New Michael Moore Film...anyone seen it yet??

[giggleygirl25]

i was wondering if anyone has seen this film yet and what their impressions of it are...i might see it later on but haven't decided yet.

[Krokus]

I have yet to see it but I am going to see it tuesday night.

[venray]

There are several threads on it being seriously discussed in the new political forum....


Ray

[Neutron]

The rest is typical Michael Moore leave the real story out because it doesn't suit his version of the facts.

Examples: He runs around asking congressmen why if they support the war, they don't have relatives or sons serving over there? He leaves out at least two answered they have nephews and nieces over in Iraq and Afghan.

Another example: He shows Bush in a Tux with a bunch of obviously rich people saying how He loves this dinner because he's trully with his own kind, as it should be. Bush comes off as an arrogant rich prick. What Moore doesn't mention is most of the people that dinner are not rich, It's a press charity event where you're supposed to make fun of yourself.

Moore excels at getting great footage, what he doesn't excel at is facts or even being a very intelligent individual.

Hell he couldn't even come up with an original title!.

Remember, Republicans believe every day is the Fourth Of July, Democrats believe every day is April 15th.

Tron

[giggleygirl25]

sorry ray i haven't been on in awhile, didn't realize there was a new forum:)

[venray]

Nothing to be sorry about we just started it a few days ago to discuss hot topics like Moore and other political as well as religious ones.

You were missed! ;)

Ray

[Jimblast]

To look at this clearly, let's look at it from the prospective of an impartial and independent observer. Many people call Bill O'Reilly conservative, but if you watch him he's an independent. Here's his take on Moore's movie....not he quotes liberal editors as well here:

The Evolution of Michael Moore
By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, Jun 24, 2004

The evolution of Michael Moore's new film is fascinating to watch. After winning an award at the Cannes Film Festival, Mr. Moore returned triumphantly to Hollywood and made this statement to reporters on June 9th:
"We want the word out. Any attempts to libel me will be met by force. The most important thing we have is the truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, then I'll take them to court."

"Them" were critics who were questioning the accuracy of Moore's charges against the Bush administration. "Truth" is rock solid information which, apparently, Michael Moore was sure he possessed.

But then a funny thing happened on the way to the Metroplex. The Nine Eleven Commission findings clashed with Moore's thesis that the Bushies had done something dastardly immediately after the attack by letting a bunch of Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family, fly out of the USA while everybody else was grounded. Apparently, that is not true, at least according to the FBI and the Commissioners, none of whom were jurors at the Cannes Film Festival.

So by June 20, Michael Moore had "evolved" a bit as many in Hollywood tend to do. He said this on an ABC News program: "(The movie) is an op-ed piece. It's my opinion about the last four years of the Bush administration. And that's what I call it. I'm not trying to pretend that this is some sort of, you know, fair and balanced work of journalism."

No mention of truth this time but, as responsible columnists know, all op-ed pieces are supposed to be grounded in truth and facts should be cited in backing up one's op-ed opinion.

Uh-oh.

But just when Michael Moore was floundering in a sea of skepticism, New York Times critic A.O. Scott came to the rescue with this assessment Moore's film: "It might more accurately be said to resemble an editorial cartoon ..."

Paging Shrek! In the space of two weeks the Moore movie had gone from truth to opinion to cartoon, albeit an editorial one.

But the hits just keep on coming. Los Angeles Times film critic Kenneth Turan wrote this about Fahrenheit 9/11: "It is propaganda, no doubt about it, but propaganda is most effective when it has elements of truth ... "

So we're back to the truth now garnished with "elements."

I have seen the first half of Michael Moore's movie and here's the deal. It's slick propaganda that indicts President Bush for a variety of things using cut and paste video interspersed with the opinions of far left people like Democratic Congressmen Jim McDermott and John Conyers. For me, the first sixty minutes were tedious but I have to interview guys like that everyday so I'm jaded.

Any skilled filmmaker, and Moore is that, could fashion a movie making any American look like a pinhead. That's easy to do. Just get a bunch of video, some people who hate the guy, some factoids that may or may not be true, heat it up with sardonic rhetoric and serve. Presto, Fahrenheit 9/11.

So let's stop with the nonsense. If you want to pay 9 bucks to see Moore carve up the President, knock yourself out. But don't be calling me up telling me about truth, or elements thereof. This is rank propaganda and the American public is welcome to it. It will not evolve any further.

[august spies]

its a good movie, definitley go see it.

[Neutron]

And has good entertainment value. Any "facts" he presents are dubious at best. But the fottage is good, and Moore does spin a good yarn. It's interesting to see how poor liberal thought is these days. Not a whole lot of intelligence out there

LOL anytime Flatfoot.

Tron

[drew70]

Well, here's part of a review from MSN's Slate...

...To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery...


http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

[MrMacphisto]

Screw Slate... Salon is far more respectable...

Oh yeah, Bill O'Reilly certainly gives a clear view on this movie. I mean, it's not like he's biased. I'm sure Mr. O'Reilly is just as fair and balanced as Michael Moore.

[Knox The Hatter]

even more so :p

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by Neutron
Remember, Republicans believe every day is the Fourth Of July, Democrats believe every day is April 15th.

Tron

That's funny, Tron, since Republicans are usually the ones that bitch so much about taxes. Democrats are usually intelligent enough to understand that you need taxes to properly fund a government. If you could, please explain to Mr. Bush that if he's going to make a big tax cut, he needs to make an equal cut in spending.