Well... here 'Fahrenheit 9/11' is.

POSTED BY: Quicksand
UPDATED: Thursday, March 30, 2006 17:02
VIEWED: 28615
PAGE 6 of 13

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Monday, June 28, 2004 7:14 PM

Sorry Jasonzz, I edited my post to be more inclusive.

I didn't ask for contrasting viewpoints. I get them all the time on TV.

And, in answer to Baker's reviewer's points- I don't feel I was "taken in" by MM's film. There were more points to make than he even touched on. I found these facts on industry (eg Unocal, Carlyle Group etc.) websites and books. The kind of negative review that he(?) posted would only throw someone who DOESN'T know the facts. It's the kind of chaff that's meant to distract people from the big ugly facts that are sitting in the middle of their livingrooms.

MELEE

Monday, June 28, 2004 7:16 PM

*stears clear of all the argumentation*

Personally, I loved this movie. It got applause and laughs and cheering when i saw it in the local theatre. Then again, I live in that crazy liberal-filled Vermont-land, so I imagine I might be lucky in that respect.

As for the whole political, bring-down-Bush thing: I hate Bush for many pesonal reasons (his attempts to outlaw gay marraige being a big one), therefore I liked the fact that the movie exposed all this bullshit that the Bush administration has been getting people to buy into (which IS fact, however you may disagree with the movie's views, you cannot dispute the fact that this is FACTUAL information). Unfortunatly, I have to say that I think the people who most need to see this movie (aka, people who are still blind to the corruption in our government and may very well vote for Bush because of that) aren't the ones who are GOING to see it. Sad, but probably true.

So, there's my two cents. The end!

JASONZZZ

Monday, June 28, 2004 7:21 PM

Here's something else that's funny...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0628041moore1.html

MACBAKER

Monday, June 28, 2004 7:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
MacBaker- not only are YOU spouting propaganda, you're a coward as well.

I'm a coward for posting an opposing view, but somehow you're NOT a coward for hiding safely in your home or office and spouting off insults via cyber space? You are pathetic, and the true example of a coward! I provide a view that doesn't agree with your own, and it frightens you! I don't agree with Moore's left wing popaganda, any more than I agree with Debbie Schlussel's right wing response to it, but neither opinion frightens me, so who's the coward? LMAO!

I have clearly said repeatedly that the opposing view I posted is not my personal opinion, so I'm not hiding behind anything. I did feel it was impostant to hear both sides, but that seems to scare those of you that don't want anyone to believe that Mr. Moore's movie is anything but what it claims to be.

Yes, many reviews have been positive, but even those reviews point out the flaws in facts and the dangers in his message.

Examples:

Ty Burr of the Boston Globe (who gives the movie a B rating) has this to sat at the end of the review:

"One last thought: "Fahrenheit 9/11" is many things, but for pity's sake let's not call it a documentary. To do so abuses the word and shames the good and balanced work done by filmmakers as storied as D.A. Pennebaker and Barbara Kopple, as current as Jehane Noujaim of "Control Room," and as hard-working and unheralded as Carma Hinton of Brookline's Long Bow Group."

David Levine of filmcritic.com (who gives the movie a A- rating) has this to say about the movie:

"Moore freely admits Fahrenheit is one-sided, and that’s his choice. Yet it’s hard to pin the blame on Bush for everything that happened in the years that have followed. Like Dan Quayle, Bush is simply an easy target, and Moore’s penchant for stretching the truth and selectively editing stories to meet his agenda. And while hindsight is 20/20, the fact remains that nothing in the past can be changed. Moore’s objective is to build enough support to prevent Bush from being re-elected. Fair enough, but he should prepare for an even bigger backlash than he got for Columbine."

Lou Lumenick of the New Tork Post (who gave the movie a B- rating) give's this warning at the end of his review:

"The weakest section is the opening, in which Moore revisits the now wearisome accusations that Dubya "stole" the election from Al Gore with help from a right-leaning Supreme Court.

Moore conveniently doesn't mention that in the last election, he was backing Ralph Nader - whose candidacy many believe effectively handed the White House to Bush - or that in "Dude, Where's My Country?" Moore states the next president should be ... Oprah Winfrey!"

