[UNTeMac]

Please don't make this a flamewar about the esteemed Mr. Moore (chuckle). Just post why or why not below.

Edit: Here's a link to the trailer (High bandwidth quicktime)

http://www.fahrenheit911.com/trailer...time/large.php

[zachs]

Most definitely. Especially considering Faux News said everyone should see it.

[BlackGriffen]

Nah, no need. Some of the footage is, shall we say, of a brutal nature. Problem is, it's real brutality, not makeup.

I've seen one beheading in my life (a Russian soldier getting his head sawed off by Chechen rebels), and I don't feel any particular need to see another, thank you.

BlackGriffen

[Y3a]

Moores' Documentaries are his opinions, and therefore NOT documentaries. His fat dirty appearance suggests he has far more problems than not being connected with reality.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Y3a:
Moores' Documentaries are his opinions, and therefore NOT documentaries. His fat dirty appearance suggests he has far more problems than not being connected with reality.

Clearly, you have an objective opinion...



Note: italics of the quote are mine

[voyageur]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Nah, no need. Some of the footage is, shall we say, of a brutal nature. Problem is, it's real brutality, not makeup.

I've seen one beheading in my life (a Russian soldier getting his head sawed off by Chechen rebels), and I don't feel any particular need to see another, thank you.

BlackGriffen

DIdn't realize this kind of thing was in Fahrenheit 9/11. Change my vote from Yes to No. I also have no desire to watch a beheading.

[MacGorilla]

I intend to watch it, if it comes close. I live in a rural area so the chances of it coming close are slim.

[PacHead]

Even though Moore is a proven liar and a deceptive lowlife, I will see the movie eventually, but certainly not at the theatre or anything like that. I will also not pay any money to see it, obviously.

[Logic]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Even though Moore is a proven liar and a deceptive lowlife, I will see the movie eventually, but certainly not at the theatre or anything like that. I will also not pay any money to see it, obviously.

So are you going to steal it?



and yes, I'm gonna see it.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Logic:
So are you going to steal it?



and yes, I'm gonna see it.

I never said I am going to steal it. I said I will not pay any money to watch it. It would be against my morals to pay money to somebody who profits off of dead people.

[Logic]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I never said I am going to steal it. I said I will not pay any money to watch it. It would be against my morals to pay money to somebody who profits off of dead people.

But you pay taxes to Cheney et al


So how are you going to watch it without stealing it, but by not paying for it?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Logic:
So how are you going to watch it without stealing it, but by not paying for it?

I figure it probably won't be that long until it's on some cable channel such as HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Starz, TMC etc., all of which I have.

[Logic]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I figure it probably won't be that long until it's on some cable channel such as HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Starz, TMC etc., all of which I have.

You pay for them don't you?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Logic:
You pay for them don't you?

No, I steal my cable.

Of course I pay for my cable, but I will at least not be paying money directly to Mr. Moore to watch his movie.

I am not going to cancel my cable service, just because they show his movie, and I will of course view it if they are showing it. So indirectly, an argument can be made that I'm paying for it, but not directly, and that is a big difference, as far as I'm concerned.

[Logic]

Originally posted by PacHead:
No, I steal my cable.

Of course I pay for my cable, but I will at least not be paying money directly to Mr. Moore to watch his movie.

I am not going to cancel my cable service, just because they show his movie, and I will of course view it if they are showing it. So indirectly, an argument can be made that I'm paying for it, but not directly, and that is a big difference, as far as I'm concerned.

That's fair enough


I found this article very interesting.

Besides, it may turn out that the most talked-about moments in the film are the least impeachable. Mr. Moore makes extensive use of obscure footage from White House and network-news video archives, including long scenes that capture President Bush at his least articulate. For the White House, the most devastating segment of "Fahrenheit 9/11" may be the video of a befuddled-looking President Bush staying put for nearly seven minutes at a Florida elementary school on the morning of Sept. 11, continuing to read a copy of "My Pet Goat" to schoolchildren even after an aide has told him that a second plane has struck the twin towers. Mr. Bush's slow, hesitant reaction to the disastrous news has never been a secret. But seeing the actual footage, with the minutes ticking by, may prove more damaging to the White House than all the statistics in the world.

[gatekeeper]

Even though I don't need any more convincing that Bush is a proven liar and a deceptive lowlife, I will see the movie eventually.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Logic:
I found this article very interesting.

Yes, I read that same thing, and I hardly see how it's going to be damaging, because it's old news, very old news as a matter of fact.

Most people have already seen Bush in that school. I saw it on 9-11 I believe, so I don't see why I should have a different opinion now, just because it's in the movie.

[BRussell]

I'll wait until the DVD. Just doesn't seem like a theater movie to me. I heard that it's going to be on DVD before the election. That seems hard to believe, but who knows?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I'll wait until the DVD. Just doesn't seem like a theater movie to me. I heard that it's going to be on DVD before the election. That seems hard to believe, but who knows?

