Fahrenheit 9/11 Review by FOX NEWS

[MrRant 0]

'Fahrenheit 9/11' Gets Standing Ovation

Tuesday, June 15, 2004

 

By Roger Friedman FOX NEWS

 

'Fahrenheit 9/11' Gets Standing Ovation

 

The crowd that gave Michael Moore's controversial "Fahrenheit 9/11" documentary a standing ovation last night at the Ziegfeld Theater premiere certainly didn't have to be encouraged to show their appreciation. From liberal radio host/writer Al Franken to actor/director Tim Robbins, Moore was in his element.

 

But once "F9/11" gets to audiences beyond screenings, it won't be dependent on celebrities for approbation. It turns out to be a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail.

 

As much as some might try to marginalize this film as a screed against President George Bush, "F9/11" — as we saw last night — is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty — and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice.

 

Readers of this column may recall that I had a lot of problems with Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," particularly where I thought he took gratuitous shots at helpless targets such as Charlton Heston. "Columbine" too easily succeeded by shooting fish in a barrel, as they used to say.

 

 

Not so with "F9/11," which instead relies on lots of film footage and actual interviews to make its case against the war in Iraq and tell the story of the intertwining histories of the Bush and bin Laden families.

 

First, I know you want to know who came to the Ziegfeld, so here is a partial list:

 

Besides Franken and Robbins, Al Sharpton, Mike Myers, Tony Bennett, Glenn Close, Gretchen Mol (newly married over the weekend to director Todd Williams), Lori Singer, Tony Kushner, "Angela's Ashes" author Frank McCourt, Jill Krementz and Kurt Vonnegut, Lauren Bacall (chatting up a fully refurbished Lauren Hutton), Richard Gere, John McEnroe and Patti Smythe, former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke, Carson Daly, NBC's Jeff Zucker, a very pregnant Rory Kennedy, playwright Israel Horovitz, Macaulay Culkin, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Kyra Sedgwick, Linda Evangelista, Ed Bradley, Tom and Meredith Brokaw, director Barry Levinson, NBC anchor Brian Williams, Vernon Jordan, Eva Mendes, Sandra Bernhard and the always humorous Joy Behar.

 

If that's not enough, how about Yoko Ono, accompanied by her son, Sean, who's let his hair grow out and is now sporting a bushy beard that makes him look like his late, beloved father John Lennon?

 

And then, just to show you how much people wanted to see this film, there was Martha Stewart, looking terrific. I mean, talk about an eclectic group!

 

Now, unless you've been living under a rock, you know that this movie has been the cause of a lot of trouble. Miramax and Disney have gone to war over it, and "The Passion of the Christ" seems like "Mary Poppins" in retrospect. Before anyone's even seen it, there have been partisan debates over which way Moore may have spun this or that to get a desired effect.

 

But, really, in the end, not seeing "F9/11" would be like allowing your First Amendment rights to be abrogated, no matter whether you're a Republican or a Democrat.

 

The film does Bush no favors, that's for sure, but it also finds an unexpectedly poignant and universal groove in the story of Lila Lipscombe, a Flint, Mich., mother who sends her kids into the Army for the opportunities it can provide — just like the commercials say — and lives to regret it.

 

Lipscombe's story is so powerful, and so completely middle-American, that I think it will take Moore's critics by surprise. She will certainly move to tears everyone who encounters her.

 

"F9/11" isn't perfect, and of course, there are leaps of logic sometimes. One set piece is about African-American congressmen and women presenting petitions on the Florida recount, and wondering why there are no senators to support them.

 

Indeed, those absent senators include John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy, among others, which Moore does not elaborate upon. At no point are liberals or Democrats taken to task for not supporting these elected officials, and I would have liked to have seen that.

 

On the other hand, there are more than enough moments that seemed to resonate with the huge Ziegfeld audience.

 

The most indelible is Bush's reaction to hearing on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, that the first plane had crashed into the World Trade Center.

 

Bush was reading to a grade-school class in Florida at that moment. Instead of jumping up and leaving, he instead sat in front of the class, with an unfortunate look of confusion, for nearly 11 minutes.

 

Moore obtained the footage from a teacher at the school who videotaped the morning program. There Bush sits, with no access to his advisers, while New York is being viciously attacked. I guarantee you that no one who sees this film forgets this episode.

