Farenheit 9/11 (1 Viewer)

Nekton

Senior Member
Oct 22, 2001
1,220
#4
There, I've seen it. Very interesting and leaves you with a sory taste in your mouth... Probably gonna watch it a couple of times more later on.
 

Erkka

Senior Member
Mar 31, 2004
3,863
#7
++ [ originally posted by Martin ] ++
Saw it a few weeks ago, very interesting. But you gotta consider the source as well..
exactly, it shows only the other side of the coin...
 

River

Senior Member
Jun 15, 2004
2,261
#13
Why its a load of crap? because its nothing more than propaganda. a well timed release at that with the elections coming up.

sure there are some interesting and even good parts like highlighting the realities of war with the footage from Iraq.

Moore trys to make you believe that the Iraq people were happy under saddam. Please. Before the war the movie shows Iraq as some kind of ****ing party. Why dosent it show some of Saddams workings, even not so bad ones, at least that way the movie wouldnt look like such a joke.

This was supposed to be a documentary. Documentarys inform via factual information. Not hyped up crap like this movie is.

Fahrenheit 9/11 will do exactly as it was planned to do. Make a large percentage of America use it when decided who to vote for. But really this movie has just made American soilders look like theyve been wasting their time and is completely disrespectful to the victims of 9/11. And since Moore cares so much, lets see how much of the money made from this will go to them.

And where it shows bush 'delay' in the classroom. What did he want. Bush to rush to a phone booth and put his superman outfit on.

A movie like this could be made about every single world leader. I think Micheal Moores an idiot more concearned about being controversial and making a name for himself than anything else, and the movie was boring and totally predictable.
 

Nekton

Senior Member
Oct 22, 2001
1,220
#14
Well, as Martin said you've got to consider the source. Anything else would be just naive :)

The thing that strikes me when watching this is that if the things he's saying is a lie, like the bush family, the Bin Laden's and Saudi's business together for example he'd be sued, right?
Take it any way you like, he's bending and manipulating everything to suit his goals but the facts the whole thing is based on must be true. I don't think the bush administration would let him get away with it otherwise, now would they? :)

IMO you're taking the smaller parts of the movie in too much, it's not about whether or not Bush got off his ass immidiately when hearing about 9/11 or Moore only showing happy Iraqis before the attack and only mad ones after it. Of course he'll choose to do that, since that's the kind of pictures that suits his goals.
It's more about all the questionmarks surrounding the election and the reasons behind the war that interests me.

And contrary to what you say, I don't think a documentary needs to be unbiased at all and IMO Moore isn't exactly hiding his own opinions and thoughts to shine through from his work :)
Anyone watching this and considers every word an absolute truth is fooling himself IMO.

Got to hand it to him though, Moore is quite good at what he does :)
 

River

Senior Member
Jun 15, 2004
2,261
#15
++ [ originally posted by Nekton ] ++
Well, as Martin said you've got to consider the source. Anything else would be just naive :)

The thing that strikes me when watching this is that if the things he's saying is a lie, like the bush family, the Bin Laden's and Saudi's business together for example he'd be sued, right?
Take it any way you like, he's bending and manipulating everything to suit his goals but the facts the whole thing is based on must be true. I don't think the bush administration would let him get away with it otherwise, now would they? :)

IMO you're taking the smaller parts of the movie in too much, it's not about whether or not Bush got off his ass immidiately when hearing about 9/11 or Moore only showing happy Iraqis before the attack and only mad ones after it. Of course he'll choose to do that, since that's the kind of pictures that suits his goals.
It's more about all the questionmarks surrounding the election and the reasons behind the war that interests me.

And contrary to what you say, I don't think a documentary needs to be unbiased at all and IMO Moore isn't exactly hiding his own opinions and thoughts to shine through from his work :)
Anyone watching this and considers every word an absolute truth is fooling himself IMO.

Got to hand it to him though, Moore is quite good at what he does :)
Sure it isnt about the small points. But its those small points that make this so silly. People say the movie is 'artistic' :rolleyes:

About the Saudis and Bush. Thats quite irrelevent as the Bush family have always been in the oil business.

Yes the questions around the election and war are the topic. Everyone has already heard those and know about those. Why did we need a documentary on it? And if he had made the documentary about that, without resorting to the lame levels that he did it could have been something people could look at and take serious.

I also dont see whats so good about it. Its not like its fantastic work.

Im certainly no fan of Bush. Infact I couldnt really care less about the US elections. I also dont have any opinion on Moore. But I simply dont rate this as highly as most.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
101,779
#16
The movie/documentary probably isn't even worth the price of admission, so thats why I'm waiting for the DVD rental to come out. :)
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
76,313
#17
River: Michael Moore has been doing this in books and movies since long before any Bush was in office.

The movie had its points. And its no more crap than, say, Fox News is crap (I'm interested in seeing OutFoxed, though). If you're going to take a position, may as well lay it out there -- everyone else does.

That said, I don't think the movie was as good nor as effective as, say, Control Room in presenting alternative points of view. Moore is an entertainer, first and foremost. And on that he succeeds. But the weight of any message he has is diluted by the fact that any facts he presents are all over the map, and insinuations are all he shows.

Still, with so much of the media aligned to not disturb the baby in the White House for fear of being blackballed out of either access or corporate sponsorship (afterall, Disney wanted to kill this movie), it's always good to see something others don't want you to.
 

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,857
#20
++ [ originally posted by River ] ++
Yes the questions around the election and war are the topic. Everyone has already heard those and know about those. Why did we need a documentary on it? And if he had made the documentary about that, without resorting to the lame levels that he did it could have been something people could look at and take serious.
That's the point, River. If Moore had written a factual, non-speculative column for a well respected paper, as I'm sure a lot of people in the opposition do, noone would notice it. The "common man" does not read the Wall Street Journal, you have to be controversional and step on some toes to be seen. The message is still the same and for the twisting of facts, taking things out of context, I think it's very good what he does. Because people take notice, they start thinking about the issues, they feel like they're in the game for once. Using simple words is how you reach the masses.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)