Official "I saw Fahrenheit 9/11" thread......

[NoCalMike 0]

I just got back from a 10:30pm showing on a Sunday night, and was suprised by the large crowd.....

 

As for the documentary itself, I must say that this is a lot less like other Moore films that I have seen. I think he takes a few steps back as far as himself goes. This film is a lot less about "Michael Moore doing this, doing that" etc.........It is mostly just him doing voice-overs or interviews with himself off the camera shot.

 

The film covered more topics then I thought it was going to. It basically covered from the moment Bush won the election, and covered the more important events leading up 9/11, post 9/11, Iraq War, Military campaign, post Saddam Iraq, and then the current situation.

 

I thought it was pretty good, definately entertaining.

 

I never really saw anything in this film to suggest that Moore, "hates america"

 

I didn't see the argument there. To me it was about Moore disagreeing with the politics and decisions of the current administration, and yes it was very bias in doing so.

 

I am kind of tired so that is in depth as I get for tonight........

 

[dubq 0]

I never really saw anything in this film to suggest that Moore, "hates america"

Didn't you know? Disagreeing with the government in power means that you hate your country.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

Yeah. I mean, c'mon man! In Bowling for Columbine, he made fun of Charlton Heston! HE IS A TRAITOR TO OUR NATION FOR DISRESPECTING THE GREAT MOSES!

 

**picks up People magazine, George W. tries to take it away**

 

LET MY PEOPLE GO!

[Guest MikeSC]

I never really saw anything in this film to suggest that Moore, "hates america"

Didn't you know? Disagreeing with the government in power means that you hate your country.

Does making asinine comments make you cool?

-=Mike

[Betty Houle 0]

Great movie. Hard to find if you live in small town NH though!

 

Here's an article:

 

 

'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.

[Betty Houle 0]

And a review:

 

BY ROGER EBERT

 

Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" is less an expose of George W. Bush than a dramatization of what Moore sees as a failed and dangerous presidency. The charges in the film will not come as news to those who pay attention to politics, but Moore illustrates them with dramatic images and a relentless commentary track that essentially concludes Bush is incompetent, dishonest, failing in the war on terrorism, and has bad taste in friends.

 

Although Moore's narration ranges from outrage to sarcasm, the most devastating passage in the film speaks for itself. That's when Bush, who was reading My Pet Goat to a classroom of Florida children, is notified of the second attack on the World Trade Center, and yet lingers with the kids for almost seven minutes before finally leaving the room. His inexplicable paralysis wasn't underlined in news reports at the time, and only Moore thought to contact the teacher in that schoolroom -- who, as it turned out, had made her own video of the visit. The expression on Bush's face as he sits there is odd indeed.

 

Bush, here and elsewhere in the film, is characterized as a man who owes a lot to his friends, including those who helped bail him out of business ventures. Moore places particular emphasis on what he sees as a long-term friendship between the Bush family (including both presidents) and powerful Saudi Arabians. More than $1.4 billion in Saudi money has flowed into the coffers of Bush family enterprises, he says, and after 9/11 the White House helped expedite flights out of the country carrying, among others, members of the bin Laden family (which disowns its most famous member).

 

Moore examines the military records released by Bush to explain his disappearance from the Texas Air National Guard, and finds that the name of another pilot has been blacked out. This pilot, he learns, was Bush's close friend James R. Bath, who became Texas money manager for the billionaire bin Ladens. Another indication of the closeness of the Bushes and the Saudis: The law firm of James Baker, the secretary of State for Bush's father, was hired by the Saudis to defend them against a suit by a group of 9/11 victims and survivors, who charged that the Saudis had financed al-Qaida.

 

To Moore, this is more evidence that Bush has an unhealthy relationship with the Saudis, and that it may have influenced his decision to go to war against Iraq at least partially on their behalf. The war itself Moore considers unjustified (no WMDs, no Hussein-bin Laden link), and he talks with American soldiers, including amputees, who complain bitterly about Bush's proposed cuts of military salaries at the same time he was sending them into a war that they (at least, the ones Moore spoke to) hated.

 

Moore also shows American military personnel who are apparently enjoying the war; he has footage of soldiers who use torture techniques not in a prison but in the field, where they hood an Iraqi prisoner, call him "Ali Baba" and pose for videos while touching his genitals.

