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

[1234-5678 0]

What's your position on the section of the movie that dealt with Bush not truly winning the election?

Must've missed that part of the movie --- but he's rehashed the story in his books and they've already been disproven.

-=Mike

That was the first 20 minutes of the movie............

 

In fact a State Rep made a point to say that Congress elected Bush President, and not the people.

Well, to be technical, the Congress ELECTS EVERY PRESIDENT, NOT THE PEOPLE.

 

You know, that whole electoral college thing.

 

You'd think a guy as fat as Moore would know that.

-=Mike

She meant because Congress wouldn't consider recounting the controversial Florida votes, where black voters were given the run around.

[Guest MikeSC]

She meant because Congress wouldn't consider recounting the controversial Florida votes, where black voters were given the run around.

Except black voters weren't given the runaround. If you'd like to get into that or into the whole "Kathleen Willey made the state purge ex-cons from the voting lists", I'll be more than happy to enlighten you in CE.

 

However, do remember one thing --- EVERY SINGLE BALLOT WAS COUNTED.

-=Mike

...Can you handle the concept that not all ballots contain valid votes?

[Eclipse 0]

I finally saw it, and it was money well spent.

 

-At some parts, it was disturbing. The images of war aren't for the weak hearted, since they did show dead and injured Iraqis. I don't know how Mike got his hands on images of the the Iraqis dragging dead and mangled American soldiers on the streets. I thought about it, whoever that was, the family never retrieved the body.

 

-Gotta love how it is true: The fact that Bush would NEVER stop saying Iraq had something to do with this all (9/11).

 

-It was hard seeing the mom that lost her son in the war show her feelings. I thought the best part of the movie was when she mentioned that now, she has a place where she could vent her hate and anger, and then the camera pans to the White House.

 

 

This movie didn't sway my vote, because I already wanted Bush out of the White House, but this just makes me feel A WHOLE LOT BETTER that I didn't vote for that bumbling idiot.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Saw it today finally (it wasn't sold out, about time, although it was still very crowded, especially considering it was 3:30 on a Thursday afternoon).

 

A few people walked out, although I can't remember when they left. Someone left as early as 20 minutes in, others around the hour mark, others with about 20 minutes left. Got applause from about 50% of the audience as well. Almost all ages and minorities were represented too.

 

As a film, it was extremely well done, and made pretty much in the way I'd make any op-ed piece. Lots of humor, and the "Afghanistan" parody was awesome. It relied a little too heavily on the preconception that people always do the worst possible thing though. Overall, an echoing of my personal sentiments and a very well-executed film regardless of on which side of the fence you sit.

[JangoFett4Hire 0]

What's your position on the section of the movie that dealt with Bush not truly winning the election?

Must've missed that part of the movie --- but he's rehashed the story in his books and they've already been disproven.

-=Mike

That was the first 20 minutes of the movie............

 

In fact a State Rep made a point to say that Congress elected Bush President, and not the people.

Well, to be technical, the Congress ELECTS EVERY PRESIDENT, NOT THE PEOPLE.

 

You know, that whole electoral college thing.

 

You'd think a guy as fat as Moore would know that.

-=Mike

Did you ever have common sense? Or did your girlfriend beat that out of you?

[Nevermortal 0]

Really worth my 6.25....

 

It had a lot of funny parts like the guy with that ridiculous parachute contraption, Wolfowicz using his own saliva to style his hair, and the whole "vacation" sequence.

 

Lot of low-blows towards Bush, but since Bush is a douchebag, I could care less.

 

The mother who lost her son was a really, really tough sequence to take.

 

The guy next to me was calling Bush an asshole after nearly every scene. It was quite amusing. The movie got at least a near half minute of applause from the audience in the theater.

 

Those were my random musings.

[godthedog 0]

in honor of the world's oldest profession, i hereby revive this discussion.

 

I read a review comaring F9/11 to The Passion of the Christ. You just change Christianity over to politics and then the comparisons begin..

 

-both movies generated a lot of controversy before they were released.

 

-both directors are seen as zealots for their causes (Gibson for Christianity, Moore for leftist politics)

 

-both movies either reaffirm your beliefs (either Christian faith or Bush hating) or will generate nay saying, some from people who have not seen the movie and will go off of what they heard.

 

-both have parts of their movie that are hard to stomach (Jesus being tortured, dead bodies from the war in Iraq)

 

-both movies have come up with accuracy issues (Gibson's assertion that the Jews were responsible for Jesus death, inaccuaracies in several of Moore's key points in his movie.

content-wise that's kind of reaching, but i think the similarity of context is valid, and both films seem to work on this sub-rational level that has nothing to do with telling a story and everything to do with using every cinematic tool at one's disposal to jar & jolt the shit out of the viewer.

