A Soldier Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 Do you plan on to go see this do-*BAD WORD*-entary?What are your opinions on Michael Moore?
Yupa Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 I plan on seeing it - the trailer alone is rather disturbing don't care about Michael Moore - a video of the President talking about terrorism then saying "now watch this swing" (or whatever) at a golf course speaks for itself
Arianax Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 Micheal Moore is very annoying, he uses a weird amount of propaganda, lies in most of his films to make his point more convincing, and is over all a Champagne Socialist, who shouldnt have won the Palm D'or and only gets the publicity because he's criticizing Bush, and people like that. yay
Yupa Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 weird amount? like I said - there's no lie in that tiny clip I saw of the president teeing off after talking about terrorism and -*BAD WORD*- you if you don't like the idea of social idealism - if you don't like that, then you can go -*BAD WORD*- yourself
»Ducky Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 Edit:Totally lost relevance after blanking for 10 minutesDelete this -*BAD WORD*-
Arianax Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 I said he was a Champagne Socialist, un poco of a difference, but swearing at me is fun too <_<
Dr.Worthless Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 don't care about Michael Moore - a video of the President talking about terrorism then saying "now watch this swing" (or whatever) at a golf course speaks for itself Ever heard of editing? I won't be going to see the movie, well I *might*. It is beneficial for the american public to realize there is ALWAYS more to the story than what we are told. What I do not believe the movie will accomplish is telling us this information in a non-biased fashion. Moore has made it apparent he doesn't like the current president, and im certain this movie will be so full of left wing spin that I'll get motion-sickness from watching it. I'll be awefully suprised if the movie is even all that good. It got a standing ovation a the (whatever) film festival, but that festival was filled with people that would have given a standing ovation to a 10 second film of a dog taking a -*BAD WORD*- as long as it ended with "Bush SUCKS!!!" flashing across the screen. Worthless
Yupa Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 Ever heard of editing?every hear of watching something before you comment on it? (the golf thing is at the end of the trailer) I HIGHLY doubt that's edited.
Dr.Worthless Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 every hear of watching something before you comment on it? (the golf thing is at the end of the trailer) I HIGHLY doubt that's edited. Ok, Watching the whole trailer I know see the thing in question, my appologies. In the shortened version I saw on television, they showed the president talking about the terrorist, then cut to him saying "watch this drive" and him hitting the ball. Watching the whole trailer it was seemless and the camera just panned out, yadda yadda. You're right, it wasn't edited, my applogies. After watching the trailer, I might just go see it. I enjoy viewpoints from both sides of the coin. As I mentioned before, there is for sure more to the story than we know, there always has been and always will be. Some comments in the trailer are sort of questionable, If you take everything the president says with its literal meaning then you're a darn fool. An example in the trailer is his "you are the have and have mores.. some people consider you the privledged, i consider you my base." I took it as the president being jovial, Obviously moore and the leftists took it literally. Case in point.. at the whatever convention they held in atlanta (or some southern state.. my -*BAD WORD*-in mind cant remember yesterday, not to mention a few weeks ago) the president made a comment to a reporter "Sorry I can't field your questions, I leave here in a few hours, but I have to live with these other people everyday" Literal Intepretation "OMG THE BUSH PRESIDENCY IS LETTING REPORTERS LIVE IN THE WHITEHOUSE TO FUEL HIS PROPGANDA MACHINE AAGHGHGHAGHASDHGAHSDG" Actual Interpretation = jovial remark about the reporters. I know all of this falls on deaf ears. To many people believe Bush is the anti-christ and every problem in the world is his fault.. Worthless.
Bacchus Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 I can't wait to see this movie! Moore rocks! I like how he presents his criticism, even if he uses editing skills, take quotes out of contexts, etc...he at least offers fuel for discussion and critics where they are badly needed. TORONTO (CP) - American filmmaker Michael Moore hopes Canadians don't vote elect a party that supported the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq. The Academy Award winner was reacting to the stance of Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and says he is grateful the Liberal government stayed out of Iraq. Moore - whose do-*BAD WORD*-entaries include Bowling for Columbine and Roger and Me - warns that if Canadians elect Harper, "then dire consequences will follow." He predicts U.S. President George W. Bush will "throw a party" if the Conservatives form a government after the June 28 election. Moore's latest film, Fahrenheit 9-11, is an indictment of Bush's handling of the events before and after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Pro-Republican groups in the United States have already geared up to oppose the film, which could hurt Bush in the November U.S. election, including a massive letter-writing campaign to theatre chains. Yeah, way to go! oh, since it's fun...-*BAD WORD*- You too!