 

Moore brings a fresh impact to familiar material by the way he marshals his images. We are all familiar with the controversy over the 2000 election, which was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court. What I hadn't seen before was footage of the ratification of Bush's election by the U.S. Congress. An election can be debated at the request of one senator and one representative; 10 representatives rise to challenge it, but not a single senator. As Moore shows the challengers, one after another, we cannot help noting that they are eight black women, one Asian woman and one black man. They are all gaveled into silence by the chairman of the joint congressional session -- Vice President Al Gore. The urgency and futility of the scene reawakens old feelings for those who believe Bush is an illegitimate president.

 

"Fahrenheit 9/11" opens on a note not unlike Moore's earlier films, such as "Roger & Me" and "Bowling for Columbine." Moore, as narrator, brings humor and sarcasm to his comments, and occasionally appears onscreen in a gadfly role.

 

 

It's vintage Moore, for example, when he brings along a Marine who refused to return to Iraq; together, they confront congressmen, urging them to have their children enlist in the service. And he makes good use of candid footage, including an eerie video showing Bush practicing facial expressions before going live with his address to the nation about 9/11.

 

Apparently Bush and other members of his administration don't know what every TV reporter knows, that a satellite image can be live before they get the cue to start talking. That accounts for the quease-inducing footage of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz wetting his pocket comb in his mouth before slicking back his hair. When that doesn't do it, he spits in his hand and wipes it down. If his mother is alive, I hope for his sake she doesn't see this film.

 

Such scenes are typical of vintage Moore, catching his subjects off guard. But his film grows steadily darker, and Moore largely disappears from it, as he focuses on people such as Lila Lipscomb, from Moore's hometown of Flint, Mich.; she reads a letter from her son, written days before he was killed in Iraq. It urges his family to work for Bush's defeat.

 

"Fahrenheit 9/11" is a compelling, persuasive film, at odds with the White House effort to present Bush as a strong leader. He comes across as a shallow, inarticulate man, simplistic in speech and inauthentic in manner. If the film is not quite as electrifying as Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," that may be because Moore has toned down his usual exuberance and was sobered by attacks on the factual accuracy of elements of "Columbine"; playing with larger stakes, he is more cautious here, and we get an op-ed piece, not a stand-up routine. But he remains one of the most valuable figures on the political landscape, a populist rabble-rouser, humorous and effective; the outrage and incredulity in his film are an exhilarating response to Bush's determined repetition of the same stubborn sound bites.

[Guest MikeSC]

"The Reagans" was MILDLY critical?

 

Ebert is a fucking moron.

-=Mike

[bobobrazil1984 0]

I saw it last night. Got to say I was mildly surprised. He cut back on the "moore-ish ness" quite a bit, and I think some of the footage shown was powerful and interesting (and in some cases rare) enough that it worked despite Michael MOore's general obnoxiousness.

 

The real eye opener for me was the "Rebuilding Iraq" profits seminar for the CEO. I just wanted to smack that smarmy guy (I forget what his title was) who, while grinning like an idiot, was essentially saying how great it was that the war was going bad and dragging on because of profits. "Good for busines, good for us...bad for the people."

Soem of the Iraq footage was eye opening too.

 

I think its pretty sad that we have to wait for an ideologue like michael fucking moore to show us some of this stuff. i fthe media'd done its job earlier, we wouldn't have to rely on his twisted interpretations.

 

The more Moore there was, the less effective the film (i thought the Bush/Saudi segment, while interesting, was bogged down not all that effective, but the iraq segment was much better, thanks to the power of the footage and cutting back on Moore).

F9/11 is his spin on things (more like a video op-ed essay rather than a 'documentary') but I feel there's enough interesting stuff there to make it a worthwhile film.

 

B or maybe B-. hovering around there.

[Guest MikeSC]

The real eye opener for me was the "Rebuilding Iraq" profits seminar for the CEO. I just wanted to smack that smarmy guy (I forget what his title was) who, while grinning like an idiot, was essentially saying how great it was that the war was going bad and dragging on because of profits. "Good for busines, good for us...bad for the people."

Soem of the Iraq footage was eye opening too.

 

I think its pretty sad that we have to wait for an ideologue like michael fucking moore to show us some of this stuff. i fthe media'd done its job earlier, we wouldn't have to rely on his twisted interpretations.