 

from what i've heard, 'the passion' relies more on the sheer spectacle of a man being beaten to death than any empathy with the main character, as the characterization of jesus within the film itself apparently is pathetically flimsy. it's like eisenstein used to do, always putting babies in danger in his action scenes. in the middle of the riot scene in 'strike', you just see this baby (who has never been introduced in the film before), out of the blue, fall five storeys to its death. it's just an immediate psychological "oh SHIT" reaction that depends more on the image itself than the character.

 

same thing with moore: narrative doesn't matter, what matters is a string of spectacle and memorable moments like embarrassing bush sound bytes, and amputee veterans who we never really get to know--they're not there because moore is focused on their character and individual struggle, they're there so that you can see images of amputees and associate them with the bush administration.

 

also kind of cool is both directors' intention to speak to the viewer on a more direct, immediate and personal level than movies are used to. gibson wants you to know, very simply and very purely, that WE killed christ (how successful he is in conveying this is debatable, but the intention is unique). moore wants YOU to go out and dethrone the man in power. they're not movies that want you to sit back and watch and idly explore, they want you to directly participate in the discourse and MAKE the material relevant in your own life.

[Art Sandusky 0]

That was you who wrote that? Great review, yo.

[Anakin Flair 0]

Ok people, help me out here...

The song they play with the TV commercial for this movie- WHAT IS IT'S NAME! This is driving me nuts.

[godthedog 0]

That was you who wrote that? Great review, yo.

thanks, yo.

 

i would've begun a new "pimping/feedback" thread for it, but god knows how many michael moore-related threads this board can take before it collapses on itself.

[Ravenbomb 0]

saw it today. Audience consisted mostly of old people. The part about Carnahan was great

 

"They swore him in on a stack of bibles, because when you can't even beat a dead guy, you need all the help you can get"

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

FINALLY saw it.

 

Reports of Moore as "manipulative" have been greatly exaggerated. There's really no way to argue around the dozens of connections between Bush and the Bin ladens, there's no way to just explain away the total mishandling of the War on terror that is presented in this film. There's no way for a guy like MikeSC to claim "Michael Moore is a liar" when you see the LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD SIT AND READ A CHILDREN'S BOOK FOR SEVEN MINUTES AFTER 9/11. Moore completely dismantles any kind of sympathy the viewer could have for the Bush Administration. He does it with moral inidgnation, he does it with stinging sarcasm, and he does it with the Administration's own words.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Ok people, help me out here...

The song they play with the TV commercial for this movie- WHAT IS IT'S NAME! This is driving me nuts.

It's by Ten Years After and it's called "I'd Love to Change the World."

[DMann2003 0]

I figure this is the best thread to mention this-

 

VH1's Illustrated had a damn funny parody of Hannity & Colmes with Gollum/Smeagol hosting his own Fox News show, Gollum was conservative and Smeagol was liberal, just insert "precious" for Bush and "stupid fat hobbit" with Michael Moore and you've got it.

 

It was pretty funny.

[DMann2003 0]

Double post.

[BX 0]

So I've been told.

[Guest Mr. Adam]

So am I the ony one who caught something strangely hilarious in the section at the beginning of the Iraq war? The media is talking over clips of the bombings and such and what do I hear? Something along the lines of "These are the most captivating, greatest pictures I have ever witnessed."

 

It's Tony fucking Schiavone! He's still got it!

[Guest ken adams]

TSM reviewer R. E stated in his review of Michael Moore's F9/11 movie that

 

 

"I have no idea how much of the information in this film is true and how much he has stretched or made up for the sake of impact."

 

 

 

Most of the movie is in fact, a lie, a deceit or a half truth.

 

 

You can read about the 59 lies/deceits of the film at:

 

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-D...renheit-911.htm

 

 

 

That site goes into excruciating detail on ALL of Moore's points. For those of you who say you can't argue with the Bin Laden connections and Bush sitting in the classroom, READ THIS SITE, because you CAN argue with things that are not true, are a half truth, are made up or taken out of context

 

The only thing Moore dismantles is his ability to be taken seriously. Moore will not do any interviews with anyone who dares question his him. If what he says is true, what is he afraid of? If there is no question Bush is evil, why is Moore afraid to back up his claims? Exactly.

 

Just because something is in a movie does not make it true. If any of what Moore said is true, the media would have pounced on it and called for Bush's impeachment. That has not happened.

[godthedog 0]

for the purposes of the review, i had no interest in how ethical moore was being. how well-done the film is and how ethical it is are two markedly different discussions. i find 'sweetback' morally repugnant, but that doesn't change how well melvin van peebles puts sounds and images together. the ethics of the whole thing would've eaten up another 3,000 words that i wasn't prepared to write, and would be better housed in another column unto itself. i was familiar with the infamous "fact sheet" before i posted the article, and i'm sure i'll get around to reading it sometime soon. i've been on a moore/mayleses/riefenstahl kick lately and the "responsibility" that goes into the way images and sounds are put together, so i may be motivated to do a separate column on those issues in the near future.

[Guest Birds in the Hotel]

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

Wow. What an idiot.

 

And George W is our version of Hitler.

 

This guy is supposed to be smart?? That's a joke, right?