James Berardinelli of ReelViews (Who gave the movie a B- rating) has these comments:

"The real problem with Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't that it attacks the current Republican administration (which could be seen as a public service), but that it does so clumsily and with poor focus. Moore does much of his preaching with a paucity of facts, relying on circumstantial evidence and insinuation to make his points. And too little of his information is fresh. As flawed as Bowling for Columbine might have been, it was challenging and thought-provoking. It provided opportunities for debates and dialogue about gun control and school violence. Fahrenheit 9/11 offers little more than a repetitive, two-hour attack on Bush. It's not compelling; in fact, there are times when it's not especially interesting. I went into this movie expecting to be engaged. I left it bemoaning the fact that I had spent $11.50 on parking."

William Arnold of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (who gave the movie a B- rating) has this to say:

"It's far from a documentary masterpiece, and its scatter-gun collection of circumstantial evidence is not half as incendiary an indictment of the New World Order as many of the other muckraking films that have played the festival circuit in recent years."

These are all pos

MINDSEYE

Monday, June 28, 2004 7:51 PM

Moore, Moore links.

If you do any research into the facts behind Mr. Moore's work, you can't help but take anything he says skeptically. Don't trust me, or him, read for yourself. I could post Moore, but just read and do more research on the stuff you don't agree with and you will find that Mr. Moore is great at half-truths and fabrication. IMHO

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/index.htm
http://moorewatch.com/
http://www.preventtruthdecay.com/mainmiscmoore.htm
http://weekendpundit.blogmosis.com/lastweekend/025294.html
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html/
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110003233/
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=2&kaid=127&subid=177&contentid=2524
83
http://www.moorelies.com/
http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/127u
jhuf.asp
http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_3_michael_moore.html

Freedom - Peace - Serenity

JASONZZZ

Monday, June 28, 2004 8:26 PM

Most people who like Moore's latest work fall into some of these categories:

1. already believe the message behind the movie. And will vehemently defend Moore as the "messenger" with reckless disregard for the deceptive tactic that is used by MM.

2. completely uninformed/ill-informed and fell for the carny tricks that MM uses to mis-represent the half-truths.

3. Thinks it's entertaining either knowing that it's the crackpot's "truth" or with complete nonchalance/irrelevance to what it is.

You won't convince #1, they are believers to their own cause and won't be 'suaded. #2's are too lazy to go and read and understand even if you drag them there by the leash. Well, #3 is just too happy to set the disposable income free whether it's "White Chicks" or "F-9/11".

MELEE

Monday, June 28, 2004 10:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

Most people who like Moore's latest work fall into some of these categories:

1. already believe the message behind the movie. And will vehemently defend Moore as the "messenger" with reckless disregard for the deceptive tactic that is used by MM.

2. completely uninformed/ill-informed and fell for the carny tricks that MM uses to mis-represent the half-truths.

3. Thinks it's entertaining either knowing that it's the crackpot's "truth" or with complete nonchalance/irrelevance to what it is.

You won't convince #1, they are believers to their own cause and won't be 'suaded. #2's are too lazy to go and read and understand even if you drag them there by the leash. Well, #3 is just too happy to set the disposable income free whether it's "White Chicks" or "F-9/11".

Oh lord, I swore I wouldn't get into any political debates... I hate politics... but I need to ask, just for the sake of knowing: The general message behind the movie is that Bush needs to be out of power. Are you saying you disagree with that?

JASONZZZ

Monday, June 28, 2004 10:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Melee:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

Most people who like Moore's latest work fall into some of these categories:

1. already believe the message behind the movie. And will vehemently defend Moore as the "messenger" with reckless disregard for the deceptive tactic that is used by MM.

2. completely uninformed/ill-informed and fell for the carny tricks that MM uses to mis-represent the half-truths.

3. Thinks it's entertaining either knowing that it's the crackpot's "truth" or with complete nonchalance/irrelevance to what it is.

You won't convince #1, they are believers to their own cause and won't be 'suaded. #2's are too lazy to go and read and understand even if you drag them there by the leash. Well, #3 is just too happy to set the disposable income free whether it's "White Chicks" or "F-9/11".

Oh lord, I swore I wouldn't get into any political debates... I hate politics... but I need to ask, just for the sake of knowing: The general message behind the movie is that Bush needs to be out of power. Are you saying you disagree with that?

