Very well done documentary. It reminded me of a Michael Moore documentary, but better done and more fair to the opposing viewpoints.
- Moore movies do try to be entertaining/funny, like this one did.
- Moore movies give the guise of looking objectively at a subject and trying to come to a conclusion like this one does. But in reality they come from a specific point of view and with a goal on how he wants the audience to look at the same subject by the end of the film - like this movie does.
- Moore movies try to convince you of the premise through the opposition's own words - like this one did.
The difference being, Moore often had to heavily edit, leave out important information, in some cases flat out lie to his audience, in the hopes of winning them over to his viewpoint. In this movie, the interviewer just kept asking relevant questions and letting those he interviewed do the convincing. Unfortunately for most of them, it was not the view they wanted to share. He let them hang themselves with their own words and arguments. He never attacked, never defended, never deviated from the role of deadpan serious questioner.
He was slightly smug in some of the interviews, you could see it in the way he would smirk sometimes when listening to a response. But he acted professionally. Honestly, I was surprised how easy going he was and thought it must have been quite difficult not to go into attack mode with some of the people interviewed.
As to overall fairness shown to both sides of the argument, from what I understand, they had sent all people interviewed the full list of questions before hand, so each person would be completely prepared with what they would like to say. This eliminates that frustrating "gotcha" moment when someone is completely caught off guard by an unexpected question.