film: fahrenheit 911

[brothermarcus]

fara is just upset because michael moore doesn't support the bush terrorist organization... oh, yeah - that means that the last statement by fara was false, because i'm sure that michael moore wouldn't recommend a donation to the campaign fund of terrorist george w. bush...

terrorist

\Ter"ror*ist\, n. [F. terroriste.] One who governs by terrorism or intimidation

watched this flick last night, and it is excellent. i think it's fairly balanced for what the hype was saying, moore could've taken things a lot farther than he did, and could have put a lot more emotional pressure in there.

oh yeah, fara- mr. fallwell is on the phone, he needs a new intern.

 

[JTNOLA5211]

i think Moore refers to his films more as a polemic than a documentary if i'm not mistaken..

So what is the diff b/w the 2?

 

[onetwothreefour]

^^^ a documentary is typically seen to pursue less of an agenda (or at least present the facts in an unbiased manner), whereas moore makes no bones about the fact that he set out here to make a controversial, inflammatory anti-bush film. sure, he did it with the help of *real* information, footage, and facts, but its pretty clearly following a set agenda to stir the masses out of their inaction

Originally posted by michael
did he bother to mention that the carlyle group funded part of his movie?

what a surprise, he didn't!

no, but why should he?

he has been totally open (as he obviously needs to be) with anything and everything surrounding this film -from its funding to its facts- so why should it be such a concern?

and if you mean it because of the carlyle group specifically...well, there's nothing better than using the opposition's money to fund a campaign against them. it's fine with me...

 

[DigitalDuality]

my bleeding heart liberal take on this:

I personally like Moore. I know he's full of shit. I know he is biased, i know he doesn't play a fair game and cuts off the camera just as quick as O'Reilly does. And i don't give a fuck.

Frankly, Rush, O'Reilly, Coulter, Hannity and the like do this all the fucken time. They never (well temper tantrum O'Reilly has gotten better), show both sides. Fox shows a clear conservative bias. Most news stations show a moderate view. So kudos to Moore for help move the sheep from one herd to another herd.

Frankly, I enjoyed the film mainly for it's humor. I think he could have still used the same amount of sympathy and empathy, but done it in a more effective manner instead of being so whiney. I'm sick of him relating Flint, Michagen in every single one of his films.

Also, he had the ability to cut some crap out.. and really drive some other points home, and he never bothered. He could've taken some hints from BushFlash.com to really make some points.

I dunno, i wasn't as impressed with this as i thought i would be. I'm pretty sure if i had his wit and knew anything about making films, I could've done a better job myself..

But just as in Bowling for Columbine he choses which facts to keep, and which to throw away in order to build his biased arguement, which i don't have a problem with.. i just think he could have done a better job. I felt like it was missing something...

 

[digitalch0ke]

I've only caught the end of it because I'm an usher at a movie theater, and each show has been sold out and recieved standing ovations.

So what if its completely slanted left? And who cares if he's vauge on some facts? At least he gets people talking, at the very least the movie sparks conversation.

 

[Neuro242]

my bleeding heart liberal take on this:

I personally like Moore. I know he's full of shit. I know he is biased, i know he doesn't play a fair game and cuts off the camera just as quick as O'Reilly does. And i don't give a fuck.

Frankly, Rush, O'Reilly, Coulter, Hannity and the like do this all the fucken time. They never (well temper tantrum O'Reilly has gotten better), show both sides. Fox shows a clear conservative bias. Most news stations show a moderate view. So kudos to Moore for help move the sheep from one herd to another herd.

Frankly, I enjoyed the film mainly for it's humor. I think he could have still used the same amount of sympathy and empathy, but done it in a more effective manner instead of being so whiney. I'm sick of him relating Flint, Michagen in every single one of his films.

Also, he had the ability to cut some crap out.. and really drive some other points home, and he never bothered. He could've taken some hints from BushFlash.com to really make some points.

I dunno, i wasn't as impressed with this as i thought i would be. I'm pretty sure if i had his wit and knew anything about making films, I could've done a better job myself..

But just as in Bowling for Columbine he choses which facts to keep, and which to throw away in order to build his biased arguement, which i don't have a problem with.. i just think he could have done a better job. I felt like it was missing something...