 

The more Moore there was, the less effective the film (i thought the Bush/Saudi segment, while interesting, was bogged down not all that effective, but the iraq segment was much better, thanks to the power of the footage and cutting back on Moore).

F9/11 is his spin on things (more like a video op-ed essay rather than a 'documentary') but I feel there's enough interesting stuff there to make it a worthwhile film.

 

B or maybe B-. hovering around there.

Jonah Goldberg of NRO makes a good point in his column today.

 

For YEARS. the left has decried people like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. In their eyes, these people are total liars and have NO redeeming qualities. Total frauds, total charlatans, utterly despicable people.

 

YET, they'll support Michael Moore because he's "their" Rush Limbaugh.

 

You don't praise a guy by saying he's YOUR version of something you hate. It'd be like praising a guy for being OUR Hitler.

 

There is massive support for the guy because he's "inspiring debate" and "moving the discussion back to the left". Thing is, Moore cannot express what he believes. He has to change the subject or unleash a WEALTH of red herrings on you. Ask him what he believes and the man is simply lost.

 

His films are more similar to pornography than documentaries. They have almost no coherence and they string together EXTREMELY sketchy "Facts" with thorough disregard.

 

Fact is, this film is a joke. He found families and soldiers who don't like this war. You can find that with every war ever fought. Doesn't make the war bad. He thinks the Bushes and Saudis are financially linked through the Carlyle group. One can claim Moore is ALSO linked in a similar manner with few difficulties. He wants to argue that Bush was wrong for sitting in that school for 7 minutes, when the TEACHER WHO WAS IN THE ROOM said he did the right thing.

-=Mike

[Mole 0]

Have you seen it Mike?

[Guest MikeSC]

Have you seen it Mike?

Don't have to see it. The things I mentioned are mentioned by EVERYBODY who saw the film, so it's safe to say that they're in there.

-=Mike

[Cherry Blossom Viscount 0]

Have you seen it Mike?

Don't have to see it.

*Flush*

 

There is your credibility Mike, that is to say you had any in the first place.

[Guest MikeSC]

Have you seen it Mike?

Don't have to see it.

*Flush*

 

There is your credibility Mike, that is to say you had any in the first place.

Don't you have more moronic non-points to make elsewhere?

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

There's no way I'm paying money to see this piece of shit, so this will be the one and only post I make here. And as a bonus, this post will be void of fat jokes...

[TheOriginalOrangeGoblin 0]

I loved it. Entertained the hell out of me and did spur debate with the people I was with. I take most of it with a grain of salt but some of the footage from Iraq was powerful and Bush's little "fool me once" speech is the funniest thing I've seen all year.

 

Money well spent.

[NoCalMike 0]

My intention in creating this thread was for people who have seen this film, to discuss it, not just paste other people's reviews of the flick. We already have a couple of those in the Current Event Forum, but as with most threads relating to Michael Moore, this thread has been hijacked......

[Guest MikeSC]

My intention in creating this thread was for people who have seen this film, to discuss it, not just paste other people's reviews of the flick. We already have a couple of those in the Current Event Forum, but as with most threads relating to Michael Moore, this thread has been hijacked......

This gets filed under "tough shit".

 

"Sure, he's a lying sack of shit --- but he's OUR lying sack of shit"

-=Mike

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

"The Reagans" was MILDLY critical?

 

Ebert is a fucking moron.

          -=Mike

Could you stop being so bitchy and obsessively pedantic?

[Art Sandusky 0]

Yeah. I mean, c'mon man! In Bowling for Columbine, he made fun of Charlton Heston! HE IS A TRAITOR TO OUR NATION FOR DISRESPECTING THE GREAT MOSES!

 

**picks up People magazine, George W. tries to take it away**

 

LET MY PEOPLE GO!

That this post was ignored means you're all terrible, terrible people. Except Laz.

 

Fuckin' awesome.

[Guest MikeSC]

"The Reagans" was MILDLY critical?

 

Ebert is a fucking moron.

           -=Mike

Could you stop being so bitchy and obsessively pedantic?

I will if you will...

-=Mike

..."So what if a movie invents things to make a man look bad? The man IS A REPUBLICAN! HE DESERVES IT, DAMMIT!"