But Mr. Moore is just an entertainer as some claim, so clearly there are no political motives behind releasing it on DVD just before the election.

[Logic]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Yes, I read that same thing, and I hardly see how it's going to be damaging, because it's old news, very old news as a matter of fact.

Most people have already seen Bush in that school. I saw it on 9-11 I believe, so I don't see why I should have a different opinion now, just because it's in the movie.

Have the whole footage been shown? That is him sitting there for something like 7 minutes after he is notified of the second plane?

I haven't seen it so I'm very interested in seeing that part.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Logic:
Have the whole footage been shown? That is him sitting there for something like 7 minutes after he is notified of the second plane?

I haven't seen it so I'm very interested in seeing that part.

I'm not sure exactly how long they showed it for, but it is common knowledge that some aide or somebody whispered something into his ear, and he had an understandably confused look on his face, and he proceeded to sit there for several minutes in front of the school class. It has been beaten to death on various news talk shows, and I do believe it is common knowledge for anybody who follows the news in any way, shape or form.

I figure, I've already seen probably 25% of the movie already if not more, since it consists of news clips etc.

[villalobos]

The very last bit on Bush asking every countries to do all they can to stop the terrorists, then showing off his drive 'Now watch this drive' is hilarious!!! Or very very sad, can't decide.

villa

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I'll wait until the DVD. Just doesn't seem like a theater movie to me. I heard that it's going to be on DVD before the election. That seems hard to believe, but who knows?

Going quickly to DVD is always considered a sign of movie greatness.

[Shaddim]

No. I'll donate that $8 to the Salvation Army or Red Cross and call it even. Why line that idiot's pockets?

[zachs]

Originally posted by PacHead:
But Mr. Moore is just an entertainer as some claim, so clearly there are no political motives behind releasing it on DVD just before the election.

Most of the movie is clips of Bush, Dick, Rummy, et al.

Should be very entertaining indeed!

[PacHead]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Going quickly to DVD is always considered a sign of movie greatness.

He's in good company at least.

[zachs]

Originally posted by Logic:
Have the whole footage been shown? That is him sitting there for something like 7 minutes after he is notified of the second plane?

I haven't seen it so I'm very interested in seeing that part.

Yeah, the whole clip is available. Check it out here. I don't know if the whole thing was shown on the news. All I saw on 9/11 were his remarks before he left.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by PacHead:
He's in good company at least.

At least with J.Lo you get some nice eye candy.

[Secret__Police]

I will see it

[gatekeeper]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Going quickly to DVD is always considered a sign of movie greatness.

Yes, crappy movies like LOTR:ROTK are quickly released on DVD.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
At least with J.Lo you get some nice eye candy.

Yeah, Im not exactly fond of J-Lo, but she is more pleasing on the eyes than Mr. Moore.

[BlackGriffen]

Here is a nice editorial on it by Ebert:

"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.
[...]
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.
[...]
The R rating may stand; there is a real beheading in the film, and only fictional beheadings get the PG-13.
[...]
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.

Ok, I quoted most of it. *shrug*

BG

[Spliff]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Here is a nice editorial on it by Ebert:

Ok, I quoted most of it. *shrug*

BG

That's a decent article by Ebert. He makes good points. It's lame that Moore complained to Ebert for criticizing him. If there are factual errors in the movie, why shouldn't he be criticized by Ebert? His political leanings should have nothing to do with it.

[UNTeMac]

hmm...I didn't know there was a beheading in there either. I don't think I'll see it after all. What possible use could you gain from having that in the movie? I remember a few scenes of actual death in "Bowling for Columbine" and while I don't deny their reality, I don't think they should be included in a film for profit, whatever the political motives. And I didn't like "Bowling" either, I just thought this one would be different after he learned that people actually do see the truth through his deception in the previous film. I'm afraid he's going to become the Democrats' Jerry Falwell.

[angaq0k]

I never saw the beheading of either Berg or Johnson. I think that for the purpose of a documentary, it is appropriate, and greatly appreciate the "R" rating associated with it.

Will I see Moore's film? I don't know. I've seen dismemberment in real life already and had enough of those. I will consider with time, depending of my mood, and my state of mind.

It would bother me greatly though if the movie would be filled continuously with such images of violence, and worse, without a commentary. If there is only one such cut of violence, I don't mind it so much because it serves the purpose of making a point. Abusing of those images is unacceptable to me though.

I still remember the image of that vietnamese person being shot in the head, in black and white. I have seen children pointing plastic guns at the head of their playmates as well, and that makes me just as uncomfortable.

There is so much violence, fictive, I admit, on the screens anyway, that reality testing is not so bad, and may actually make us all reflect on such episodes of violence (for those who haven't, or those who need a reminder), for the purpose of a story, or to justify the means to a political end.

