OT: Fahrenheit 9/11 *Explicit Content/Cursing*

[WayOutWest]

Anybody catch that flick yet?

I was pretty much aware of most everything presented in the movie with the exception of Bush Sr.'s role in all of this mess.  I was also unaware of the Suadi's wealth and investments in the US.

What a disgrace it is to be an American, I hope we can turn it around come November.

[SPURSX3]

what other nation DOESNT have anything to be disgraced about??  

 :crazy:  

[spursfan101]

I think it's a biased portrayal of a GREAT MAN.  What American's don't seem to understand is that our civil liberities HAVE TO BE taken away in order for us to defeat terrorism.  And besides, if you have the most stressful job in the world, I think it's perfectly alright to take up to 40% of your time on vacation during a war that you initiated.  Makes perfect sense to me... :nod:  

[Derek Bodner]

god i hate michael moore.  if i hear one more person call this (or columbine) a documentary i'm going to go crazy.  

[westkoast]

god i hate michael moore.  if i hear one more person call this (or columbine) a documentary i'm going to go crazy.

This was a good documentary. :lol:

The movie was great IMO.  Balanced some comedy, backed up his opinion with words from goverment officials and soliders, and he brought the harsh reality of the war in Iraq to people who never get to see those pictures.  As hard as it was to stomach the people need to see those pictures.  From an artistic point of view he did a good job of putting it together.

I do have a problem with people who say this movie is 100% bs.  Alot of it is the exact opposite of what MSNBC,Fox, and the other news sources are showing you.  Isnt there two sides to every story?  Sure its slanted and bias but so is everything else we've seen.  If you have an open mind and realize this movie isnt the gospel (but damn how can you argue some of the points) then you should be fine.  Try telling some Bush supporters that tho!

[SPURSX3]

god i hate michael moore.  if i hear one more person call this (or columbine) a documentary i'm going to go crazy.

even moore stated that this 9/11 film was a blatent attack, in his words, he "wasnt trying to be objective in this film..."  LMAO, WHAT film has he been objective in?  not to mention there were already film that had the same images and same information already out, just not as widely known.  read one of the reviews of the movie, said it was good, but most of it was old news...

[jn]

Moore goes too far sometimes in that he attacks (ala the Heston bit in Columbine) when he should just let the story tell itself.   In his defense he makes no claim to objectivity regarding this film.  He is openly admitting he has an opinion and wants you to hear it.  

[Joe Vancil]

Isnt there two sides to every story? Sure its slanted and bias but so is everything else we've seen

.

NO.  There are NOT two sides to every story.  If there's more than one side to ANY story, then we're no longer dealing with FACT, but opinion.  Trust me;  you don't like where opinion takes us.

If "slanted and bias" is what we're after, then we might has well state that agendas such as those of the KKK or abortion clinic bombers are reasonable.  That's what slant and bias gets you, folks.

I've not seen the movie yet, and I'm already sure I'm going to hate it.  It sounds like nothing but more of the same kind of propaganda we see every freaking day...except from the other side.  The difference?  If we catch newspapers out-and-out lying to us, we question their credibility, and we can pursue legal remedy.  This is a FILM.  A simple disclaimer, and all of a sudden, it doesn't have to be true, and there's no legal remedy.  It is "based off of" events - not a re-creation of events.  I personally find such an action repugnant.  If you want to play with real events, DO IT RIGHT.  REPORT AND DOCUMENT.  Represent what you make as the REAL TRUTH, in a legally responsible manner.  For gosh sakes, I could make a movie about Watergate and portray Richard Nixon as the hapless victim of scheming of power-hungry bureaucrats and publicity-happy reporters.  The problem is that it's not the *REAL* story.

My best friend's dad invited me to see the movie with him, and I'm hoping to go.

By the way, I've heard from Skander - who knows my taste in movies - that I should see the "Columbine" one.  Seeing it mentioned here - is it by the same guy, or something?  (I'm not up on movie trivia.)


 

[jn]

Joe,

Yes Columbine is by the same man, Michael Moore.  

And X3, I would argue that his first film, Roger and Me, if not entirely objective, is nowhere near as slanted as the work he has done sense.  It has a much lighter touch and he lets the people speak for themselves and doesn't tell you what to think about it.   For those who don't know Roger and Me is about the fallout of GM closing it's plants in Moore's hometown of Flint, MI.

[Joe Vancil]

If you have an open mind and realize this movie isnt the gospel (but damn how can you argue some of the points) then you should be fine. Try telling some Bush supporters that tho!

Uh...you can argue the points if they're not based in FACT.

As for "Bush supporters," I'd be careful throwing that term around.  I tend to judge the man act by act, as we should judge anyone.  I didn't vote for the man because I considered him a THIEF.  But as for the "war on terror," I supported a good number of the decisions made.  Not all.  And I'm a little ticked off in that I'm still wanting to see those weapons of mass destruction.

Does this mean I'll vote AGAINST Bush Jr. in the upcoming election?  *NO*.  It means I won't vote *FOR* him.  And Kerry hasn't shown me anything to win my vote.  In fact, I'm about 90% of the way toward saying I won't vote for Kerry.  There are people I *WANT* to vote for, but unfortunately, none of them are on the ballot.  (And something tells me this movie director isn't going to like any of them any more than he likes Bush Jr.)

If Bush Sr. were to run, now *HIM*, I'd vote for.  I'd vote for Colin Powell.  I'd vote for Ross Perot.  I'd vote for Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin), even though his views run very close to contrary to mine.  I'd vote for the Graham guy for the Democrats who dropped out.  But *MY* choice - the one guy I think best represents a lot of my views, is the former Oklahoma Representataive and ex-NFL player Steve Largent.  Given my CHOICE, that's who I'd want.
 