What MM's message and politics or viewpoints is persuading has nothing to do with any of what I am saying. Let me pose a question to you. I gathered that you agree with MM's politics of this movie and that you would like have him out of the whitehouse. What if MM advocated killing him and having him done in for all? (I am not arguing legality, I am arguing moralistic viewpoint of assasination and killing in general) Would you agree with that? Same end goal, same politics viewpoint. Different method to deliver the message. I am arguing that MM's method of delivery, of distorting facts is wrong and unworthy of your attention. I am saying is that you all are buying into the same type of sensationalistic crap that is on with "Temptation Island". Yikes.

MELEE

Monday, June 28, 2004 10:51 PM

Like I said, I refuse to get into political debates, so I'm not going to write out a big long and indignant response to that as I am tempted to do. All I will say, is that I definatly do not buy into sensationalism. That is your opinion and you can keep it, I don't care. I was just trying to understand the situation, and I have done that. The end.

*goes and hides under a table with Mr. Fluff from all this political crap*

BLUESUNWORSHIPPER

Monday, June 28, 2004 11:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

Here's yet another user commentary...

User Comments:

Michael Daly (fanstp43@aol.com)

Date: 23 June 2004
Summary: Moore Collapses On His Own Hatreds

Michael Moore has concocted a film whose intent is, in Moore's words, "to bring down a President." Moore's film - whose title has earned criticism from writer Ray Bradbury for its tacky parody of his famous story - is a typically labored and scattershot series of attacks on its subject - here President George W. Bush and the US war on Islamo-Arab terrorism.

Moore tries to prove that Prewsident Bush was somehow culpable in Islamo-Arab attacks on the US in September 2001 because of the Bid Laden family's relation ship with the Bushes through the Carlyle Group. But this relationship is completely convoluted and once you sort through Moore's attack you find that the relationship was at most tangenital and utterly irrelevant to anything; it's somewhat like blaming Harvard for Pearl Harbor because Isoroku Yamamoto graduated from Harvard.

Moore pushes this alleged Bush-Bin Laden connection by citing flights that took members of that family out of the US after September 2001, and only by his convoluted paranoia can Moore believe they are evidence that the US somehow staged attacks on its own soil. Moore (as is his want) leaves out facts that destroy his paranoia, namely that no respectable investigation has found any kind of sinister motive behind these flights.

But as writer Christopher Hitchens has put it, a film that is based on a lie can only sustain itself by piling up smaller lies with ever-more contradictory claims. Moore balmes Bush for spending too much time on vacation before the 2001 attacks, but Moore's own footage shows these "vacations" were anything but - in one shot Bush is seen "vacationing" with Tony Blair, prime minister of Great Britain; such summitting is inherently serious work, not goofing off. More again uses his own paranoia as evidence of malicious motive by the Bush Administration.

More goes beyond paranoia into outright propagandizing for the enemy with his grotesquely fawning view of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Moore wants us to believe Iraq never backed any terrorist force, let alone the 2001 attackers, never mind Hussein's own boasts about his backing of international terrorists including Al Qaida, never mind the written documentation unearthed in Iraq after his overthrow (consistently ignored in major media) showing Iraqi involvement with Al Qaida and other international terrorist groups.

It continues with shots of Iraqi palaces and military bases under attack - Moore wants us to believe that these structures were civilian enclaves when they in fact were military and secret police bases. Iraq's 30-plus year record of slaughter, internal and international, is glosses over completely.

Moore tries to have it every way that attacks the US and ultimately collapses on his own contradictions. Either Saudi Arabia runs US policy or it doesn't - here Moore never bothers to wonder why Saudi Areabia would want to overthrow a Taliban regime in Afghanistan to which the Saudi government had close ties; Moore also never wonders about how a democratic Iraq means an economic rival to Saudi Arabia's near-monopoly on Middle Eastern oil exports and yet Saudi Arabia backs, however imperfectly, US efforts toward that goal.

It all means that Michael Moore has done it again - vented his spleen for no rational reason beyond anti-American bigotry. One has to wonder when people will grow tired of such, for Moore has taken the documentary and made it nothing but a vehicle woprthy of Leni Riefenstahl.

Wow...

What movie did YOU see? I just went to see "Fahrenheit 9/11" last night, and you've completely twisted around the meaning of the film.

The film NEVER states that Bush is somehow culpable for 9/11 because of the Carlyle connection, it stated that he didn't do enough to prevent the attacks before they occured - mostly due to the fact he spent mo

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE