The Official - I've actually Seen Farenheit 9/11 and want to talk about THE MOVIE
06-24-04, 02:44 AM
#1
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Marblehead, MA
Posts: 6,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Official - I've actually Seen Farenheit 9/11 and want to talk about THE MOVIE
Since the initial thread on the DVD Talk review for Farenheit 9/11 was oh so fun:
http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...5&pagenumber=1
(shamless plug for the review: http://www.cinemazing.com/archives/002978.html)
I figured we try this again. With some ground rules.
#1 This thread is for talking about THE MOVIE ITSELF. IT IS NOT HERE for a DOGMATIC ARGUMENT ABOUT THE POLITICS
#2 If you haven't seen Farenheit 9/11. Move along! This thread is to discuss the ACTUAL MOVIE, by people who have ACTUALLY SEEN IT
#3 Be RESPECTFUL of the other posters in this thread. Agree, Disagree, whatever, but if this thread breaks down like the last one to name calling and infighting I'll be booting people off the forum (Chanster, this means you!)
If you'd like to discuss the events around 9/11, the politics of the Bush administration, exactly when and how the Bin Laden family was airlifted out of the US, etc. PLEASE DO SO IN THE OTHER FORUM.... http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=9
HOWEVER.....You're going to want to read the rules in the OTHER FORUM FOR POLITICAL POSTERS: http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=351718
Now... let's just see if we can have a thread in Movie Talk that actually talks about the damn movie!
http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...5&pagenumber=1
(shamless plug for the review: http://www.cinemazing.com/archives/002978.html)
I figured we try this again. With some ground rules.
#1 This thread is for talking about THE MOVIE ITSELF. IT IS NOT HERE for a DOGMATIC ARGUMENT ABOUT THE POLITICS
#2 If you haven't seen Farenheit 9/11. Move along! This thread is to discuss the ACTUAL MOVIE, by people who have ACTUALLY SEEN IT
#3 Be RESPECTFUL of the other posters in this thread. Agree, Disagree, whatever, but if this thread breaks down like the last one to name calling and infighting I'll be booting people off the forum (Chanster, this means you!)
If you'd like to discuss the events around 9/11, the politics of the Bush administration, exactly when and how the Bin Laden family was airlifted out of the US, etc. PLEASE DO SO IN THE OTHER FORUM.... http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=9
HOWEVER.....You're going to want to read the rules in the OTHER FORUM FOR POLITICAL POSTERS: http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=351718
Now... let's just see if we can have a thread in Movie Talk that actually talks about the damn movie!
06-24-04, 03:55 AM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah, thats great and everything but why was this thread, Michael Moore Hates America, closed when its about a different movie?
oh, and how about creating an Official - I've HAVEN'T actually Seen Farenheit 9/11 BUT STILL want to talk about THE MOVIE thread. we're still allowed to talk about movies before we see them aren't we?
oh, and how about creating an Official - I've HAVEN'T actually Seen Farenheit 9/11 BUT STILL want to talk about THE MOVIE thread. we're still allowed to talk about movies before we see them aren't we?
Last edited by tonytapez; 06-24-04 at 04:03 AM.
06-24-04, 06:24 AM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lodi, CA, USA
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what it's worth, here my (longish) take on the film:
For the past few months, I followed the buzz surrounding Michael Moore's new film "Fahrenheit 9/11" to an almost obsessive extent, reading and listening to anything I could in order to prepare myself for what was sure to be the defining cinematic event of the year. But truth be told, for all my research, I wasn't exactly sure what to expect.
Was Moore's film -- a self-described attack piece on President George W. Bush -- going to be the eye-opening experience its champions were promoting it as? Or would it be a sloppy, embarrassing, entirely dishonest hit piece, as Moore's critics were charging?
After much deliberation regarding the different -- but equally passionate -- feelings the film was evoking in its early viewers, and after viewing the brilliantly deceptive trailer, I pegged it as a skillfully structured, expert piece of political propaganda in the same vein as the director's previous "Bowling for Columbine" (which, in a purely cinematic sense, was one of the best films of its year). Much to my surprise, it has turned out to be none of the above.
