Critics in the UK have given a mixed response to Fahrenheit 9/11.
Moore's film has played to mixed political reaction in the US
The film, which goes on general release in Britain on Friday, appears to have divided newspaper reviewers in the same way as it has split opinion in the US.
Christopher Tookey in the Daily Mail slated the film, calling Moore "contemptible" and his film "lazy, incoherent, foolish and dull".
He wrote: "There's little logical structure to his rambling arguments; he has no revelations to make; and much of the footage is already in the public domain.
"His most damaging assertions are either unsubstantiated or untrue - often both.
"...It also makes for monotony and a feeling that the truth is being, at the very least, over-simplified.
"Sitting through the film is almost as depressing as listening to the people who are taken in by it."
By contrast, The Mirror called the film "remarkable", adding that Moore was "the most significant documentary maker of his generation".
It said the movie let itself down by showing only one side of the argument, but that Bush had provided Moore with "so much deeply embarrassing material".
The Sun said Moore had made "an entertaining film" and praised his film-making skills, making only minor criticisms of a couple of content areas.
The Daily Express gave it a five-star rating, describing it as a "powerful, state-of-the-nation report" and a "passionate assault on the failings of the Bush administration".
It was "as relentless as a hungry dog in search of a juicy bone", employing "quirky detail and savage humour that makes for fascinating viewing".
In the Daily Telegraph, Sukhdev Sandhu said it offered "little in the way of combustible new information".
"His documentary is crude and vastly uneven, but in its Britney-baiting, Shiny Happy People-sampling glee, it embodies the vulgar, dynamic energy of much that is best about American culture", he said.
Hailing it as "incendiary film-making", Peter Bradshaw in The Guardian called the film "emotional, manipulative, brilliant and brazen".
"Undoubtedly (it) has evasions and omissions that are exasperating... but Moore's style does not seem to me to be more tendentious than any other sort of campaigning journalism," he wrote.