 

More than even "The Passion of the Christ," "F9/11" is going to be a "see it for yourself" movie when it hits theaters on June 25. It simply cannot be missed, and I predict it will be a huge moneymaker.

 

And that's where Disney's Michael Eisner comes in. Not releasing this film will turn out to be the curse of his career.

 

When Eisner came into Disney years ago, the studio was at a low point. He turned it around with a revived animation department and comedy hits such as "Pretty Woman" and "Down and Out in Beverly Hills."

 

But Eisner's short-sightedness on many recent matters has been his undoing. And this last misadventure is one that will follow him right out the doors of the Magic Kingdom.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122680,00.html

 

If mods want to move it to the Movies folder that is cool.

[JustJoe2k5 0]

With such a collection of people watching the movie, anything less than a standing ovation would have been a shock.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Oh sure the movie is going to make ALOT of money. It remains to be seen how much sway it will have over the public. As forceful and heavy handed as Moore happens to be often times, even when slapped in the face, the masses tend to not react at all. Sort of an apathy induced by shock, if you follow my meaning.

 

All the same, I'm still not sure what significance the listing of all the famous folks means. The right wing seems to have a real distain for politically motivated celebs. When really, all they have is one vote to cast by themselves. Good review, which makes me want to see the movie even more now.

 

 

 

[AndrewTS 0]

The right wing seems to have a real distain for politically motivated celebs. When really, all they have is one vote to cast by themselves. Good review, which makes me want to see the movie even more now.

That's because almost all the time celebs have no idea what the hell they're talking about. Plus, they present their opinions, with rarely even rhetoric to back it up, and then expect anyone who likes to see them on TV/in movies to in turn accept that opinion and vote that way.

 

Also, many of the celebs hold rather extreme opinions about it, and seem to do it more as a cry for attention than anything else.

 

As for the review, from Fox News of all places, has Moore toned things down and presented a (for him) mostly somewhat fair viewpoint?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

This is... Suprising, but clearly hasn't changed any trends at the TV network.

 

Warm Fuzzies to the righties who actually see it somehow (even if you have to get it online) before complaining about it.

 

Cold Pricklies to the righties who never see the movie but automatically link to some random page where another rightie tears the movie to shreds whenever it's brought up.

 

 

 

Also, somebody is obese or something. Kinda forgot about that.

[nl5xsk1 0]

"Columbine" too easily succeeded by shooting fish in a barrel, as they used to say.

First off, the guy's a dick for using this cliche when talking about Columbine. Common sense says you use something else.

 

Second of all, how much more credibility does he lose by referring to Joy Behar as "always humorous"? And at one point did people like Carson Daly become enough of a celebrity to merit mentioning in a roll call of audience members?

 

Just seems like a biased review of a biased movie.

[AndrewTS 0]

"If that's not enough, how about Yoko Ono, accompanied by her son, Sean, who's let his hair grow out and is now sporting a bushy beard that makes him look like his late, beloved father John Lennon?"

 

I wonder if she's gotten him hooked on drugs, talked him into streaking, or alienated him from all his friends.

 

Yeah, I have nothing really substantial to add here.

[JustJoe2k5 0]

"If that's not enough, how about Yoko Ono, accompanied by her son, Sean, who's let his hair grow out and is now sporting a bushy beard that makes him look like his late, beloved father John Lennon?"

 

I wonder if she's gotten him hooked on drugs, talked him into streaking, or alienated him from all his friends.

 

Yeah, I have nothing really substantial to add here.

When I first read that line going through the review I thought they were saying Yoko Ono had let her hair grow out and grown a beard, nothing too out there for her.

[Slickster 0]

Conspicuous by their absence in this thread:

Cancer, MikeSC, kkk.

[Vyce 0]

Conspicuous by their absence in this thread:

Cancer, MikeSC, kkk.

Is this supposed to be a sad little statement of "victory" by making a humorous assertion that their as-of-yet absence means that the overwhelming truth of the-one-called-MOORE~! has frightened them into hiding?

 

One thing I am curious about in regards to this film - what exactly is his point with the Bush footage? Is it a truly rare moment for Moore, where he portrays Bush as - gasp - a human being who is shocked to his utter core about the events of that day, as they were happening?

 

The author of this review - by the very language of his review - kind of casts suspicion otherwise. Remarks like "with an unfortunate look of confusion" don't fill me with, as Jobber might say, "warm fuzzies."

 

Warm Fuzzies to the righties who actually see it somehow (even if you have to get it online) before complaining about it.