It may seem like I'm beating a long-dead, horribly decaying horse, but something must be made perfectly clear in order to understand what is good, bad and downright ugly about "Fahrenheit 9/11": Michael Moore is a propagandist, a man with a strict adherence to an ideology who is not the least bit hesitant to distort the truth in order to promote his often twisted agenda, or what he views as a "greater truth."
He has been called a modern-day Leni Riefenstahl (she being the Hitler shill who made what amounted to recruitment movies for the Nazis), and though I wouldn't go nearly that far, a comparison between their respective styles of filmmaking is at least rooted in fact, which is more than can be said for some of Moore's work.
That said, Moore's usual band of critics can probably sit this one out. As far as I can tell, the filmmaker plays things relatively straight with his latest work, with a few notable exceptions. (Newsweek and Slate.com have already debunked several aspects of the movie, most importantly the assertion that Bush gave special consideration to the bin Laden family in the aftermath of the attacks by letting them fly out of the U.S. without being questioned.) Of course it promotes an agenda, but that's its purpose, its sole reason for being, and at least Moore is upfront about it.
Moore would like nothing more than to see Bush lose his bid for re-election in November (or be impeached, whichever comes first), so he's fighting tirelessly to see the president booted back to Crawford, Texas. Yet Moore exercises an admirable degree of restraint for most of the film, presenting the bulk of his case in a fairly reasonable manner without resorting to some of the more wild tactics and accusations often heard from the far left.
So, for the first time in his life, it appears that Moore has finally made something resembling a genuine documentary -- absurdly slanted and dismissive of any facts that contradicts its thesis, but a documentary nonetheless. I may disagree with many of the conclusions he draws, but at least he has shown some growth as a filmmaker. There's only one problem, though: In broadening his horizons to extend beyond his forte, he has shown that as it turns out, he isn't a very talented documentarian.
A good documentary strikes a balance between education and illumination. By stringing together a bunch of loosely related facts and anecdotes with little or no real analysis to connect them, Moore has created something that amounts to little more than a current events report, peppered with precious few moments of blazing wit.
“Fahrenheit 9/11” is divided into two halves, the first of which focuses primarily on the Sept. 11 terror attacks and their immediate aftermath. In this section, Moore presents a rapid-fire collection of extremely selective facts that will likely make viewers’ heads spin. I was already familiar with most of the material covered here, and even I had a hard time keeping up. Then again, I was trying to apply some thought to what these factoids actually reveal, which is something I bet Moore hopes most viewers don't even attempt, lest his thesis crumble under scrutiny.
Thankfully, though, Moore manages to make some excellent points in this first half. Some fair and valid criticisms are leveled against Bush right from the beginning, starting with some ribbing of the president’s unprecedented penchant for vacations. Things get progressively more serious and vicious, with the indictment reaching its apex as Moore takes on the president’s delayed response on the morning of Sept. 11, when the leader of the free world sat reading “My Pet Goat” to a classroom full of grade-schoolers for seven minutes after being informed that Americans were being murdered en masse.
Other well-reasoned criticisms of Bush and the rest of his circle include knocks at their complete stonewalling of an independent investigation into the attacks, their lack of commitment to rebuilding war-torn Afghanistan, and their puzzling reluctance to stand up to the treacherous government of Saudi Arabia.
But with the good comes the bad. The film opens with a ridiculous misrepresentation of the 2000 election, wherein Moore promotes a selective adherence to the law and fails to back up any of his vague, conspiracy-oriented claims. Things only get worse from there, as our rabble-rousing host attempts to make mountains out of things that aren’t even big enough to be called molehills.
For instance, Moore takes the fact that Bush has business ties to the bin Laden family and tries to infer that this is somehow a huge scandal, even though the bin Ladens have distanced themselves from Osama as much as humanly possible. This guilt by association charade is also applied to the fact that the majority of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, a circumstance which Moore twists in order to imply that the U.S. should have invaded the Saudis instead of Afghanistan.
The second half of “Fahrenheit 9/11” deals mainly with the war in Iraq, and it is significantly less interesting than what preceded it. It is geared more toward blind emotion than facts or logic, so issues such as weapons of mass destruction and genocide are barely touched upon, leaving more time for the filmmaker to focus on footage of casualties inflicted upon both the Iraqi people and the U.S. military.
