Fahrenheit 9/11

This was the most powerfull movie I have ever seen. I think all americans, no matter what their political affiliation should see this movie. I was wondering if any of you have seen it, and if you have, what you think

 

I have not, but I plan to. How could I resist such a controversial movie?

Care to give a nice little breakdown, Dan? Why was it powerful, and why should all Americans see it?

 

well, im not going to say to much, because its great to see the way moore lays it all out. i also dont want to insite a riot. but a general synopisis i a summary of the breakdown of the bush regiem. yes, i know, sounds like something only liberals would like, but i think anyone can get alot out of this movie.


http://www.fahrenheit911.com/

 

What exactly is it about?
oops nevermind you already answered that question in the post above me.

 

I live about 5 minutes away from some horse ranches. If I ever decide I'd like to see a huge pile of manure, produced by a horses ass, I'll just drive over there and save myself the $9.50

 

I'm confused...are you referring to Michael morre and the movie, or Bush and his Administration? Could be read both ways...of course, both apply.

 

Huge pile of manure = Moore's movies (all of 'em)

Horses ass = Moore himself

 

i won't go into my reasoning as detailed as X and alan, but they said it better than I could say it myself.

 

alanc = republican
therefore
democrats < alanc
however
opinions = cool.
Although, as unsupported opinions -> infinity, my interest in the thread -> 0

So, let's not try and prove choas theory over a simple movie.

 

Well of course it's just my opinion, which I expressed by analogy but clarified when asked. And (also my opinion of course) for someone who supposedly produces documentaries, I believe Moore's films are filled with:
creative "editing"
inaccuracies
misinformation
fiction, and just plain
outright lies

I find that rather hypocritical for someone accusing the Bush administration of
1. lying to 'cover up' the facts about 9/11 and
2. start a war with Iraq
to engage in falsehood himself to make his point.

But I guess truth in movies is in short supply these days...


And I'm not a registered Republican, but I usually do vote that way

 

While I do not support the Bush Administration, I do think that they have taken some unfair knocks lately. As far as Michael Moore, could you think of a better time to release a movie bashing the prez? The movie, and the timing, are dollar driven for sure. Moore has always interjected way too much of his stilted opinion in anything that he has produced, which misinforms and misguides many. I, for one, have no interest in seeing the movie.

 

I'm mildly interested in seeing it, primarily to see how many outright lies I can pick out personally, but I won't waste any money to see it. And refuse to help put any money in his pockets.

As MA touched on lightly, what you see in a Michael Moore film is NOT documentary journalism, it's a one-sided propaganda piece. And he feels no obligation to stay within the boundaries of truth.

While I've already seen bits and pieces of where he's cut & pasted to totally mislead the viewers in a few areas, I haven't seen a thorough critique of this one, so here's a very good critique of Bowling for Columbine, which sadly, won an Oscar as best documentary. It wasn't a documentary. It was fiction.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

 

Ouch! I take it back. It has indeed been critiqued. Quite thoroughly. By a pro in Slate magazine of all places. EXCELLENT reading:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

 

Interesting this should come up today. The Bush-Cheney website is currently showing an ad called " The faces of John Kerry". One of the faces they use is Adolf Hitler.

They just lost my vote.

 

Just watched it. Very tacky. I suspect that one will be pulled in embarrassment quickly.

Of course, linkage of Bush to Hitler has been done by the other side periodically for the last few years, so where are you going to go? Libertarians? (sigh)

 

Wow...that was....wow.

As for Michael Moore...I don't much care for him myself. I've never seen one of his movies, although I've meant to. Just never seems to happen. I suppose I will someday.

 

I have seen the roger and me thing. Refuse the see the columbine one. Absolutly refuse to see this one. Not so much that it is controversial but just because Moore might get so much as one dime that I have worked so hard to get. Somone so against the US policy should not enjoy so many of it's benefits...

 

How's about a link????

 

The "New Web Video" in grey toward the top of the page.

http://www.georgewbush.com/

 

thanks G.T. Gonna go have a look see...

 

It's a crying shame that a man that either wants to remain president, or become president, stoops this low. I really wish that I could say that it was only GWB that's doing this, but both of them are running what I believe to be adolescent campaigns....and then they will smile and tell you they are the best. Did the get the license # of the turnip truck that they think we fell off of? Thanks for the link!!

 

WAIT! That clip of hitler was the clip that the democrats used against Bush. The message of the clip is trying to show how the democrats have been acting towards Bush. The aren't really slandering they are just using their own words against them.

I saw the hitler clip on a Democratic website a month ago. And that speech by Al Gore was at a University about a month or so ago...

George Bush was not comparing Kerry the fairy to hitler.....

 

Here is a link the dems video. They have pulled it but it is still at the memory hole.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/bush-hitler-ads.htm

 

From "The Memory Hole":

 

Crap, missed the three-minute thing.