 

Oh, I may one day see it.

 

But it'll either be when it comes out on video or when it airs on free TV (or on HBO, Showtime, etc.). I refuse to actually see it in theaters and thus put money in that man's pockets.

[Justice 0]

You know what makes me feel warm and fuzzy?

 

That I downloaded Bowling For Columbine off of KaZaa for free.

 

You know what will make me feel even more warm and fuzzy?

 

When I do the same with Fahrenheit 9/11.

 

Fight the power, Mikey! Don't give those corporate bastards a cent!

 

[NoCalMike 0]

You know what makes me feel warm and fuzzy?

 

That I downloaded Bowling For Columbine off of KaZaa for free.

 

You know what will make me feel even more warm and fuzzy?

 

When I do the same with Fahrenheit 9/11.

 

Fight the power, Mikey! Don't give those corporate bastards a cent!

 

So I guess this is the part where someone left-leaning chimes in with......

 

I hope Ascroft is reading this, because you are a DIGITAL PIRATE and need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. You are stealing money from the film industry, because of you, people are going hungry you no good broke, lazy bastard......umm GET A JOB......

 

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Oh, I may one day see it.

 

But it'll either be when it comes out on video or when it airs on free TV (or on HBO, Showtime, etc.). I refuse to actually see it in theaters and thus put money in that man's pockets.

I condoned internet-based piracy, for what it's worth.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Conspicuous by their absence in this thread:

Cancer, MikeSC, kkk.

Funny thing is I was staying out of this discussion because I figured I had over-saturated my Mikey fat jokes, but I guess they are still in demand, so here we go:

 

Of course his films are getting standing ovations -- Mikey probably takes up space with all the chairs in the theater, so the patrons HAVE to stand.

 

Happy now?...

[nl5xsk1 0]

kkk. I'm feeling better now ... thanks. (truly not sarcastic ... I always appreciate a good Moore is fat joke.)

 

And I really don't get why it's so earth-shattering that GWB sat there for 11 minutes when he first heard about it. I think everyone went into a sort of shock, and to criticize Bush for having a normal reaction is a farce. What would Clinton have done?

[NYU 0]

What would Clinton have done?

 

Personally, I think Clinton would immediately get out of that seat, apologize to the children for leaving early, and get as much information on the terrorist attacks as he could. Remember, at that time, there were still MANY unanswered questions. Nobody knew the other targets the terrorists could be attacking. Nobody knew how many planes had been hijacked. Nobody knew if there were going to be car-bombs or something worse in addition to the hijacked aircrafts. Nobody knew what was going to happen and, as the President of the United States, you need to make sure to take the best control of the situation as you can. As soon as you can.

 

Bush sat there and read to children. For 11 minutes.

 

In hindsight, those 11 minutes might not have meant all that much. But, at that time, those 11 minutes could have been something huge. That timeframe could have meant the difference between shooting down a plane heading for the White House, or watching as the House burned to the ground and a large number of our governmental officials were killed.

 

If there was ever a time where Bush needed to act Presidential, that was the time. He should have been absorbing the information as soon as it happened, and screaming out orders in an attempt to stop anything even more gruesome from happening.

 

He sat there - in an absolutely useless position - for 11 minutes instead. I don't think this is the normal Presidential response. And I don't think there are many other Presidents, if any at all, that would have done the same irresponsible thing.

[C Dubya 04 0]

^^^

 

You know, I consider myself to be one of the more liberal people around, but let's be fair to the President. When the first plane hit, no one knew that it was a terrorist attack, or at least no one was clear on it. That is why the second tower wasn't evacuated. Had I been President Bush, I would have sent someone to get me more information, but I wouldn't have jumped up and went out of the room running to see what was going on. For all that he knew at that time, the plane hitting the first building was just a horrible accident.

[NYU 0]

According to the 9/11 Commission - and this was reported in today's New York Daily News - the message whispered into President Bush's ear by his Chief of Staff was "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack."

 

And......he just sat there.

 

For.....11 minutes.

 

I don't know how that could be justified.

[C Dubya 04 0]

Okay, that's a little different, but I would need to see a timeline before butchering the guy. If two planes had hit, he should have run out of the room and figured out where we stood. But, you need to know what was going on before you run him down.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Oh for God's sake the whole Bush should have left the kids, hopped on Air Force 1, flown to NYC and blown up the second airplane with a secret rocket launcher that's aboard the president's aircraft is so retarded.