[Renegade 0]

Might want to change the title to "post and let Mike troll"

 

Pretty good movie I thought, better than I thought it would be.

[Guest MikeSC]

Might want to change the title to "post and let Mike troll"

 

Pretty movie I thought, better than I thought it would be.

Renegade, you are a dolt.

-=Mike

...Hmm, I wonder if a rightie did a "documentary" where he attempted to prove that Clinton killed Ron Brown if it'd get all of this wonderful press for "inspiring discourse"...

[NoCalMike 0]

Might want to change the title to "post and let Mike troll"

 

Pretty movie I thought, better than I thought it would be.

Renegade, you are a dolt.

-=Mike

...Hmm, I wonder if a rightie did a "documentary" where he attempted to prove that Clinton killed Ron Brown if it'd get all of this wonderful press for "inspiring discourse"...

who knows, but it would be fair for to ask that people replying to the thread had actually seen the movie.

[godthedog 0]

can we keep this as somewhat of a movies topic and not a current events topic?

 

if you think that moore, beyond the film at hand being discussed, is a fat, overrated, lying sack of shit, or if you want to flame the people who keep saying it, please SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT ALREADY. WE GET IT. we got it here, and we got it here, and we got it here, and we got it here. it always turns into the exact same argument, it never gets anywhere, and it's mind-numbingly stupid. for the love of god, let us not have five threads of the same damn topic, especially where it doesn't belong.

[Guest MikeSC]

can we keep this as somewhat of a movies topic and not a current events topic?

 

if you think that moore, beyond the film at hand being discussed, is a fat, overrated, lying sack of shit, please SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT ALREADY. WE GET IT. we got it here, and we got it here, and we got it here, and we got it here. it always turns into the exact same argument, it never gets anywhere, and it's mind-numbingly stupid. for the love of god, let us not have five threads of the same damn topic, especially where it doesn't belong.

Gee, I feel the same way about the people who think he's just peachy.

-=Mike

[godthedog 0]

yeah, post was edited to make it more clear that i was referring to the degeneration of the whole discussion, not just those who think he's a fat, overrated, lying sack of shit.

 

it's not the positions that are retarded (though many of them are), it's the discourse.

[Mole 0]

Have you seen it Mike?

Don't have to see it. The things I mentioned are mentioned by EVERYBODY who saw the film, so it's safe to say that they're in there.

-=Mike

What? You can't have a true opinion about something unless you see it.

[NoCalMike 0]

can we keep this as somewhat of a movies topic and not a current events topic?

 

if you think that moore, beyond the film at hand being discussed, is a fat, overrated, lying sack of shit, or if you want to flame the people who keep saying it, please SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT ALREADY. WE GET IT. we got it here, and we got it here, and we got it here, and we got it here. it always turns into the exact same argument, it never gets anywhere, and it's mind-numbingly stupid. for the love of god, let us not have five threads of the same damn topic, especially where it doesn't belong.

I wish I would have said that in my initial post...thanks.

[dubq 0]

can we keep this as somewhat of a movies topic and not a current events topic?

 

if you think that moore, beyond the film at hand being discussed, is a fat, overrated, lying sack of shit, please SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT ALREADY.  WE GET IT.  we got it here, and we got it here, and we got it here, and we got it here.  it always turns into the exact same argument, it never gets anywhere, and it's mind-numbingly stupid.  for the love of god, let us not have five threads of the same damn topic, especially where it doesn't belong.

Gee, I feel the same way about the people who think he's just peachy.

-=Mike

Speaking of asinine...

[treble 0]

can we keep this as somewhat of a movies topic and not a current events topic?

 

if you think that moore, beyond the film at hand being discussed, is a fat, overrated, lying sack of shit, or if you want to flame the people who keep saying it, please SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT ALREADY.  WE GET IT.  we got it here, and we got it here, and we got it here, and we got it here.  it always turns into the exact same argument, it never gets anywhere, and it's mind-numbingly stupid.  for the love of god, let us not have five threads of the same damn topic, especially where it doesn't belong.

I wish I would have said that in my initial post...thanks.

Yeah, like gtd said, there are plenty of places to rip on Moore (and to rip on people who rip on him), so keep it there. This thread is for discussing his movie so keep it on topic.