Yupa Posted June 21, 2004 Report Posted June 21, 2004 every hear of watching something before you comment on it? (the golf thing is at the end of the trailer) I HIGHLY doubt that's edited. Ok, Watching the whole trailer I know see the thing in question, my appologies. In the shortened version I saw on television, they showed the president talking about the terrorist, then cut to him saying "watch this drive" and him hitting the ball. Watching the whole trailer it was seemless and the camera just panned out, yadda yadda. You're right, it wasn't edited, my applogies. After watching the trailer, I might just go see it. I enjoy viewpoints from both sides of the coin. As I mentioned before, there is for sure more to the story than we know, there always has been and always will be. Some comments in the trailer are sort of questionable, If you take everything the president says with its literal meaning then you're a darn fool. An example in the trailer is his "you are the have and have mores.. some people consider you the privledged, i consider you my base." I took it as the president being jovial, Obviously moore and the leftists took it literally. Case in point.. at the whatever convention they held in atlanta (or some southern state.. my -*BAD WORD*-in mind cant remember yesterday, not to mention a few weeks ago) the president made a comment to a reporter "Sorry I can't field your questions, I leave here in a few hours, but I have to live with these other people everyday" Literal Intepretation "OMG THE BUSH PRESIDENCY IS LETTING REPORTERS LIVE IN THE WHITEHOUSE TO FUEL HIS PROPGANDA MACHINE AAGHGHGHAGHASDHGAHSDG" Actual Interpretation = jovial remark about the reporters. I know all of this falls on deaf ears. To many people believe Bush is the anti-christ and every problem in the world is his fault.. Worthless. actually I don't really care about politics, I just like seeing creepy things exposed and um...I'm sometimes bored
Arianax Posted June 21, 2004 Report Posted June 21, 2004 I think Moore does raise some intresting points, however he blows things outta proportion a lot, prehaps if he gave a more factual account then it would be more effective, maybe its just cause i dont like the man though, still.
Slowking Man Posted July 3, 2004 Report Posted July 3, 2004 You might also want to read this article from Slate.
Jauggernaut Posted July 3, 2004 Report Posted July 3, 2004 I wanna see it. I also thought Bowling for Columbine was a good movie. Moore is ok take him or leave him that's what I say.
Cyanide Posted July 6, 2004 Report Posted July 6, 2004 I saw it....it was actually really good.....he made Bush look like the monkey he is. Although there was alot of propaganda in it...it did show alot of good points. I suggest you all go see it!!
Jauggernaut Posted July 7, 2004 Report Posted July 7, 2004 kool sig . L33t -*BAD WORD*- right thurr .
»nintendo64 Posted July 24, 2004 Report Posted July 24, 2004 A Liberal's Catharsis: Bush is not the problem by Laberdere (movies profile) Jun 25, 2004 3839 of 4914 people found this review helpful During the two hours and change of Michael Moore's scathing "Fahrenheit 9/11," I came to a very slow, yet crucial realization: George W. Bush is not the cause of all that is wrong and corrupt within the United States government. He is, however, a major pawn and a figure head. Yes, the film is funny. Yes, people gape at Bush and laugh at what he says. Yes, Moore's ability to catch unsuspecting people flat-footed draws good laughs. But will Moore's film be effective? In a sense, yes. And in another, no. Michael Moore's film may actually be counter-productive to his declared intention of ousting Bush from the White House. I left the theater cursing not, specifically, Bush, but the money-hungry (and power wielding) massive corporations which use W's (and his father's) political sway and business savvy to increase their profits. Bush, himself, is a moron. This isn't my personal opinion so much as it is common sense. If you met a Joe Schmoe on the street who acted and talked like Bush, you'd disregard him as an ignorant redneck/hillbilly. The more I thought about this idea in particular (namely, Bush being a moron), the more it confirmed my belief that if the Enrons and Halliburtons and Bin Laden oil industries had their way, they would have selected (and had elected, presumably) a much more articulate, intelligent man who could at least avoid the, again, common-sense conclusion of being a puppet on strings. No, Bush *himself* doesn't need to go per se- the driving force of money and power that created "Bush" need to be ousted. That's a crucial difference to what I thought coming into the film. What else do I realize? Republicans aren't the problem, specifically.. Ironically, they'd be part of the solution if they'd acknowledge that in the process of "generating wealth," they were doing so nearly exclusive to the upper-upper-middle class to the rich, and not at ALL catering to the lower tax brackets. And sure, the hairbrained ideals of "decency" and moral stifling they advocate makes me wonder why America has more laws and less freedoms than dozens of countries around the world. Anyway, Democrats certainly aren't the solution of our government's woes either, because they target (incorrectly) Republicans as the source of unquestionable government corruption. Republicans aren't the problems- the people pulling the strings (the major corporations) are the issue. Republicans, sure, they may be, but their status as villains wouldn't change even IF they were Democrats. But yes, y'all came here to read my thoughts on the film. First of all, it is a film. People somehow seem to think the term "do-*BAD