FREE TAPATALK APP

Ranb · 17th June 2004, 06:47 PM

I am watching the news now, it had a bit about Moore's new movie, 9/11. Does anyone here actually believe that this movie is a documentary? The small bits and pieces I have seen on the news certainly make it out to be rather one sided and political.

I also heard a sound byte of his going something like this. " If there is anything I want to do, it is to ensure that our soldiers in Iraq are not dying in vain." I can not think of a single thing that Moore could do to ensure our men and women in Iraq are not dying in vain. Opinions?

BTW, I do think Moore is a two-faced SOB, and his films suck.

Ranb

American · 17th June 2004, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ranb
I am watching the news now, it had a bit about Moore's new movie, 9/11. Does anyone here actually believe that this movie is a documentary? The small bits and pieces I have seen on the news certainly make it out to be rather one sided and political.

I also heard a sound byte of his going something like this. " If there is anything I want to do, it is to ensure that our soldiers in Iraq are not dying in vain." I can not think of a single thing that Moore could do to ensure our men and women in Iraq are not dying in vain. Opinions?

BTW, I do think Moore is a two-faced SOB, and his films suck.

Ranb

Your dislike for him is good, but it's not strong enough. You are one of Them, in my view.

Nasarius · 17th June 2004, 07:51 PM

I love how you can judge a movie you haven't even seen. I have no idea if it's good or not; I had mixed feelings about Bowling for Columbine. I'm going to wait, see it, applaud Moore for what he did right (hopefully), and pick apart what he got wrong.

Here are some surprisingly positive comments from Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122680,00.html

Charlie Monoxide · 17th June 2004, 08:13 PM

This month Playboy has him as the interview. Good interview.

Charlie (what's the deal with the non-hirsute centerfolds?) Monoxide

The Central Scrutinizer · 17th June 2004, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by American

Your dislike for him is good, but it's not strong enough. You are one of Them, in my view.

From the perspective of a straight man who has actually dated a woman, you are one of "Them". (Hint: someone who enjoys the "company" of men)

evilgoldtoesock · 17th June 2004, 08:47 PM

A documentary can be both political and opinionated, and still qualify as a documentary. Take a course on the history of documentary films.

Also, Moore is, as always, including himself in the movie. It is obviously a movie about him and the situations he addresses, as opposed to just the situations themselves. He is not an "invisible" narrator by any means.

"Political?" Is that a magic word we apply to anything to disqualify it from serious consideration? Say, what if we had that same attitude towards other pieces of art that we have towards Moore's films?

cheesy example:
"Ohh, that painting, Guernica by that guy, Picasso? That's really just a piece of POLITICAL propaganda...."

One-sided? Well, yes, again it's a movie by Michael Moore, so of course it's a movie that takes his side on the issues.

Sorry, but as much as some people here want to, you can't just debunk Moore like you can some crackpot psychic. His arguments are effective and his films have artistic validity.

That said, he REALLY needs to lose some weight.

American · 17th June 2004, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer

From the perspective of a straight man who has actually dated a woman, you are one of "Them". (Hint: someone who enjoys the "company" of men)

Wow a woman. Not bad for 8 years out of high school.

I don't like men, lardass. I trick women into wanting me for a night, and then I don't talk to them again. That's what they get for only wanting sex without wanting to marry me.

And don't say I got issues-- I know what girls are about. It's the facts of life man. Pretty sad but that's the way it is you know.

crackmonkey · 17th June 2004, 08:57 PM

Hmmm... didn't Moore say he wanted lots more American soldiers to die in Iraq so we'd learn our lesson? Now he wants their deaths not to be in vain?
Interesting...

peptoabysmal · 17th June 2004, 09:02 PM

I can't comment on the movie yet. I haven't seen it, and I won't pay to see it, or rent it.

I did see Moore's rant on the Oscars and I felt that he was a two-faced piece of human garbage in that instance. I decided then and there he would never get any of my money.

The Central Scrutinizer · 17th June 2004, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by American

Wow a woman. Not bad for 8 years out of high school.

I don't like men, lardass. I trick women into wanting me for a night, and then I don't talk to them again. That's what they get for only wanting sex without wanting to marry me.