I sort of felt the same way and I think this movies's target audience was more so to turn the people on his side, who were somewhere in the middle and/or confused about which side to pick. I don't think he needed to turn people like me and you more to the left or even try to convince us. I just think he was just trying to portray the other side to the people who were less of a political junkies like us.

 

[miamistu]

I really went in2 this movie with an open mind, because I am at the point I hate michael moore and Bush about the same.


The movie was very entertaining but its a pile of crap. Don't get me wrong, I'm still voting for Kerry because I am convinced that Bush is stupid and his advisers are evil. More importantly, Kerry can not undo what is already done (and even though I support the war, I think Bush went to war for all the wrong reasons, I see no reason to reward him for that and I am sick of him).

Anyway, the movie is obvious bullshiit. Stuff I noticed:


The claim that all the newspaper recounts showed Gore winning was a bold faced lie. The Herald did several recounts and I believe Bush won by almost every standard except one, maybe 2 (Bush definitely won the majority of recounts, even of the liberal papers).

The stupidity of claiming Bush was on constant vacation pre-911 and then showing him golfing next to Tony Blair. It shows either how stupid Moore thinks his audience is, or how stupid Moore is because he thinks golfing with Blair is a pure vacation.

The claim that Bush let the Binladens out is a huge distortion. Richard Clarke has admitted that it was his decision, and Bush was not involved.

The pipeline in Afghanistan claim is absolute crap. It was the Americans who pulled out, the Taliban were willing to allow the pipeline to be built.

There was no mention that Britain was part of the coalition of the willing, although Ill concede this glaring omission was probably picked up by even the least sophisticated moviegoer.

I thought the portrayal of the American soldiers was a disgrace (although he tried to soften it by saying their actions were Bush's fault)

I thought using the mother of a dead soldier/showing the innocent civilians death was pointless. No one disputes that war sucks, and that people die. To focus on the plight of the mother of a dead soldier is quite stupid and desperate (and exploitive).


Anyway, there is more, but you get the point. The movie was entertaining, but like Oliver Stone's JFK, is not at all accurate. What upsets me about this one, is Moore pretends that this is a documentary. I did not expect it to be fair, but I (quite stupidly) thought he would be more truthful with this one. At least it was entertaining.

 

[AmorRoark]

Regarding the issue of the bank "giving" a gun away: I think j22 may be refering to how the movie makes it look as though the bank just hands over a rifle instantly after filling out the account paperwork. There's more to the process of "getting the gun" that the movie somehow left out..

Or maybe he was referring to the fact that there wasn't actually a bank that did this... Moore constructed it himself.

 

[j22]

^^

yeah thats what im referring to.

im all for seeing the movie cuz it will incite discussion for sure.

I think Moore is a BIT of a propagandist. He was quoted with saying "Americans are the dumbest people in the world" some time ago.

I dont have a huge problem with Moore, but he is the lefts equivalent of Rush Limbaugh. IF you dont like Rush Limbaugh because of the way he prosents "factS" or himself, it's a bit contradictory to enjoy Michael Moore in the same breath.

 

[AmorRoark]

No fucking way I'm going to support Moore again with my money. I payed for Bowling for Columbine and some other equally awful "documentary" that he did. Watching the obvious audience seduction was enough to make me want my money back... nevermind the constant gag itch in my throat due to voice/choice of words.

I have urged a large array of my friends to wait for this to come out on video at the local public library... Yeah... I got a couple chuckles but it's the best I can come up with.

stop supporting propaganda.

 

[miamistu]

I agree with miamitsu too.

FYI, its miami stu, as in miami (the city) and stu (my name). I never realized when I picked that name how many people would assume I was asian.

Sorry, did not intend to hijack... back on topic..............

 

[DigitalDuality]

No fucking way I'm going to support Moore again with my money. I payed for Bowling for Columbine and some other equally awful "documentary" that he did. Watching the obvious audience seduction was enough to make me want my money back... nevermind the constant gag itch in my throat due to voice/choice of words.