WORD*-entary" entails an unbiased representation of the fact, but as Roger Ebert pointed out in his weekly "Ask the Movie Man" section, that's actually never the case. Just as it's impossible for a scientist to research anything without interfering with the thing being studied, it's impossible to present a story without taking SOME side to it. All of this being said, the film is well done from a style and plot construction point. Moore is scathing towards Bush, yes, but the way in which he achieves this end is perhaps the most important aspect of the film: He lets Bush hang himself. Some of the things Bush says, in any context, defy reason. Again, I allude to him *probably* not being the ideal candidate for the Republicans in 2000, but someone with a famous father and lineage who could win and achieve party interests. Bush has never shown an ability to think on his feet, a fact compounded by the fewest number of presidential speeches/appearances (for lack of better term) since the onset of television/m!@#$%^&* media. Does Moore take the liberty of crucifying a man not very well suited for public speaking? Without question, but ultimately, that's Bush's own fault as well. Moore shouldn't be criticized for including some of the ridiculous things Bush says- they're in the public domain, and as any D+ student of US civics could tell you, the principles of the US cons!@#$%^&*ution and Bill of Rights are framed around the ideas of accountability and distribution of power. Public ignorance (which is rampant, about everything) is a derelection of our civic duties as American Citizens. Moore's conclusion of the war in Iraq being a pre-meditated plan by the administration BEFORE 9/11 is probably accurate, though Moore makes it seem all the more -*BAD WORD*-ing by insinuating Bush used 9/11 as a gateway to striking Iraq. The film contains enough footage (most -*BAD WORD*-ingly a business summit to discuss Iraqi contracting bids and money DURING the fight) and enough Bush family corporate-advisors turning into amb!@#$%^&*adors to create, nearly beyond the shadow of a doubt, a reality that yes, Saudi interests had a great deal of influence in how Bush handled a politically difficult situation like 9/11. Did Bush act inappropriately? As leader of the "free world" and of the United States of America, yes. As a businessman, absolutely not. That, for me, is the crucial point in which I agree with Moore. Bush's actions (and inactions) make complete sense from a business standpoint. I'd say the ideas and notions reek of conspiracy theories were I not watching Saudi officials basically saying what Moore hinted at. Throw in that Moore has argued a journalistic fact-checking team to immediately attack (and sue) any person or organization which attempt to slander or libel him, and I'm forced to say that yes, Moore's presented information is nearly beyond reproach. If anything, the inaccuracies of "Bowling for Columbine" will not hurt Moore, but only enhance the credibility of "Fahrenheit 9/11" because of the excessive efforts he has made to make "Fahrenheit" infallible. At this point, and this is crucial, POINTING TO BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE'S ERRORS IS A MOOT POINT BECAUSE THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IN FAHRENHEIT 9/11 IS VERIFIED. So any mindless blubbering about comparing the two is worthless, because they're two separate works. Will right-wing interests (who, again, are as misguided in their hatred of a "liberal" (see: right-exercising man)) attempt to make this correlation? Absolutely, and with moderate success because of something Hitler once said: "How fortunate for men in power that people do not think." Moore's critics will say he shamelessly exploited grieving people towards his own ends. I actually entered the movie fresh off of reading Ebert's review in which he said more or less the same thing (several other critics agreed with this). However, as I watched the people on screen talk to more during these "exploitative events," I found myself in disbelief: How could these critics miss out on the fact that the people in question WANTED their voices to be heard, and WANTED their grief known? They're enraged over their personal losses, and Moore provided them with a microphone to speak out. Exploited? Not at all. Moore used them just as much as they used him. What of the Marine recruitors who literally targeted potential recruits as "fresh meat?" I don't have a clue what those recruitors were thinking. Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, whoever was behind the camera filming, you just don't say the type of things they were saying. Exploited indeed- praying off of the ignorance (and innocence) of uneducated, predominantly BLACK men in an attempt to nab enlistment for a cause losing support hardly embodies noble intentions or methods. My sister made the most telling statement on our way out of the theater and on our way to the parking lot. She observed, "The people who really need to see this film never will." I agree. Bush has sold himself on being an idea, a concept. Bush is clearly not someone we want to act as a spokesperson for the United States. He's a concept that people buy into: a concept of American Pride, "don't mess with texas," and down-south sincerity (disguised as stupidity) that paints a picture of an everyman. Will Fahrenheit 9/11 change the political scope of a nation like Thomas Paine's Common Sense did? Probably not. Let's say Bush loses in 2004 (an increasing probability). Kerry wins. Will major corporations just stop attempting to exude power and influence over Congress and the White House? Of course not. The problem will remain the same. Perhaps