And don't say I got issues-- I know what girls are about. It's the facts of life man. Pretty sad but that's the way it is you know.

So you admit you're a homo? And FYI, I've been with more women than you have even talked to.

corplinx · 17th June 2004, 09:33 PM

Apparently, the movie is poignant and funny. Its also a guilty pleasure.

We have a volunteer military yet Moore pie faced congressman by asking them to sign up their kids for Iraq. I don't understand why this is poignant to some people, it doesnt even make sense, but it still fun to see a congressman get pie faced.

One thing I don't grok is the "revelation" that Bush was forced to sit on keister and keep cool for 11 minutes while his staff got the details on the 9-11 attack.

Apparently, people are shocked that Bush sat there with a 1 million thoughts racing through his head instead of jumping up like a jackass and trying to lead like General McArthur. If I remember, government continuity says that in the event of an attack they bury him and Cheney. And they did, they shoved him on AF1 and kept him uptight and out of sight.

Somehow though, these 11 minutes are talking about by people as if there is something odd or revealing.

I will probably see the film, I will probably enjoy it like I did Bowling for Columbine. Is Mike Moore fair? No. But neither am I or you.

The idea · 17th June 2004, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Hmmm... didn't Moore say he wanted lots more American soldiers to die in Iraq so we'd learn our lesson? Now he wants their deaths not to be in vain?
Interesting...

Michael Moore believes that it is unacceptable for any soldier to ever die. Who would have thought, going into the military, that there are serious risks involved? On the other hand, we all know that it is great fun for civilians to die in Sudan. Yes, it is great fun indeed.

Ranb · 17th June 2004, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nasarius
I love how you can judge a movie you haven't even seen. I have no idea if it's good or not; .........

I was just giving my opinion about the little bits and pieces I saw on the news. I do of course know I need to see the whole thing before I can say anything really meaningful about the movie.

As said above, the segment showing Moore questioning Congressmen about their sons lack of participation in the Army was rather strange. Knowing the US military is all volunteer, why should Moore try to talk a person into making their son or daughter join up? Interesting way to make a point I guess, but it just seems to be a good scene for dumb people.

Ranb

shecky · 17th June 2004, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ranb

As said above, the segment showing Moore questioning Congressmen about their sons lack of participation in the Army was rather strange. Knowing the US military is all volunteer, why should Moore try to talk a person into making their son or daughter join up?

Sounds to me like a extension of the chickenhawk argument. In which case, I can see it being relevant.

JAR · 17th June 2004, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nasarius
I love how you can judge a movie you haven't even seen.

By that sarcastic remark, do you mean that you think that a person has to see a documentary or movie to find out how historically inaccurate it is?

JAR · 17th June 2004, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nasarius
I love how you can judge a movie you haven't even seen.

I'm amazed that many people think that they can determine how historically accurate a movie is simply by seeing it.

evilgoldtoesock · 18th June 2004, 02:23 AM

By the way folks, I'm all for the upcoming movie "Michael Moore Hates America." It will be great to have it released soon after Fahrenheit 9-11 to add further fuel to the Moore controversy...not to mention that I'm a fan of independent films.

Unfortunately, no documentary is unbiased when its subject is as broad as entire country at war.

Added:

Yes, politically-oriented movies are always a guilty pleasure. Sacrifices of accuracy are made for the sake of entertainment.

Mr Manifesto · 18th June 2004, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by evilgoldtoesock
By the way folks, I'm all for the upcoming movie "Michael Moore Hates America." It will be great to have it released soon after Fahrenheit 9-11 to add further fuel to the Moore controversy...not to mention that I'm a fan of independent films.

Unfortunately, no documentary is unbiased when its subject is as broad as entire country at war.

Added:

Yes, politically-oriented movies are always a guilty pleasure. Sacrifices of accuracy are made for the sake of entertainment.

It seems that some sort of chicanery is involved in any documentary making process. Those documentaries you see where the lion hunts down an ungulate of some type? Think about how that shot was set up. Did they track a lion for months on the off-chance it would do some hunting in daylight?

Let's say you're credulous enough to believe that. How about documentaries that follow an eagle flying in the air. Did they get someone on a hang-glider with a steady-cam to follow the eagle around?

