I encourage people to go see it simply because it's worth talking about. Obviously, a lot of people in the blue column are going to go see it no matter what, but why should republicans go see it? It's a known fact that there are a lot of anti-moore talking points out there, and that they get recited everywhere, including on this board, by people who've never seen a Michael Moore film. (And yeah, some Moore bashers have seen Bowling for Columbine, or whatever; you guys aren't the point)
So, if you bash Moore, but have never seen one of his films, I suggest you check it out. (Same goes for FOX News bashers who never watch FNC, or whatever.)
I saw it, and enjoyed it, though he does cover a lot of ground. Some points get simplified, or simply implied without much explanation.
I am probably going to go check out
House of Bush, House of Saud, as I think it might shed some light on the spectacularly complex relationship between GHWB, GWB, the USA, big business, Saudia Arabia, the Saudi royal family, and Saudi oil industry. Should make for some solid summer reading.
My biggest gripe with the movie is that although it makes a case that Bush is a dishonest, lazy rich kid with good connections who got lucky, it doesn't draw out impacts and such. Though it connects Bush to the death and destruction in Iraq, it's left up to the viewer to make the big picture judgement. He never says: "Bush is unfit for the presidency, and must go." He delivers anecdotes and images of Bush that make him look foolish or inept, with a wink and a grin.
In other words, the film is powerful, but in some ways indirect and imperfect.