) that didn't turn out to be the "get Bush" slam that so many liberals were hoping for. I have not seen the film and the director's mom is a liberal reporter I think so I am just going on the words of other people that it is "pro-Bush". How about saying that one was "moderate Bush" and Moore's film is rabidly "anti Bush"? A "pro Bush" film should make no mistakes in its presentation of what the perspective is, we would clearly know that it is "pro Bush".
Maybe moreso than Ebert asking "where is the pro Bush film" he should be asking "where is the anti Kerry film"? I'm sure that the veterans groups have a lot of dirt to spill. Heck, where are the revival screenings at colleges and museums of Winter Soldier showing Kerry's post-service Vietnam War activities? How soon after Kerry is elected will these become "fair game" for the liberal institutions to show us? Check online, you will find copies of this film at a lot of college libraries.
For someone who makes so much of his few months in Vietnam, we certainly aren't hearing much about "what he did during the war".
It was Alexandra Pelosi's Journeys with George, about the 2000 campaign (her mother is Nancy Pelosi.) I haven't seen it, but fellow freepers have said a few good things about the movie. I could not find a review of the movie by Ebert.
Anyhow, for Ebert to ask where the pro-Bush films are is quite laughable. Think about it -- while Ebert is carrying Moore's water here about getting this film out, one of the biggest stars in Hollywood had to finance his own movie that turned out to gross $400 million. Ebert did give that movie a good review, but he doesn't seem to connect the dots that if Mel Gibson couldn't get a film about Jesus made without paying for it himself, it's highly unlikely that anybody could make a pro-Bush (or anti-Kerry) film and get Hollywood's help.