Critics frequently compared the style to that of a PowerPoint presentation with some adding that the speed with which the film had been produced was evident in the quality of the finished product.
[1] The organization's president, David Bossie, was surprised at the success of Fahrenheit 9/11 both at the box office and in rallying support for the Democratic political position.
[1] Celsius 41.11 took six weeks to make[4] and includes a song, "John Boy", specially written and performed by the country music singer Larry Gatlin.
[6] The film then moves to clips of the demonstrations against the war in Iraq, including an interview with an unnamed protester who says she would be happy to live under a dictatorship if the ruler provided universal health care.
[6] The film alleges that a feud between the White House and the CIA resulted in Bill Clinton refusing to broker the surrender of Osama bin Laden in 1997.
Lionel Chetwynd suggested that the low audiences were due to the film's late release date with respect to the 2004 United States Presidential campaign adding that opening on the same weekend as the World Series may have compounded the problem.
[16] However, Graham also added that "41.11 isn't nearly as emotionally powerful as Moore’s film",[16] a view with which Duane Dudek of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel concurred.
For example, Desson Thomson of The Washington Post (although generally positive about Celsius 41.11) said that in the case of both films "the spleen factor could poison small children".
[17] Writing in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Duane Dudek said, "as with Fahrenheit 9/11, it's impossible to separate the facts and analysis presented in Celsius from the filmmakers' intent.
"[18] Wesley Morris of The Boston Globe concluded that "..."Celsius 41.11" doesn't have anything on anyone as pointedly damning or funny as some of what Moore shows of the current Bush administration.
"[21] Manohla Dargis of The New York Times compared Celsius 41.11 unfavorably to FahrenHYPE 9/11, another documentary film aimed at rebutting the arguments made by Michael Moore.
Dargis concluded "finally [the film is] interesting only because it represents another unconvincing effort on the part of conservatives to mount a viable critique of Mr.
[21] Manohla Dargis of The New York Times was particularly critical of the film for not detailing the extent of Mansoor Ijaz's investments in the Middle East or "just how intimately familiar he was with the nonsense of the Clinton White House".
[6] Both publications, however, spoke well of the contributions of Fred Thompson with The New York Times calling him "thoughtful"[6] and the Globe adding that "with his level head and reflective words, [he] makes partisanship seem dignified.
Maitland McDonagh of TV Guide said that it "bears all the hallmarks of having been thrown together in a heated rush",[22] a criticism echoed by Robert Koehler of Variety who called the editing "choppy".
Michael Graham of the National Review said that the movie "does a solid job of logically confronting the (for lack of a better word) arguments Moore makes against Bush".
[19] Michael Atkinson of The Village Voice wrote a particularly stinging review calling the movie a "desperate four-waller" and "a cut-rate vision of flabby white men defending their own bloodthirsty opportunism".