The focal point of this second half is the story of Lisa Lipscomb, a resident of Flint, Michigan whose son was killed in Iraq. While her story is indeed heartbreaking, it jolts the viewer out of the movie’s rhythm. Scenes of Lisa nearly collapsing from grief as she stands outside the White House verge on cheap exploitation, and the entire segment reeks of emotional blackmail.
Couple this with a sequence depicting Iraqi civilians laughing and smiling and playing in the sunshine during the lead up to “Shock and Awe,” and it becomes clear that Moore has displayed an outrageous lack of critical thought in his “analysis” of the Iraq war. Many on the anti-war side will be tickled pink with Moore’s pleas to emotion, but cinematically, this second half is manipulative without being interesting, and self-important without being relevant.
The film shines brightest when Moore does what he does best: point out the absurdities in everyday life. The segment in which he tackles the public overreaction to the terrorist threat is the best part of the film. Between his interview with a woman who was forced by airport security to drink her own breast milk, and a scene in which the residents of a small town try to figure out why their area has been put on a heightened terror alert, Moore paints a compelling portrait of irrational fear run rampant.
Another delightfully absurd scene features two Marines trekking out to the poorer side of Flint hoping to score some recruits, in the process unintentionally emphasizing the banality of their task This is funny, engaging stuff, and almost redeems the rest of the movie.
Of course, some will say that “Fahrenheit 9/11” is not in need of redemption. It has already become a critical hit, earning some rave reviews and picking up the coveted Palm d’Or prize at the prestigious Cannes Film Festival. But do these accolades really mean anything? I don’t think so.
The Cannes love-fest was an obvious sham, and nobody but the jury members seem to even be pretending that the award wasn’t politically motivated. As for the rave reviews, most noted critics seem to be openly admitting that this is not a very well made film, but is still a must-see due to the “important” message. By that rationale, the movie could have consisted of Moore looking at the camera and saying “Bush sucks” over and over again for two hours, and still gained the support of its current champions.
So the big question is, Will “Fahrenheit 9/11” have any effect on the November presidential election? Again, I don’t think so. Most viewers who see the film will already harbor a seething hatred of Bush, and the movie isn’t nearly powerful or persuasive enough to sway those who -- like me -- are tepid Bush supporters content with straddling the political fence.
The film’s tagline states that “This July, the fireworks will fly.” While the movie is sure to generate some heated debate its opening weekend, I think the lasting effect will be much more muted than many are expecting -- instead of fireworks, Moore has delivered a flashy, very colorful dud.
Rating (out of four): **1/2
For the past few months, I followed the buzz surrounding Michael Moore's new film "Fahrenheit 9/11" to an almost obsessive extent, reading and listening to anything I could in order to prepare myself for what was sure to be the defining cinematic event of the year. But truth be told, for all my research, I wasn't exactly sure what to expect.
Was Moore's film -- a self-described attack piece on President George W. Bush -- going to be the eye-opening experience its champions were promoting it as? Or would it be a sloppy, embarrassing, entirely dishonest hit piece, as Moore's critics were charging?
After much deliberation regarding the different -- but equally passionate -- feelings the film was evoking in its early viewers, and after viewing the brilliantly deceptive trailer, I pegged it as a skillfully structured, expert piece of political propaganda in the same vein as the director's previous "Bowling for Columbine" (which, in a purely cinematic sense, was one of the best films of its year). Much to my surprise, it has turned out to be none of the above.
It may seem like I'm beating a long-dead, horribly decaying horse, but something must be made perfectly clear in order to understand what is good, bad and downright ugly about "Fahrenheit 9/11": Michael Moore is a propagandist, a man with a strict adherence to an ideology who is not the least bit hesitant to distort the truth in order to promote his often twisted agenda, or what he views as a "greater truth."
He has been called a modern-day Leni Riefenstahl (she being the Hitler shill who made what amounted to recruitment movies for the Nazis), and though I wouldn't go nearly that far, a comparison between their respective styles of filmmaking is at least rooted in fact, which is more than can be said for some of Moore's work.