Also, it wasn't a "Democratic" site, it was a liberal activist organization not affiliated with the Democratic party which ran a contest. The text on your own link proves that. And the winner wasn't either of those videos, so it didn't air on national television. It didn't even get runner-up, or any of the other honorable mentions.

 

LOL are you kidding "powerfull"
if you do any research into the claims made in this thing you will find it is allot of lies.
there is a market for this kind of thing just like UFO clubs.
it is propaganda, and not even as good as the nazi propaganda. made to rally the type of people you find at an anti war protest and when ask them about why they are protesting you get something like "....uh... well... uh.... bush is bad and stuff.... i don't know i am too stoned to think about it right now"

 

/me thwaps self for starting this thread

what did i expect?

 

Don't take it personally, it always gets this way with politics....

For the record I was wrong to say it was a democratic site... They were not affiliated with the democratic party.... bad choice of words.. I was just posting the video to show George wasn't using that clip to compare Kerry to hitler

 

yeah, i dont take any offence to any of this. well, none personally anyway. everyone is entitled to their opinion, and i for one thrououghly enjoy a good political argument. but when its one agains 10 or more, its not so much fun anymore

 

LOL - politics always brings out the worst in people. I will probably NOT see the movie. I have read some of his books and he presents a very slanted , pre -determined point of view. Moore has his own agenda, and cannot be unbiased.

 

Sometimes I feel like Ballmer from Microsoft... Republicans, Republicans, Republicans, Republicans, Republicans......uh ... I mean developers developers....

 

some things I like about micheal moore and some things i don't

he used to have a tv show a while back (dont' think it made it through the first season) but he saved a guys life on the show by harraseing his ins. agency untill they paid for an operation that saved his life, they wouldn't pay for it at first the guy had three kids, was going to die in a year or somthing, and micheal got the ins. agency to pay for by giveing them loads of bad press. so i have to respect that
however......

i am a white male, so i don't really apreciate book titles like "stupid white men"
i know its for shock or whatever and he is white and all that but, and you may think it is dumb i am offended by this, but you know if it was someone other than white on this than everyone would agree with me.

allso in his other "documentry" (i do use the term loosely) "bowling for columbine"
there is a cartoon called something like "a breif history of america" which i find extreamly racest towards whites, not to mention slanted.

he lies allot and makes things up for his idiology. and i allways find it irronic that the people like Micheal moore and Nome Chompsky (sp) make money from a system they are claiming to hate.

 

I got the same impression watching it. The Bush campaign just spliced in part of a moveon.org clip comparing Bush to Hitler. But I think they should pull it, it's too easily misinterpreted.

 

Agreed. Either that or rename it "The Many Faces of Kerry Supporters". I didn't catch on to it last night either. The Bush/Hitler analogy has been brought up over and over again by various Democratic supporters, including George Soros - Kerry's richest supporter, lots of different Hollywood loudmouths, others. Concerning which, this from a stand-up comic that's obviously not a Bush fan:


Comedian Margaret Cho said, in part:

"Despite all of this stupid bull---- that the Republican National Committee, or whatever the f--- they call them, that they were saying that they're all angry about how two of these ads were comparing Bush to Hitler? I mean, out of thousands of submissions, they find two. They're like f---ing looking for Hitler in a haystack. You know? I mean, George Bush is not Hitler. He would be if he f---ing applied himself. (big, extended applause) I mean he just isn't."


Hate and disrespect run deep.

 

Sorry Dan. It's not you we're against, just the underlying lying that Moore is so good at. I like a good political argument too, but it's got to be an honest argument to have any meaning. Moore is a very talented movie maker, who makes compelling films that a LOT of people like and swallow. Heck, he won a bloody OSCAR with a pack of lies. But his work isn't honest.

 

I'll buy it. It can go next to my alien autopsy and Trilateral Commission documentaries in "F" as fiction or fantasy. This why G.W. is going to win. They make up ridiculous lies that no one believes, and any legitimate concerns they have get dismissed also.

 

A socialist hypocrite. (Most of them are.) Multi-millionaire living in a VERY expensive New York apartment, sending his daughter to one of the most expensive private schools. And telling the world that there's no way to win in this oppressive country. HE did it. All by himself. I don't like his methods, but he's definitely a self-made man, or creature, or whatever. By making films that tell us how bad we've got it here. How ironic is that?

 

Make it two. G.T. at least can attest to the fact that I fall into the "liberal" category. Of course, that doesn't mean I'm a non-thinking, crowd-following sheep like some people would have others believe. I guess it's hard for some conservatives to comprehend that people who think differently from them actually do THINK. Which I guess is fair, since it's often hard for me to believe that the same doesn't apply to most conservatives I run across. Take comments about Michael Moore, the majority of which come not from people who have seen his movies, but who have seen the media hype surrounding his movies. Not the message, but the perceived message based on what others have to say.