 

Had Bush left early, Mikey Moore would have said "Bush left, leaving these innocent children in a panic because they didn't know what was going on," and then go on to say that Bush was acting without thought and show the confused looks of the kids' faces.

 

Good thing we have the 9/11 commission to say (I'm being sarcastic for those scoring at him) that if Bush would have stopped reading to schoolchildren and those NY Rescue Workers would have entered the burning buildings in an orderly fashion when trying to rescue victims that countless lives could have been saved...

[Vyce 0]

According to the 9/11 Commission - and this was reported in today's New York Daily News - the message whispered into President Bush's ear by his Chief of Staff was "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack."

 

And......he just sat there.

 

For.....11 minutes.

 

I don't know how that could be justified.

People like you make me remember why I began to lose faith in all humanity.

[edotherocket 0]

Ebert responded to a question regarding Moore and bias in his film recently. I think it makes for good reading:

 

'9/11': Just the facts?

 

June 18, 2004

 

BY ROGER EBERT FILM CRITIC 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A reader writes:

 

"In your articles discussing Michael Moore's film 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' you call it a documentary. I always thought of documentaries as presenting facts objectively without editorializing. While I have enjoyed many of Mr. Moore's films, I don't think they fit the definition of a documentary."

 

That's where you're wrong. Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.

 

Michael Moore is a liberal activist. He is the first to say so. He is alarmed by the prospect of a second term for George W. Bush, and made "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the purpose of persuading people to vote against him.

 

That is all perfectly clear, and yet in the days before the film opens June 25, there'll be bountiful reports by commentators who are shocked! shocked! that Moore's film is partisan. "He doesn't tell both sides," we'll hear, especially on Fox News, which is so famous for telling both sides.

 

The wise French director Godard once said, "The way to criticize a film is to make another film." That there is not a pro-Bush documentary available right now I am powerless to explain. Surely, however, the Republican National Convention will open with such a documentary, which will position Bush comfortably between Ronald Reagan and God. The Democratic convention will have a wondrous film about John Kerry. Anyone who thinks one of these documentaries is "presenting facts objectively without editorializing" should look at the other one.

 

The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his "facts" were wrong, false or fudged.

 

In some cases, he was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair, and in still others (such as the wording on the plaque under the bomber at the Air Force Academy) he was just plain wrong, as anyone can see by going to look at the plaque.

 

Because I agree with Moore's politics, his inaccuracies pained me, and I wrote about them in my Answer Man column. Moore wrote me that he didn't expect such attacks "from you, of all people." But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker. In hurting his cause, he wounds mine.

 

Now comes "Fahrenheit 9/11," floating on an enormous wave of advance publicity. It inspired a battle of the titans between Disney's Michael Eisner and Miramax's Harvey Weinstein. It won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. It has been rated R by the MPAA, and former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo has signed up as Moore's lawyer, to challenge the rating. The conservative group Move America Forward, which successfully bounced the mildly critical biopic "The Reagans" off CBS and onto cable, has launched a campaign to discourage theaters from showing "Fahrenheit 9/11."

 

The campaign will amount to nothing and disgraces Move America Forward by showing it trying to suppress disagreement instead of engaging it. The R rating may stand; there is a real beheading in the film, and only fictional beheadings get the PG-13. Disney and Miramax will survive.

 

Moore's real test will come on the issue of accuracy. He can say whatever he likes about Bush, as long as his facts are straight. Having seen the film twice, I saw nothing that raised a flag for me, and I haven't heard of any major inaccuracies. When Moore was questioned about his claim that Bush unwisely lingered for six or seven minutes in that Florida classroom after learning of the World Trade Center attacks, Moore was able to reply with a video of Bush doing exactly that.

 

I agree with Moore that the presidency of George W. Bush has been a disaster for America. In writing that, I expect to get the usual complaints that movie critics should keep their political opinions to themselves. But opinions are my stock in trade, and is it not more honest to declare my politics than to conceal them? I agree with Moore, and because I do, I hope "Fahrenheit 9/11" proves to be as accurate as it seems.

[Guest BDC]

The fact that Moore is surprised when he finds out people are upset by him putting inaccuracies in movies boggles my mind. He's passing lies off as truths and is wondering why people are upset about it? Fantastic.

[Guest MikeSC]

What would Clinton have done?