That said, Moore's usual band of critics can probably sit this one out. As far as I can tell, the filmmaker plays things relatively straight with his latest work, with a few notable exceptions. (Newsweek and Slate.com have already debunked several aspects of the movie, most importantly the assertion that Bush gave special consideration to the bin Laden family in the aftermath of the attacks by letting them fly out of the U.S. without being questioned.) Of course it promotes an agenda, but that's its purpose, its sole reason for being, and at least Moore is upfront about it.
Moore would like nothing more than to see Bush lose his bid for re-election in November (or be impeached, whichever comes first), so he's fighting tirelessly to see the president booted back to Crawford, Texas. Yet Moore exercises an admirable degree of restraint for most of the film, presenting the bulk of his case in a fairly reasonable manner without resorting to some of the more wild tactics and accusations often heard from the far left.
So, for the first time in his life, it appears that Moore has finally made something resembling a genuine documentary -- absurdly slanted and dismissive of any facts that contradicts its thesis, but a documentary nonetheless. I may disagree with many of the conclusions he draws, but at least he has shown some growth as a filmmaker. There's only one problem, though: In broadening his horizons to extend beyond his forte, he has shown that as it turns out, he isn't a very talented documentarian.
A good documentary strikes a balance between education and illumination. By stringing together a bunch of loosely related facts and anecdotes with little or no real analysis to connect them, Moore has created something that amounts to little more than a current events report, peppered with precious few moments of blazing wit.
“Fahrenheit 9/11” is divided into two halves, the first of which focuses primarily on the Sept. 11 terror attacks and their immediate aftermath. In this section, Moore presents a rapid-fire collection of extremely selective facts that will likely make viewers’ heads spin. I was already familiar with most of the material covered here, and even I had a hard time keeping up. Then again, I was trying to apply some thought to what these factoids actually reveal, which is something I bet Moore hopes most viewers don't even attempt, lest his thesis crumble under scrutiny.
Thankfully, though, Moore manages to make some excellent points in this first half. Some fair and valid criticisms are leveled against Bush right from the beginning, starting with some ribbing of the president’s unprecedented penchant for vacations. Things get progressively more serious and vicious, with the indictment reaching its apex as Moore takes on the president’s delayed response on the morning of Sept. 11, when the leader of the free world sat reading “My Pet Goat” to a classroom full of grade-schoolers for seven minutes after being informed that Americans were being murdered en masse.
Other well-reasoned criticisms of Bush and the rest of his circle include knocks at their complete stonewalling of an independent investigation into the attacks, their lack of commitment to rebuilding war-torn Afghanistan, and their puzzling reluctance to stand up to the treacherous government of Saudi Arabia.
But with the good comes the bad. The film opens with a ridiculous misrepresentation of the 2000 election, wherein Moore promotes a selective adherence to the law and fails to back up any of his vague, conspiracy-oriented claims. Things only get worse from there, as our rabble-rousing host attempts to make mountains out of things that aren’t even big enough to be called molehills.
For instance, Moore takes the fact that Bush has business ties to the bin Laden family and tries to infer that this is somehow a huge scandal, even though the bin Ladens have distanced themselves from Osama as much as humanly possible. This guilt by association charade is also applied to the fact that the majority of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, a circumstance which Moore twists in order to imply that the U.S. should have invaded the Saudis instead of Afghanistan.
The second half of “Fahrenheit 9/11” deals mainly with the war in Iraq, and it is significantly less interesting than what preceded it. It is geared more toward blind emotion than facts or logic, so issues such as weapons of mass destruction and genocide are barely touched upon, leaving more time for the filmmaker to focus on footage of casualties inflicted upon both the Iraqi people and the U.S. military.
The focal point of this second half is the story of Lisa Lipscomb, a resident of Flint, Michigan whose son was killed in Iraq. While her story is indeed heartbreaking, it jolts the viewer out of the movie’s rhythm. Scenes of Lisa nearly collapsing from grief as she stands outside the White House verge on cheap exploitation, and the entire segment reeks of emotional blackmail.
Couple this with a sequence depicting Iraqi civilians laughing and smiling and playing in the sunshine during the lead up to “Shock and Awe,” and it becomes clear that Moore has displayed an outrageous lack of critical thought in his “analysis” of the Iraq war. Many on the anti-war side will be tickled pink with Moore’s pleas to emotion, but cinematically, this second half is manipulative without being interesting, and self-important without being relevant.