What about in the days before steady-cam?

edit I know how to start spelling 'chichancery,' I just don't know how to stop.

Skeptic · 18th June 2004, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by shecky

Sounds to me like a extension of the chickenhawk argument. In which case, I can see it being relevant.

Moore, when sending his daughter to a posh private school, said publically that "sacrificing our daughter is too great a price to make the world better".

One wonders how he'll react if someone shoved a camera in his face and asked him to promise to send his daughter next year to school with the children of all those wonderful working-class and welfare parents, and not with the children of thosse heartless, awful corporate executives she goes to school with now.

In any case, at least historically, the sons of US Congressmen were highly overrepresented in the military, especially as officers, since in "important" families it was a point of honor for the sons to serve as officers in the armed forces.

American · 18th June 2004, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer

And FYI, I've been with more women than you have even talked to.

Only if you count the chunkies as 2 women, perhaps.

Frostbite · 18th June 2004, 07:19 AM

I haven't seen F911 and I don't think I'll see it either. My own ideas about the Bush administration are already made anyway. But when I saw Bowling for Columbine, I remember thinking that it was of course biased in the favor of Moore's theory. I also thought that even if you didn't agree with said theory, there are still facts and statistics in the movie which nobody can deny. I don't think anyone can dismiss all of his stuff on a whim. Moore doesn't hate America, he just wants people to aknowledge some of its fundamental problems.

chrisberez · 18th June 2004, 07:54 AM

For all those that think this is just going to be a biased lef-wing film full of lies, check out this review from Fox News- their reviewer loved the film, and no one can deny the right-leanings of Fox.

From the article:

Quote:

The crowd that gave Michael Moore's controversial "Fahrenheit 9/11" a standing ovation last night at the Ziegfeld Theatre premiere certainly didn't have to be encouraged at all to show their appreciation. From liberal radio host and 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 like 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.

shecky · 18th June 2004, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic

Moore, when sending his daughter to a posh private school, said publically that "sacrificing our daughter is too great a price to make the world better".

One wonders how he'll react if someone shoved a camera in his face and asked him to promise to send his daughter next year to school with the children of all those wonderful working-class and welfare parents, and not with the children of thosse heartless, awful corporate executives she goes to school with now.

I wouldn't mind seeing Moore squirm a bit. Still, this doesn't exactly have the same resonance as a chickenhawk politician with no military experience or close loved ones with their lives at stake.

JAR · 18th June 2004, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
It seems that some sort of chicanery is involved in any documentary making process. Those documentaries you see where the lion hunts down an ungulate of some type? Think about how that shot was set up. Did they track a lion for months on the off-chance it would do some hunting in daylight?

Let's say you're credulous enough to believe that. How about documentaries that follow an eagle flying in the air. Did they get someone on a hang-glider with a steady-cam to follow the eagle around?

What about in the days before steady-cam?

edit I know how to start spelling 'chichancery,' I just don't know how to stop.

So according to your logic, it is okay for a documentary to lie because, according to you, all documentaries lie.

That's some amoral philosophy you've got there.

17th June 2004, 06:47 PM	#1
Ranb Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 4,205	Michael Moore setting things right? I am watching the news now, it had a bit about Moore's new movie, 9/11. Does anyone here actually believe that this movie is a documentary? The small bits and pieces I have seen on the news certainly make it out to be rather one sided and political. I also heard a sound byte of his going something like this. " If there is anything I want to do, it is to ensure that our soldiers in Iraq are not dying in vain." I can not think of a single thing that Moore could do to ensure our men and women in Iraq are not dying in vain. Opinions? BTW, I do think Moore is a two-faced SOB, and his films suck. Ranb

17th June 2004, 07:07 PM	#2
American Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: CA Posts: 3,842	Re: Michael Moore setting things right? Quote: Originally posted by Ranb I am watching the news now, it had a bit about Moore's new movie, 9/11. Does anyone here actually believe that this movie is a documentary? The small bits and pieces I have seen on the news certainly make it out to be rather one sided and political. I also heard a sound byte of his going something like this. " If there is anything I want to do, it is to ensure that our soldiers in Iraq are not dying in vain." I can not think of a single thing that Moore could do to ensure our men and women in Iraq are not dying in vain. Opinions? BTW, I do think Moore is a two-faced SOB, and his films suck. Ranb Your dislike for him is good, but it's not strong enough. You are one of Them, in my view.