I have urged a large array of my friends to wait for this to come out on video at the local public library... Yeah... I got a couple chuckles but it's the best I can come up with.

stop supporting propaganda.

At least propaganda on each side (Rush or Moore) gets people politically interested and motivated. I think both sides really do encourage people to vote first and foremost. Without the hype of these twits, even less people would participate in our electorate process. And this also includes Al Franken, Howard Stern, Ann Coulter, Noam Chomsky, Hannity, O'Reilly, Howard Zinn, etc.. These are the common people's celeberties they look for both representation and a good laugh. It's sad there are people that listen to rush and are considered (proudly) ditto heads. Moore has the same kind of following. But keep the herd interested..and manipulate them, or don't expect them to care at all for the most part...

 

[glowbug]

so because disney "disowned" the film that means that no funding came from those directions?

and on top of it, moore is allowed to make a tenuous link to crap but i am not?

nice try dysco!

Sure you can if you don't mind being viewed as hypocritical about the issue.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander...just like Moore, you chose to omit a few logical connections, thereby making the impact of your point appear stronger than it actually was. Not much difference between you and Moore, eh, except that you don't have quite the stage he does...so I guess that makes it okay, right?

If you were going to make a point about a Carlyle Group/Michael Moore funding connection, imo the far better point would have been about the Carlyle Group not CARING about the collateral damage caused by projects (like Moore's) it funds, whether directly or indirectly, and instead caring only whether the project turns a healthy profit.

But basically that would be Moore's point, and obviously you wouldn't want to help that guy out-after all, never let logical consistency stand in the way of personal ideology...wait, were you criticizing Moore or yourself?

 

[keystroke]

dowloading this film now, looks to be a good film.

even if everything *isnt* true, as people are claiming, who cares?

it's going to definately be ENTERTAINING viewing

 

[Neural Shock]

Listening to blockheads get their knickers in a twist is quite entertaining.

 

[Neural Shock]

...believe everything ...

Anyone who succumbs to all-or-nothing rhetoric is, with respect, getting their knickers in a twist. Why do people have to either believe everything one man says, or demonise him ? Hello!!! Balanced approach!!!! Hello!!!!

 

[AmorRoark]

At least propaganda on each side (Rush or Moore) gets people politically interested and motivated. I think both sides really do encourage people to vote first and foremost. Without the hype of these twits, even less people would participate in our electorate process. And this also includes Al Franken, Howard Stern, Ann Coulter, Noam Chomsky, Hannity, O'Reilly, Howard Zinn, etc.. These are the common people's celeberties they look for both representation and a good laugh. It's sad there are people that listen to rush and are considered (proudly) ditto heads. Moore has the same kind of following. But keep the herd interested..and manipulate them, or don't expect them to care at all for the most part...

These people for which you mention that only get interested in the election proccess because they are wooed by liberal/conservative "entertaining" propaganda are exactly the type of uninformed voter that frightens me. If people keep looking at elections for mere entertainment (wheither they are conscious of it or not) someone like Rush or Franken will be put into office. :shudders:

 

[DigitalDuality]

^
but what about the person who gets interested in politics b/c of the entertainers? And then sees that.. "hey these guys have no problem in lying to me, lets look deeper in to this".. and start to learn/think for themselves?

Also, where do you want to draw the line? We get rid of all the twits, but you still have 100s of artists who make songs, give speeches, write poetry, paint pictures, take photographs....that don't tell the whole story.

What about columinists? Or political cartoon artists? How much "entertainment" do you want to remove from the political arena? As i think it has it's cons, it definately has it's pros.

 

[SA]

Finally went to see it today. Big round of applause at the end of the film.

I thought it was too drawn out in at least three places. The mother reading her son's letter was certainly one of those places. The black screen in the beginning was way too long too. I would have preferred that those times were instead used to squeeze in as many more factoids as possible. Good job, but could have been done even better. Then again, Michael Moore's the one who's got the big camera and I'm the one who's here posting on Bluelight. The injustice!

 

[StuckMojo]

Just saw the film also...It shocked me how president bush kept reading that book infront of all those students after he was told of the second plane hitting the WTC. Is everything in this movie true? If so president bush has to be the worst president ever to take the stand...