The film shines brightest when Moore does what he does best: point out the absurdities in everyday life. The segment in which he tackles the public overreaction to the terrorist threat is the best part of the film. Between his interview with a woman who was forced by airport security to drink her own breast milk, and a scene in which the residents of a small town try to figure out why their area has been put on a heightened terror alert, Moore paints a compelling portrait of irrational fear run rampant.
Another delightfully absurd scene features two Marines trekking out to the poorer side of Flint hoping to score some recruits, in the process unintentionally emphasizing the banality of their task This is funny, engaging stuff, and almost redeems the rest of the movie.
Of course, some will say that “Fahrenheit 9/11” is not in need of redemption. It has already become a critical hit, earning some rave reviews and picking up the coveted Palm d’Or prize at the prestigious Cannes Film Festival. But do these accolades really mean anything? I don’t think so.
The Cannes love-fest was an obvious sham, and nobody but the jury members seem to even be pretending that the award wasn’t politically motivated. As for the rave reviews, most noted critics seem to be openly admitting that this is not a very well made film, but is still a must-see due to the “important” message. By that rationale, the movie could have consisted of Moore looking at the camera and saying “Bush sucks” over and over again for two hours, and still gained the support of its current champions.
So the big question is, Will “Fahrenheit 9/11” have any effect on the November presidential election? Again, I don’t think so. Most viewers who see the film will already harbor a seething hatred of Bush, and the movie isn’t nearly powerful or persuasive enough to sway those who -- like me -- are tepid Bush supporters content with straddling the political fence.
The film’s tagline states that “This July, the fireworks will fly.” While the movie is sure to generate some heated debate its opening weekend, I think the lasting effect will be much more muted than many are expecting -- instead of fireworks, Moore has delivered a flashy, very colorful dud.
Rating (out of four): **1/2
06-24-04, 07:05 AM
#5
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally posted by tonytapez
yeah, thats great and everything but why was this thread, Michael Moore Hates America, closed when its about a different movie?
yeah, thats great and everything but why was this thread, Michael Moore Hates America, closed when its about a different movie?
06-24-04, 07:08 AM
#6
DVD Talk Legend
Have you seen the movie? If not, MOVE ALONG. -Blake
Last edited by Blake; 06-24-04 at 08:46 AM.
06-24-04, 10:14 AM
#7
Premium Member
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 20,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As hard is it must be for anyone to give this move a fair review- I must say that Keyser_Soze2 has done a excellent job.
Side note- if you want to get into the politics of this we have about 700 threads on MM in the other forum.
Side note- if you want to get into the politics of this we have about 700 threads on MM in the other forum.
06-24-04, 11:41 AM
#8
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Marblehead, MA
Posts: 6,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by johnglass
Good question, I was wondering about that myself when I saw that thread closed. Is discussion of "Michael Moore Hates America" allowed here, if so what would be the proper thread for it?
Good question, I was wondering about that myself when I saw that thread closed. Is discussion of "Michael Moore Hates America" allowed here, if so what would be the proper thread for it?
You're more than welcome to rip apart every element of MM's films/books/articles/interviews/etc but you've got to do it in the right forum and within the rules.
Now... Back to talkin' about the damn movie folks!
06-24-04, 12:45 PM
#10
Moderator
after last night's US premier at the Uptown theatre here in DC, channel 4's Arch Campbell's jokingly stated there wasn't a Republican within a block of the theatre.
I guess with it being DC, this movie is being shown at the Avalon, AFI's Silver Theatre, Landmark's E. Street/Bethesda cinemas and a few I am currently forgetting, talk about making sure everyone gets to see this film, it's a tad overkill IMO.
I guess with it being DC, this movie is being shown at the Avalon, AFI's Silver Theatre, Landmark's E. Street/Bethesda cinemas and a few I am currently forgetting, talk about making sure everyone gets to see this film, it's a tad overkill IMO.
Last edited by Giles; 06-24-04 at 12:48 PM.
06-24-04, 12:47 PM
#11
DVD Talk Legend
wtf?!??! I just noticed that my local movie listings state that this is now rated NC-17?!??!? Can anyone else confirm this?
From what i've heard about the war footage I didn't mind the R rating, but NC-17 is ridiculous.