"SURVEY SAYS! Most popular answer: Get a hummer from a teacher"

Personally, I think Clinton would immediately get out of that seat, apologize to the children for leaving early, and get as much information on the terrorist attacks as he could. Remember, at that time, there were still MANY unanswered questions. Nobody knew the other targets the terrorists could be attacking. Nobody knew how many planes had been hijacked. Nobody knew if there were going to be car-bombs or something worse in addition to the hijacked aircrafts. Nobody knew what was going to happen and, as the President of the United States, you need to make sure to take the best control of the situation as you can. As soon as you can.

And seeing as how there was oh so much the President could do at this point, I guess terrifying little kids is PERFECTLY acceptable. Hell, why not tell them a plane might be heading for them, also? It'd make them feel special!

Bush sat there and read to children. For 11 minutes.

You know who else would've done that?

 

Hitler.

 

Man is evil, I tell ya!

In hindsight, those 11 minutes might not have meant all that much.

Let me guess, that won't slow you down at all, will it?

But, at that time, those 11 minutes could have been something huge.

I thought not.

That timeframe could have meant the difference between shooting down a plane heading for the White House, or watching as the House burned to the ground and a large number of our governmental officials were killed.

Anything less is being a pussy.

If there was ever a time where Bush needed to act Presidential, that was the time. He should have been absorbing the information as soon as it happened, and screaming out orders in an attempt to stop anything even more gruesome from happening.

Funny, I thought maintaining a calm in a room full of little kids was rather Presidential.

He sat there - in an absolutely useless position - for 11 minutes instead. I don't think this is the normal Presidential response. And I don't think there are many other Presidents, if any at all, that would have done the same irresponsible thing.

True.

 

Clinton would have wet his pants, then have a teacher blow him.

Carter would have blamed malaise.

LBJ would have blamed the damned Viet Cong

JFK would've banged Marilyn Monroe.

-=Mike

[NYU 0]

Standing up calmly, telling the children that you have important Presidential matters to attend to, promising them that you'll be back to read to them real soon, thanking them all for being there.....then nicely walking out of the room.

 

There we go. We found a calm way to get Bush out of the classroom and deal with one of the most important matters that this country has ever dealt with. And....*gasp*.....it would have only taken a minute. Possibly less.

 

It would have been absurdly easy for President Bush to have left the school without scaring all of the children. I really don't think that's a proper excuse for sitting there for 11 minutes and doing absolutely nothing while the country was in turmoil.

 

People like you make me remember why I began to lose faith in all humanity.

 

Oh, I know. Good god, I am just such a terrible person. I would rather have the President of the United States dealing with the matter at hand - that being a devastating terror attack - instead of sitting in a room and reading a meaningless story to children. At that point, there is still a high possibility of many other planes being hijacked. You would think the President needs to take a course of action....and very soon. But, then again.....we could prolong making some earth-shattering decisions and instead choose to sit there and read.

 

Look at where my priorities stand. Humanity doesn't have a chance.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Had Bush left early, Mikey Moore would have said "Bush left, leaving these innocent children in a panic because they didn't know what was going on," and then go on to say that Bush was acting without thought and show the confused looks of the kids' faces.

Doesn't matter what Moore said.

 

Like it or not, on 9/11 Giulianni was acting like a President and Bush was acting like your best friend who says he'll back you up but then ducks out of the bar as soon as the fighting begins.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

According to the 9/11 Commission - and this was reported in today's New York Daily News - the message whispered into President Bush's ear by his Chief of Staff was "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack."

 

And......he just sat there.

 

For.....11 minutes.

 

I don't know how that could be justified.

People like you make me remember why I began to lose faith in all humanity.

Tad dramatic are we?

[The Metal Maniac 0]

Maybe in those 11 minutes of "doing nothing", he was *gasp* THINKING.

 

I know that many people probably won't believe that in Bush's case, but hey.

[NYU 0]

As opposed to immediately having conversations with your top advisers and coming up with the best tactical counterattack? His Chief of Staff was right there. Talking with the Vice-President, Secretary of Defense, etc. They were all just a few phone buttons away, and they could have possibly offered intelligent insight into getting the problem under control as quickly as possible.

 

Surely this would have been the better tactic than Bush sitting in that classroom and thinking about it on his own.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/index.html

 

CBC re-aired this the other week and it probably has a lot of the same content F911 has - infact, it probably is a better version of it (I like Moore, but I don't like his movies.) I guess the point is not what GWB was doing, but what Bush Sr. was.