17th June 2004, 07:51 PM	#3
Nasarius Muse Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 672	I love how you can judge a movie you haven't even seen. I have no idea if it's good or not; I had mixed feelings about Bowling for Columbine. I'm going to wait, see it, applaud Moore for what he did right (hopefully), and pick apart what he got wrong. Here are some surprisingly positive comments from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122680,00.html
Nasarius Muse Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 672	__________________ "Did you understand the music...or was it all in vain?" ~ Roger Waters

17th June 2004, 08:13 PM	#4
Charlie Monoxide Wag Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: London, Ontario Posts: 2,761	This month Playboy has him as the interview. Good interview. Charlie (what's the deal with the non-hirsute centerfolds?) Monoxide
	__________________ Major General Wag of JREF

17th June 2004, 08:18 PM	#5
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,577	Re: Re: Michael Moore setting things right? Quote: Originally posted by American Your dislike for him is good, but it's not strong enough. You are one of Them, in my view. From the perspective of a straight man who has actually dated a woman, you are one of "Them". (Hint: someone who enjoys the "company" of men)
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

17th June 2004, 08:47 PM	#6
evilgoldtoesock Scholar Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 82	A documentary can be both political and opinionated, and still qualify as a documentary. Take a course on the history of documentary films. Also, Moore is, as always, including himself in the movie. It is obviously a movie about him and the situations he addresses, as opposed to just the situations themselves. He is not an "invisible" narrator by any means. "Political?" Is that a magic word we apply to anything to disqualify it from serious consideration? Say, what if we had that same attitude towards other pieces of art that we have towards Moore's films? cheesy example: "Ohh, that painting, Guernica by that guy, Picasso? That's really just a piece of POLITICAL propaganda...." One-sided? Well, yes, again it's a movie by Michael Moore, so of course it's a movie that takes his side on the issues. Sorry, but as much as some people here want to, you can't just debunk Moore like you can some crackpot psychic. His arguments are effective and his films have artistic validity. That said, he REALLY needs to lose some weight.
evilgoldtoesock Scholar Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 82

17th June 2004, 08:48 PM	#7
American Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: CA Posts: 3,842	Re: Re: Re: Michael Moore setting things right? Quote: Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer From the perspective of a straight man who has actually dated a woman, you are one of "Them". (Hint: someone who enjoys the "company" of men) Wow a woman. Not bad for 8 years out of high school. I don't like men, lardass. I trick women into wanting me for a night, and then I don't talk to them again. That's what they get for only wanting sex without wanting to marry me. And don't say I got issues-- I know what girls are about. It's the facts of life man. Pretty sad but that's the way it is you know.

17th June 2004, 08:57 PM	#8
crackmonkey Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 1,057	Hmmm... didn't Moore say he wanted lots more American soldiers to die in Iraq so we'd learn our lesson? Now he wants their deaths not to be in vain? Interesting...

17th June 2004, 09:02 PM	#9
peptoabysmal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 3,468	I can't comment on the movie yet. I haven't seen it, and I won't pay to see it, or rent it. I did see Moore's rant on the Oscars and I felt that he was a two-faced piece of human garbage in that instance. I decided then and there he would never get any of my money.
	__________________ OBAMA: It's not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they've got a chance to success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

17th June 2004, 09:26 PM	#10
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,577	Re: Re: Re: Re: Michael Moore setting things right? Quote: Originally posted by American Wow a woman. Not bad for 8 years out of high school. I don't like men, lardass. I trick women into wanting me for a night, and then I don't talk to them again. That's what they get for only wanting sex without wanting to marry me. And don't say I got issues-- I know what girls are about. It's the facts of life man. Pretty sad but that's the way it is you know. So you admit you're a homo? And FYI, I've been with more women than you have even talked to.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