what makes Bush "worse" than Kerry at this point is his ties and now-exposed-and-hated ties to industry and profit off of a war he declared on a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and posed no threat to any country. Fahrenheit 9/11 reiterated repeatedly the cause of the war. As one Marine puts it best, he and his troops patrol the areas surrounding the coveted oil fields for around $2-3k a month. Behind them, driving trucks and operating around fields protected by the Marines with their necks on the block, the Halliburton engineers earn $10-20k a month. The tragedy of Iraq, and of not just the Bush administration but the government as a whole, is how the people who benefit most invest the least. It is the uneducated, the under-privledged, and the needy, who comprise our armed forces. Their actions and sacrifices, with promise of little pay, tragically (and ironically) provide the pathway for the rich to get richer. The Problem I have with This Movie by louiethespatula (movies profile) Jun 25, 2004 328 of 537 people found this review helpful I have to agree with Michael Moore that Bush is unfit to be president, but not necesarily for the same reasons that he states in his "do-*BAD WORD*-entary". The film comes at the viewer like a handful of flung gravel in its unapologetic bias, emotionalism, and arm-twisting agenda. If Bush really is a weasle (aren't all politicians?), then the viewer might suppose that just by presenting the facts that Moore could get his point across quite adequately. Apparently, Moore doesn't think that his "facts" will stand on their own and has to resort to his usual bag o' logical fallacies and hit and run interview techniques, which we all saw before in "Roger and Me" and "Bowling For Columbine". This is unfortunate since the movie also contains some valid points along with all the usual Moore-ish hyperbole. One example is when the film shows president Bush remaining at his photo-op at some elementary school doing nothing, after being notified that the first plane had struck the WTC. The truth is that the first notification was that a small plane had struck the tower and no one was yet sure if this was a terrorist attack or not. You would conclude something very different was happening from watching Mr. Morre's agenda laden film. It's also curious that Bush should get ALL the blame for 911. After all, his administration was in power for less than one year at the time. Wasn't Clinton in power for eight years previously, during which time Al-qaeda grew and prospered? What about the eviceration of our intelligence capability, which began under Bush I, and continued under Clinton. Is it ever mentioned in the film about mujahadeen that Reagan subsidised against the Russians in Afganistan? What about the Iranian revolution that the bumbling Jimmy Carter allowed to happen, putting Islamism on the map. It seems that Mr. Moore only cites the facts which are convenient for his agenda. I think Bush has to go, but not because Michael Moore says so. I think that Bush is failing for four major reasons. First, the Bush administration is trampling the First Amendment to no end. If it is one thing that will prevent a nation from governing itself it is a lack of freedom of speech. This is the one item that will place a nation on the short road to dictatorship. Second, the Bush administration is ever-increasingly imposing a fundamentalist religious paradigm on the nation that is at odds with self government. The founding fathers of this nation originally separated church from state in order to protect our fragile democracy from the sort of religious fundamentalists that we are fighting right now in the Middle East. They embrace an Islamic paradigm instead of a Christian one, but is there really that much difference between Coke and Pepsi? The separation of church and state also protects religions from the intrusion of the government, thereby guaranteeing religious freedom. To do otherwise would usher in an age of theocracy - and not necessarily YOUR theocracy. Third, Bush has done absolutely nothing to guarantee the integrity of the borders of the United States. If some lunatic religious kook wants to sneak a WMD into the US, I don't see how we are going to stop them, or how we are doing anything to improve our ability to stop them. The administartion has been completely ineffective and asleep at the switch on this issue. Fourth, the Bush administration needs to re-articulate why we are in Iraq, what we are doing there (what are we doing there?), how we define success in the Iraqi operation, how we will know when we have succeded, and when and under what cir-*BAD WORD*-stances we will be leaving. We should either bomb the living piss out of these homocidal criminals or get out. Dithering somewhere in the middle will only get more Americans killed and achieve nothing. We should learn from the lesson of Vietnam instead of repeating the errors. So, what should be done instead? Vote for John Kerry? Billionaires have much fewer special interests than millionaires (right!). I would say, vote for anybody else besides the two ruling parties (Republicrats or Demicans) until we finally have a return to sanity. Right now those are the only two special interests that concern me. Two interesting reviews of Fahrenheit 9/11 by viewers that i found on Yahoo.com -nintendo64
A Soldier Posted July 24, 2004 Author Report Posted July 24, 2004 The first one was excellent, while the second one provided valid points too IMO.
sunnyd Posted July 24, 2004 Report Posted July 24, 2004 LOL i downloaded it off this T3 user in DC++ nice movie I saw it the day it came out AND -*BAD WORD*- BUSH VOTE KERRY my opinon
Recommended Posts