Washington Post: "In 'South of the Border,' Stone makes no pretense of objectivity."
New York Times: "'South of the Border' is a valuable, if naïvely idealistic, introductory tutorial on a significant international trend."
Forbes: (Not shocking) "a bit of agitprop with only an ideological payoff likely for the lefty auteur and his writers, Tariq Ali and Mark Weisbrot."
Although The Times also notes that "There are no serious interviews with the poor to determine how everyday lives have changed under these socialist governments, and there is no mention of the human rights abuses in Venezuela reported by Amnesty International."
NPR is less harsh on content but doesn't praise Stone heavily for his filmmaking style:
"Say what you will about political bias — and it's certainly fair to accuse Stone of filming Latin American leaders through rose-colored lenses — the portrait he paints of the contemporary social movement known as the Bolivarian Revolution (after Simon Bolivar's 19th century struggle to free Latin America from Spanish rule) isn't giddy or simple-minded."
It's worth pointing out in the sake of fairness that I've listed reviews of major US media outlets, the ones that Stone attacks in his film as willfully portraying an inaccurate, easy-to-consume picture of Chavez the tyrant lurking "South of the Border."
46 on Metacritic, btw.
Image Source: New York Times
Online Sources: Foreign Policy, New York Times, NPR, Washington Post, Forbes, Metacritic