From what i've heard about the war footage I didn't mind the R rating, but NC-17 is ridiculous.
06-24-04, 12:56 PM
#12
Moderator
Originally posted by brizz
wtf?!??! I just noticed that my local movie listings state that this is now rated NC-17?!??!? Can anyone else confirm this?
From what i've heard about the war footage I didn't mind the R rating, but NC-17 is ridiculous.
wtf?!??! I just noticed that my local movie listings state that this is now rated NC-17?!??!? Can anyone else confirm this?
From what i've heard about the war footage I didn't mind the R rating, but NC-17 is ridiculous.
06-24-04, 01:42 PM
#13
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally posted by gkleinman
Again... Wanna talk about MM and his politics. Do it in the Other forum (after reading the political poster rules thread).
You're more than welcome to rip apart every element of MM's films/books/articles/interviews/etc but you've got to do it in the right forum and within the rules.
Now... Back to talkin' about the damn movie folks!
Again... Wanna talk about MM and his politics. Do it in the Other forum (after reading the political poster rules thread).
You're more than welcome to rip apart every element of MM's films/books/articles/interviews/etc but you've got to do it in the right forum and within the rules.
Now... Back to talkin' about the damn movie folks!
http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com
The thread was in the right forum, Movie Talk, but it was closed and you directed people to this thread, which has nothing to do with the film "Michael Moore Hates America".
I realize I may be clueless but I am having a very hard time figuring out where to discuss the film "Michael Moore Hates America". If this should be taken to e-mail, let me know, because this obviously isn't the correct thread to discuss it, but since the other thread was closed and you pointed people to this thread...
I really don't even give a crap about discussing the film "Michael Moore Hates America", I just think a mistake was made here.
06-24-04, 02:04 PM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll be seeing it tomorrow, but it is apparently only showing at the local art theater, and not in any of the bigger, more accessible ones. In a college town like this, that's surprising to me.
06-24-04, 02:47 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by johnglass
You do realize that "Michael Moore Hates America" is a film, don't you? Here is the link in case there is any confusion.
http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com
The thread was in the right forum, Movie Talk, but it was closed and you directed people to this thread, which has nothing to do with the film "Michael Moore Hates America".
I realize I may be clueless but I am having a very hard time figuring out where to discuss the film "Michael Moore Hates America". If this should be taken to e-mail, let me know, because this obviously isn't the correct thread to discuss it, but since the other thread was closed and you pointed people to this thread...
I really don't even give a crap about discussing the film "Michael Moore Hates America", I just think a mistake was made here.
You do realize that "Michael Moore Hates America" is a film, don't you? Here is the link in case there is any confusion.
http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com
The thread was in the right forum, Movie Talk, but it was closed and you directed people to this thread, which has nothing to do with the film "Michael Moore Hates America".
I realize I may be clueless but I am having a very hard time figuring out where to discuss the film "Michael Moore Hates America". If this should be taken to e-mail, let me know, because this obviously isn't the correct thread to discuss it, but since the other thread was closed and you pointed people to this thread...
I really don't even give a crap about discussing the film "Michael Moore Hates America", I just think a mistake was made here.
06-24-04, 03:22 PM
#17
Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im not one of the elites that actually saw the movie, but before I move on, can someone who has both already seen the movie and read the book "Dude Where's my Country" confirm how much of the movie is based on this book?
06-24-04, 04:33 PM
#18
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: 11.5 Miles from the Strip
Posts: 2,353
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, I have read the rules posted by Geoff, and I am officially confused.
I am here to discuss the official film referenced by IMDB here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0411646/
which is called Michael Moore Hates America. Geoff said that this is the thread to discuss this film, and even provided a link, but according to the rules of posting to this thread, this thread is only for discussing F 9/11.
Geoff, am I to understand that we are also permitted to discuss the above mentioned title, in addition to F 9/11 in this thread? If so, can you please mention that in the rules, and perhaps change the title to reflect discussion of both films. Thanks!
I am here to discuss the official film referenced by IMDB here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0411646/
which is called Michael Moore Hates America. Geoff said that this is the thread to discuss this film, and even provided a link, but according to the rules of posting to this thread, this thread is only for discussing F 9/11.