17th June 2004, 09:33 PM	#11
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Apparently, the movie is poignant and funny. Its also a guilty pleasure. We have a volunteer military yet Moore pie faced congressman by asking them to sign up their kids for Iraq. I don't understand why this is poignant to some people, it doesnt even make sense, but it still fun to see a congressman get pie faced. One thing I don't grok is the "revelation" that Bush was forced to sit on keister and keep cool for 11 minutes while his staff got the details on the 9-11 attack. Apparently, people are shocked that Bush sat there with a 1 million thoughts racing through his head instead of jumping up like a jackass and trying to lead like General McArthur. If I remember, government continuity says that in the event of an attack they bury him and Cheney. And they did, they shoved him on AF1 and kept him uptight and out of sight. Somehow though, these 11 minutes are talking about by people as if there is something odd or revealing. I will probably see the film, I will probably enjoy it like I did Bowling for Columbine. Is Mike Moore fair? No. But neither am I or you.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	__________________ In the tradition of "Stop Silvia!" Stop Hal Bidlack: http://skepticalcommunity.com/forums...hp?f=1&t=28671

17th June 2004, 09:43 PM	#12
The idea Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 1,547	Quote: Originally posted by crackmonkey Hmmm... didn't Moore say he wanted lots more American soldiers to die in Iraq so we'd learn our lesson? Now he wants their deaths not to be in vain? Interesting... Michael Moore believes that it is unacceptable for any soldier to ever die. Who would have thought, going into the military, that there are serious risks involved? On the other hand, we all know that it is great fun for civilians to die in Sudan. Yes, it is great fun indeed.
	__________________ I resolve to neither provoke nor appease evil.

17th June 2004, 10:10 PM	#13
Ranb Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 4,205	Quote: Originally posted by Nasarius I love how you can judge a movie you haven't even seen. I have no idea if it's good or not; ......... I was just giving my opinion about the little bits and pieces I saw on the news. I do of course know I need to see the whole thing before I can say anything really meaningful about the movie. As said above, the segment showing Moore questioning Congressmen about their sons lack of participation in the Army was rather strange. Knowing the US military is all volunteer, why should Moore try to talk a person into making their son or daughter join up? Interesting way to make a point I guess, but it just seems to be a good scene for dumb people. Ranb

17th June 2004, 10:23 PM	#14
shecky Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Location: Home of the Homeless Posts: 2,190	Quote: Originally posted by Ranb As said above, the segment showing Moore questioning Congressmen about their sons lack of participation in the Army was rather strange. Knowing the US military is all volunteer, why should Moore try to talk a person into making their son or daughter join up? Sounds to me like a extension of the chickenhawk argument. In which case, I can see it being relevant.

17th June 2004, 10:49 PM	#15
JAR Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,145	Quote: Originally posted by Nasarius I love how you can judge a movie you haven't even seen. By that sarcastic remark, do you mean that you think that a person has to see a documentary or movie to find out how historically inaccurate it is?
JAR Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,145

17th June 2004, 10:53 PM	#16
JAR Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,145	Quote: Originally posted by Nasarius I love how you can judge a movie you haven't even seen. I'm amazed that many people think that they can determine how historically accurate a movie is simply by seeing it.
JAR Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,145

18th June 2004, 02:23 AM	#17
evilgoldtoesock Scholar Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 82	By the way folks, I'm all for the upcoming movie "Michael Moore Hates America." It will be great to have it released soon after Fahrenheit 9-11 to add further fuel to the Moore controversy...not to mention that I'm a fan of independent films. Unfortunately, no documentary is unbiased when its subject is as broad as entire country at war. Added: Yes, politically-oriented movies are always a guilty pleasure. Sacrifices of accuracy are made for the sake of entertainment.
evilgoldtoesock Scholar Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 82

18th June 2004, 03:58 AM	#18
Mr Manifesto Hierophant Walrus of the Secret Clique Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 4,824	Quote: Originally posted by evilgoldtoesock By the way folks, I'm all for the upcoming movie "Michael Moore Hates America." It will be great to have it released soon after Fahrenheit 9-11 to add further fuel to the Moore controversy...not to mention that I'm a fan of independent films. Unfortunately, no documentary is unbiased when its subject is as broad as entire country at war. Added: Yes, politically-oriented movies are always a guilty pleasure. Sacrifices of accuracy are made for the sake of entertainment. It seems that some sort of chicanery is involved in any documentary making process. Those documentaries you see where the lion hunts down an ungulate of some type? Think about how that shot was set up. Did they track a lion for months on the off-chance it would do some hunting in daylight? Let's say you're credulous enough to believe that. How about documentaries that follow an eagle flying in the air. Did they get someone on a hang-glider with a steady-cam to follow the eagle around? What about in the days before steady-cam? edit I know how to start spelling 'chichancery,' I just don't know how to stop.

