Groucho

From a thread in "Other," regarding FH911:A surprising statement. Most of Moore's most vocal critics actually consider him to be a good filmmaker. This is one of the reasons they find him so dangerous, I imagine.

But, for a moment, let's set politics aside and look at Moore's films from a filmmaking perspective. Do you think they're well crafted? Or not? By what criteria are you judging them...is it possible to actually look at them without "politcal goggles" and say "This is a good film" or "This is a bad film" whether you agree with his opinions or not?

Disclaimer: I'm speaking of Moore's documentaries here. Let's pretend Canadian Bacon for a moment (a film we can all agree is shit). And again, let's try to leave the politics in Other if we can.

alessandro

I had doubts my until i saw FH 911, again leaving the politics aside i think he presented his case this time in a clear and concise manner unlike in BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE where for long periods of time i wasn't sure what the movie was about.

PopcornTreeCt

I think they're just average. I like Ken Burns' documentaries the best.

But then again I don't much care for documentaries anyway.

RyoHazuki

Its really hard to tell with documentaries. I think it would be hard for me, a person who disagrees with Moore's politics, to judge his skills as a filmmaker. I didn't agree with his documentaries nor did they entertain me. They were made up of archive clips and interviews. His editing skills are good I guess. Overall though I don't know if I could make a judgement on his skills.

Grizzly

i think he's an excellent filmmaker, much because he's managed to grab the attention of the average moviegoer and gotten them to go see documentaries. i would think most people think documentaries are boring, and probably wouldn't go see them normally in the theaters.. but Moore has that twinkle in his eye, and keeps things interesting with humor and just a little bit of everything (like the animation in Bowling for Columbine). he's made people interested in documentaries that normally wouldn't be, and i think that's a sign of a great filmmaker. i don't think his films would've gotten as well-received by critics or seen by as many people had they been done in a straight-forward "boring" way.

Matthew Chmiel

Hey. I liked Canadian Bacon.

resinrats

In both Bowling for Columbine and F-9/11, it does seem at times that the movie loses focus and goes off on a tangent. F-9/11 didn't go off on much of one, but BFC went off on one so big that I had to think how the tangent somehow had to do with the main point of the movie.

Jackskeleton

I have enjoyed all of his works though I felt FH-911 was the weakest of all of them.

Chew

FH911 is my only Moore film and I came away with the thought that he's the Michael Bay of documentaries: big and flashy but not well crafted. His arguments just seem to present a lot of detail without really getting to a point. And, quite honestly, it got a little boring. Although the mother losing her son was powerful, it just felt completely staged for the camera to me.

Oh well, back to documentaries on DiscoveryHD I guess.

mookyman

I think he's a good filmmaker. His movies are emotionally honest and compelling. For the record, I agree with his politics about 80% of the time, but I don't really need to agree with artists to appreciate them. For instance, David Cross' standup act is largely devoted to mocking people of faith. I believe in God, but he's incredibly funny so I don't mind. I only get offended when my ideas are being attacked with a weak argument or are the subject of a lame joke. Moore isn't guilty of either.

Geofferson

I agree.

It is rather difficult to judge a documentary - whether good or bad simply based on the director's skill. There is no acting, set pieces, cinematography, musical score like there is in a typical feature film. So, what's left is, I suppose editing (like you said) and the interviews/subjects themselves, but that dabbles into the subject matter.

Michael Moore grabs the controversial topics and runs with them. Could anybody do it? Who knows. Could Michael Moore's filmmaking skills make a documentary on 14th century Polish poets interesting? Doubtful.

mmconhea

B for C was a great essay on film. Many people were dissapointed with it because it didn't seem to solve anything or make a point. It wasn't supposed to. It was supposed to raise questions and discussion. Some people just can't accept that- and they call it a failure. Moore was a genious that he didn't care and made it that way anyways.

And to make a political movie that addresses a lot of boring topic, exiting, funny and have diverse appeal (you should have seen the crowds at my theaters), that takes a great- no phenominal director.

The opening and closing of 911 was probably the most dramatic scenes I have ever seen. How the administration was preparing for "the show." They way tension was built up- and it was just garbage footage from press conferences. -Genious!

Applejack

I think he is a very good filmmaker.

I think that the way he uses music to help tell the story, and the way that he uses the footage that he has is excellent.

My only problem with his documentaries sometimes is the "stunts" that he sets up sometimes seem forced and uncomfortable and sometimes he is too much of the focus. One of the better things about F911 I thought was later in the movie when he was more in the background.

wordtoyamotha

I think he's a pretty good filmmaker. IMHO it is very difficult to make documentaries interesting or entertaining. I have seen a few of MM"s and I have never been bored. Some are better than others. I did think BFC was a bit too ambiguous.

Tarantino

No.