[Ted]

I don't have a problem with a lot of what is in that movie. I think Bush should be called to the carpet for things like his utterly idiotic "now watch this drive" quote and things like that. A lot of the questions he raises are legitimate in my mind, and deserve answers.

What I do have a real problem with is Moore's method. He is a very dishonest, unethical "journalist". Even though he claims he's a filmmaker, the work he does absolutely is journalism with a biased viewpoint.

Many of the soldiers interviewed for his film never knew who or what they were really being interviewed for. In fact, Moore used "contractors" who deliberately lied about or hid the true purpose of their interviews. That is NOT an ethical method of journalism.

In another scene of the movie, Moore stands on the steps of Congress asking arriving Senators and Representatives if they would send their sons and daughters to Iraq. In the film, we see only those who dodge him or look embarrassed. Strangely though, we didn't see the responses of the members of Congress (and not a few of them) who replied by saying that they actually did have family members in Iraq. Moore edited out these true responses because these facts didn't fly with the "facts" he wanted to present.

He's done the same thing with his movie on Columbine. Much of what he says in that film also has a lot of merit, IMO. But his methods are so lacking in the common ethical standards of journalism, that he loses almost all credibility in my eyes. Those who take his work as gospel are merely stooges to his dishonest methods. Just as bad as Dittoheads IMO.

[Lurker]

It is "based off of" events - not a re-creation of events.  I personally find such an action repugnant.  If you want to play with real events, DO IT RIGHT.  REPORT AND DOCUMENT.  Represent what you make as the REAL TRUTH, in a legally responsible manner.

Joe, this is true of almost every "historical" movie ever made.  It is also true of many novels.

Do you think that the movie Titantic portrayed the TRUE story?

Do you think Gibson's The Passion portrtayed the true story?

Do you think Ben Hur, The Ten Commandments, Cleopatra, Gettysburg, Roots, etc. portray the true story?

Moore has not once claimed that his movie is a true story.  In fact he has gone on various national shows to claim the EXACT OPPOSITE.  This movie is his attack on the current administration.  He admits to taking quotes and video clips out of context.  And he also states that anyone who goes to this movie expecting it to be absolute truth & fact are misleading themselves.

[westkoast]

If you have an open mind and realize this movie isnt the gospel (but damn how can you argue some of the points) then you should be fine. Try telling some Bush supporters that tho!

Uh...you can argue the points if they're not based in FACT.

As for "Bush supporters," I'd be careful throwing that term around.  I tend to judge the man act by act, as we should judge anyone.  I didn't vote for the man because I considered him a THIEF.  But as for the "war on terror," I supported a good number of the decisions made.  Not all.  And I'm a little ticked off in that I'm still wanting to see those weapons of mass destruction.

Does this mean I'll vote AGAINST Bush Jr. in the upcoming election?  *NO*.  It means I won't vote *FOR* him.  And Kerry hasn't shown me anything to win my vote.  In fact, I'm about 90% of the way toward saying I won't vote for Kerry.  There are people I *WANT* to vote for, but unfortunately, none of them are on the ballot.  (And something tells me this movie director isn't going to like any of them any more than he likes Bush Jr.)

If Bush Sr. were to run, now *HIM*, I'd vote for.  I'd vote for Colin Powell.  I'd vote for Ross Perot.  I'd vote for Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin), even though his views run very close to contrary to mine.  I'd vote for the Graham guy for the Democrats who dropped out.  But *MY* choice - the one guy I think best represents a lot of my views, is the former Oklahoma Representataive and ex-NFL player Steve Largent.  Given my CHOICE, that's who I'd want.

Well, we cannot say for sure but its better than Michael Moore just saying what he believes.  He did have footage from people testifying in front of the panel and from people inside the government.  Yes I know he only showed what he wanted but its not like he forced those people to make those comments.

I agree with you about Kerry/Bush.  I dont like the job Bush has done and Kerry has shown me nothing.  I almost dont want to vote period.  Like you no one on the ballot, to me, is someone who  will get the job done.

Ted why is MSNBC and Fox news channel given a pass for their bias journalism but Moore is bashed for it?  They certainly have not done as good a job as they could on covering the negative parts of the war. That is part of being a good journalist.  Then again if they did that they would be branded terrorists and probably would see some kind of fine's.

[rickortreat]

I haven't seen it yet, but I suspect it's a hatchet job.  Frankly I can't think of anyone more deserving than this traitorous, lying stinking weasel thief we have for a President.

But I resent the fact that with so much damming evidence out there, Moore takes the easy way out by distorting the facts and limiting your access to all the facts on the issues he delineats.

The truth about Bush and his familly is worse- much worse than what Moore reveals.  Therefore he has done us all a disservice.

There is enough legitimate hard evidence out there about Bush's malfeasense to impeach him, and derail his traitorous plans to undermine America.

Try to do some reasearch on the Patriot acts (sic) and compare them with the rights defined in the Constituion and the Bill of Rights.  I don't know about you, but I think the America I grew up in has been destroyed.  :angry:  

[SPURSX3]

Joe,

Yes Columbine is by the same man, Michael Moore.  

And X3, I would argue that his first film, Roger and Me, if not entirely objective, is nowhere near as slanted as the work he has done sense.  It has a much lighter touch and he lets the people speak for themselves and doesn't tell you what to think about it.   For those who don't know Roger and Me is about the fallout of GM closing it's plants in Moore's hometown of Flint, MI.

I think i saw part of that on IFC or something, at the end he gets the big wig at Nike to commit to open a manufacturing site in Flint if he cold prove there are people willing to work for "decent" (acording to Nike) wages, Moore films a bunch of schmucks saying "hey i'll work...yadda yadda yadda...".  is that the one...