18th June 2004, 06:04 AM	#19
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	Quote: Originally posted by shecky Sounds to me like a extension of the chickenhawk argument. In which case, I can see it being relevant. Moore, when sending his daughter to a posh private school, said publically that "sacrificing our daughter is too great a price to make the world better". One wonders how he'll react if someone shoved a camera in his face and asked him to promise to send his daughter next year to school with the children of all those wonderful working-class and welfare parents, and not with the children of thosse heartless, awful corporate executives she goes to school with now. In any case, at least historically, the sons of US Congressmen were highly overrepresented in the military, especially as officers, since in "important" families it was a point of honor for the sons to serve as officers in the armed forces.

18th June 2004, 07:00 AM	#20
American Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: CA Posts: 3,842	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Michael Moore setting things right? Quote: Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer And FYI, I've been with more women than you have even talked to. Only if you count the chunkies as 2 women, perhaps.

18th June 2004, 07:19 AM	#21
Frostbite Muse Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Montreal, Qc Posts: 986	I haven't seen F911 and I don't think I'll see it either. My own ideas about the Bush administration are already made anyway. But when I saw Bowling for Columbine, I remember thinking that it was of course biased in the favor of Moore's theory. I also thought that even if you didn't agree with said theory, there are still facts and statistics in the movie which nobody can deny. I don't think anyone can dismiss all of his stuff on a whim. Moore doesn't hate America, he just wants people to aknowledge some of its fundamental problems.
	__________________ Every revolutionary idea seems to evoke three stages of reaction. They may be summed up by the phrases: 1- It's completely impossible. 2- It's possible, but it's not worth doing. 3- I said it was a good idea all along. -Arthur C. Clarke

18th June 2004, 07:54 AM	#22
chrisberez Thinker Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Maryland Posts: 234	For all those that think this is just going to be a biased lef-wing film full of lies, check out this review from Fox News- their reviewer loved the film, and no one can deny the right-leanings of Fox. From the article: Quote: The crowd that gave Michael Moore's controversial "Fahrenheit 9/11" a standing ovation last night at the Ziegfeld Theatre premiere certainly didn't have to be encouraged at all to show their appreciation. From liberal radio host and 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 like 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.
	__________________ "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest" --Denis Diderot "The following should be said, face to face, to any and all peddlers of religion: If I was in a room with you and two werewolves and I had a gun with two silver bullets, I'd shoot you -- twice." .-cancergiggles

18th June 2004, 08:10 AM	#23
shecky Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Location: Home of the Homeless Posts: 2,190	Quote: Originally posted by Skeptic Moore, when sending his daughter to a posh private school, said publically that "sacrificing our daughter is too great a price to make the world better". One wonders how he'll react if someone shoved a camera in his face and asked him to promise to send his daughter next year to school with the children of all those wonderful working-class and welfare parents, and not with the children of thosse heartless, awful corporate executives she goes to school with now. I wouldn't mind seeing Moore squirm a bit. Still, this doesn't exactly have the same resonance as a chickenhawk politician with no military experience or close loved ones with their lives at stake.

18th June 2004, 11:19 AM	#24
JAR Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,145	Quote: Originally posted by Mr Manifesto It seems that some sort of chicanery is involved in any documentary making process. Those documentaries you see where the lion hunts down an ungulate of some type? Think about how that shot was set up. Did they track a lion for months on the off-chance it would do some hunting in daylight? Let's say you're credulous enough to believe that. How about documentaries that follow an eagle flying in the air. Did they get someone on a hang-glider with a steady-cam to follow the eagle around? What about in the days before steady-cam? edit I know how to start spelling 'chichancery,' I just don't know how to stop. So according to your logic, it is okay for a documentary to lie because, according to you, all documentaries lie. That's some amoral philosophy you've got there.
JAR Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,145