Admitedly, not everyone needs to see it; but the simple fact that we talk about such a movie serves a good purpose: to reflect upon such futile violence.

A documentary can be educational, without watching or listening to it.

[itai195]

Nice to see Ebert basically agrees with what I've said all along - if Bowling is a documentary, it does an awful job of presenting facts and situations accurately. Not to take away from the movie as a whole, which I liked, but I thought Moore took too much artistic license.

As far as Fahrenheit 911 goes, I don't know if I'll see it in theatres but I will catch it on DVD. Doesn't seem like I'd get much out of the $20 threatre experience for a movie like this.

[Monique]

Yes I will see it even though I do not agree with everything Moore says I just love the controversy he comes up with and I am leaning center left.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Yeah, Im not exactly fond of J-Lo, but she is more pleasing on the eyes than Mr. Moore.

My God half the developing world could be fed if someone beheaded that fat ****er.

[zachs]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
My God half the developing world could be fed if someone beheaded that fat ****er.

Global anti-hunger efforts could be fully funded for 4 years with the amount we've spent on the Iraq quagmire so far.

[Spliff]

The New York Times had an article about how Moore has taken great pains to check the facts in the movie. It sounds as if he learned his lesson from "Bowling." That's a good thing. It'll make for a stronger, more effective film. As the article points out, the movie is more of an op-ed piece than a standard documentary.

Will Michael Moore's Facts Check Out? [registration requ'rd]

MR. MOORE usually revels in his role as the target of conservative attacks, and his delight in playing the mischievous, little-guy bomb-thrower has brought him fame, wealth and the devotion of fans more interested in rhetorical force than precision. But with "Fahrenheit" he has taken on his biggest and best-defended target yet, and his production staff says that on his orders they have taken no chances in checking and double-checking the film, knowing Bush supporters would pounce on factual mistakes.

Mr. Moore is readying for a conservative counterattack, saying he has created a political-style "war room" to offer an instant response to any assault on the film's credibility. He has retained Chris Lehane, a Democratic Party strategist known as a master of the black art of "oppo," or opposition research, used to discredit detractors. He also hired outside fact-checkers, led by a former general counsel of The New Yorker and a veteran member of that magazine's legendary fact-checking team, to vet the film. And he is threatening to go one step further, saying he has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation.

"We want the word out," says Mr. Moore, who says he should have responded more quickly to allegations of inaccuracy in his Oscar-winning 2002 anti-gun documentary, "Bowling for Columbine." "Any attempts to libel me will be met by force," he said, not an ounce of humor in his familiar voice. "The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I'll take them to court."

The most valid criticisms of the film are likely to involve the artful way that Mr. Moore connects the facts, and whether he has left out others that might undermine his scalding attack. A great many statistics fly by in the movie � such as assertions that 6 percent to 7 percent of the United States is owned by Saudi Arabians, and that Saudi companies have paid more than $1.4 billion to Bush family interests. But Mr. Moore doesn't explain how he arrived at them, or what these vague interests comprise. Mr. Moore and his team say they have news reports and other evidence to back up the numbers and that it will be posted on his Web site (www.michaelmoore.com) after the film's release.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
My God half the developing world could be fed if someone beheaded that fat ****er.

You should seek help if you thought your comment has any intelligent or comedic value.

Sixty percent of Americans are overweight.

Post your pic please.

[Zimphire]

I'll probably wait till it comes out on DVD, and hope to run into someone that has rented it.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by gatekeeper:
Bush is a proven liar and a deceptive lowlife,

So what do you call people that calls other people "proven liars" that haven't been proven to be liars?

Comments like that crack me up.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
You should seek help if you thought your comment has any intelligent or comedic value.

Sixty percent of Americans are overweight.

Post your pic please.

99.9% of Americans aren't as large as Mr. Moore. My God, does he have his own ZIP code?

[zachs]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
99.9% of Americans aren't as large as Mr. Moore. My God, does he have his own ZIP code?

No, but Bush does!

(The President is assigned his own, private ZIP code by the USPS. Any envelopes addressed with this ZIP code will be delivered directly to his office.)

[Lando Griffin]

Yeah, I'll see it. I already saw a few clips of it, and it's actually pretty funny. Bush was talking to the camera, saying something like, "down with the terrorists" on the golf course, followed by, "now watch me drive this ball!" Maybe Moore's attempts to insult Bush will backfire. I mean, he's Canadian. And most Canadians are stupid...I mean FAT Canadians.

[badidea]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
So what do you call people that calls other people "proven liars" that haven't been proven to be liars?

Conservatives?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by badidea:
Conservatives?

[Logic]

Originally posted by badidea:
Conservatives?

[voodoo]

Ya of course I'll see it! I enjoy Moore's films.