Although I may have mentioned I haven't ever seen a Michael Moore film...I keep meaning to, but somehow it just never happens. But that means I don't comment on the content of his movies, valid or otherwise, as opposed to a large number of people who tend to jump on the "Michael Moore is a/an (fill in an epithet here)" bandwagon without thinking and/or researching for themselves.

What are "lemmons", xflat, by the way? A misspelling of a fruit, or did you mean to say "lemmings"? I'm confused.

 

Hiya Sarge!

Yeah, we disagree on quite a few issues, but we get along OK.

In most things, the person is more important than the politics. It's quite possible to like somebody and not agree with their politics, or religion, or whatever. We are all (hopefully) more than just our political/religious views.

 

i am a "bleeding heart liberal" so ill stay out of this one. for the record though im not rich, niether do i think im a hypocrite, i do think deeply about issues and politics, and (as far as i know) im not a lemmon either. (giggling quietly)

 

Cool, thanks for the info! I wasn't familiar with her or her work, thus my confusion. It seems every time I turn around someone is comparing liberals to a bunch of lemmings (you know, blindly following the crowd), so I think my confusion was warranted.

I'm assuming you don't see many movies at all then, since by far the vast majority of them are fiction. And since he does say it IS fiction, then why the problem? Made-up stories can't hurt you unless you let them, much like the monster under the bed.

My problem, and the reason I wrote what you can't understand, is people who have never seen his movie, who only know what they've seen in the news or what other people have said on message boards about them, and still form an opinion on them anyway. I cannot form an opinion one way or the other about any of his movies, because I've never seen one. I do not understand people who have never seen one of his movies, but yet still form an opinion of what they are about.

I never said I have a problem with people who have actually seen one of his movies and don't like them. Nor do I have a problem if you do not wish to see one of his movies based on what you perceive it to be (I won't see many movies for the same reason, they don't interest me.) What I said was, people who have never seen his movie need to basically STFU on their content and what they're supposed to mean, because they can't possibly know that without having seen them for themselves. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

 

Sorry LaurieB. Unclear phrasing on my part. I didn't mean to imply that either you or all liberals are hypocrites. Only the rich advocates of socialist policy. They don't live what they preach for the masses, and generally didn't get rich because of living up (or down) to socialist ideals and philosophy.

~~

As far as Moore's work being fiction, he generally talks about it as true, and provable. Indeed, I saw him on an interview just this week stating that he can back up every single thing in his current movie, and he's supposedly hired a team of lawyers to defend what he's done in the movie.

But when push comes to shove, when cornered by a determined interviewer, he WILL admit it's fiction. He has to to avoid slander and libel suits.

And if he publicly portrayed his work as fiction, how on earth did he win an Oscar in the Documentary field, which categorically FORBIDS fiction? It WAS fiction, largely, and reluctantly and infrequently admittedly, but the world believes him when he tries to present it as truth. What disgusts me the most is that media and Acadamy conveniently ignore his infrequent admissions to "fiction" to put it politely. There were deserving documentaries at the Academy Awards last year that were unfairly upstaged by "fiction". I feel sorry for them.

 

i get your point GT. i thought columbine was boring. (and thats an even bigger crime lol)i dont think it was fairly represented as fiction either. the acadamy award SHOULD have gone to a real documentary. what is more i think that trying to give anwers to the complicated, incomrehensible reasons for both the columbine shootings and the 911 nightmare is nieve. thanx for the apology.

 

Actually the lawyers (whoops, I mean people involved) care about this. Nearly all works of fiction nowadays have a caveat that state something like: "The people, events and corporations mentioned are completely fictional and bear no resemblence to anyone or anything, living or dead.". Otherwise, you could sue for copyright, trademark, slander, or all sorts of things that lawyers can get away with.


The lawyers, people, events and corporations mentioned in this post are completely fictional and bear no resemblence to anyone or anything, living or dead.

 

Quick question to those judging Moore's movie. If you haven't seen the movie, how can you make a judgement one way or another? From the trailer? From second party opinions? Do tell. I know Roger Ebert waits untill AFTER he's seen a movie before voicing his opinion. What's your secret?

IMSA

 

Since I didn't see it, I didn't critique it myself. I posted a link to a reputable professional that has done documentaries himself, and who had seen it. My own personal comments were directed to Moore's veracity, which has been consistently bad since Roger and Me, many years ago. It may be an entertaining and compelling movie for all I know, and I didn't comment on it's cinematic values, only on it's truth. You don't have to personally review a movie to have an opinion on that. Although it's advisable to base your opinions on reputable sources that have direct knowledge and report accurately.

 

My point all along....

 

Who says a movie has to be non-fiction to be powerful? I can think of several powerful movies which are based loosely if at all on factual events.

Oh well. We'll obviously never agree, I feel as if I'm speaking Greek. Guess I'll just go on with my life.