Geoff, am I to understand that we are also permitted to discuss the above mentioned title, in addition to F 9/11 in this thread? If so, can you please mention that in the rules, and perhaps change the title to reflect discussion of both films. Thanks!
Last edited by LasVegasMichael; 06-24-04 at 04:59 PM.
06-24-04, 04:51 PM
#19
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Part of the Left-Wing Conspiracy
Posts: 7,541
Received 208 Likes
on
120 Posts
Start a new thread:
Discussion of the MOVIE "Michael Moore Hates America"
I'm sure it was just a booboo by GK
EDITED TO ADD: Or email him and have him re-open the other thread.
Discussion of the MOVIE "Michael Moore Hates America"
I'm sure it was just a booboo by GK
EDITED TO ADD: Or email him and have him re-open the other thread.
Last edited by Chrisedge; 06-24-04 at 04:53 PM.
06-24-04, 04:54 PM
#20
Originally posted by Chrisedge
Start a new thread:
Discussion of the MOVIE "Michael Moore Hates America"
I'm sure it was just a booboo by GK
EDITED TO ADD: Or email him and have him re-open the other thread.
Start a new thread:
Discussion of the MOVIE "Michael Moore Hates America"
I'm sure it was just a booboo by GK
EDITED TO ADD: Or email him and have him re-open the other thread.
06-24-04, 05:29 PM
#21
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: "Sitting on a beach, earning 20%"
Posts: 6,154
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
In an old thread I said this:
I'm here today to say that I've seen the film and agree with myself 100%.
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING original in the film. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the "revelations" that so many critics are going on about have been well reported, frequently discussed, and on occasion debunked in the mainstream press and the alternative press for several years now.
Anyone who is "shocked" or "has their eyes opened" or "has their perspective on things changed" by what amounts to a 120 minute distillation of old news, is so supremely uninformed about current events that I will go ahead and call them flat out ignorant.
I would not characterize Michael Moore as a filmmaker who is holding information that is vital. There is nothing in this documentary that is new information. It's all info that is well documented and represented in the media or alternative press. If, when you finally see this film, you are surprised by any of the information it contains, then you are supremely uninformed.
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING original in the film. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the "revelations" that so many critics are going on about have been well reported, frequently discussed, and on occasion debunked in the mainstream press and the alternative press for several years now.
Anyone who is "shocked" or "has their eyes opened" or "has their perspective on things changed" by what amounts to a 120 minute distillation of old news, is so supremely uninformed about current events that I will go ahead and call them flat out ignorant.
Last edited by Pants; 06-24-04 at 05:31 PM.
06-24-04, 06:09 PM
#22
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
I plan on seeing this tomorrow,but am not sure where it is playing yet. It better be in one of the many theaters in the Twin Cities. I plan on seeing it first thing in the afteroon,and will post my opinion then.
06-24-04, 09:05 PM
#23
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My problem with the film is that it takes loose truths and leads to slippery slope conclusions, such as:
The Bin Laden's were the first to get to leave the country, therefore, George Bush showed them special treatment, therefore George Bush piloted the planes by remote control into the WTC's himself.
This would be like saying Bill Clinton's sexual adventures distracted himself and the nation, therefore terrorism was allowed to thrive while we all worried where his stains were, therefore Bill Clinton piloted the planes by remote control into the WTC's himself.
The conclusions that the movie makes never give concrete proof and facts, rather show you a series of images and events that play on your emotions and then infers with a raised eyebrow and a chuckle that we are all cows being misled by an evil president who loves to play golf while America gets blowed up.
It is nothing short of propaganda and is unsettling to me that uneducated or lazy people watch this movie, call it 'truth' and then spread the word of these 'facts' much like our esteemed moderator did in his review.
I would be equally alarmed if there was a right wing movie about Clinton or anyone on the left that treated such difficult and gray matters with such a side-show flair as Michael Moore does with this movie.
The way I see it is that a lot of mistakes and ignorance on many fronts both left, right, and foreign interests led up to this event and the current situation and making films like this serve no purpose other than selling films for Michael Moore. The movie itself is self serving propoganda, not 'truth' or 'entertainment' and should be criticized, not glorified.
The Bin Laden's were the first to get to leave the country, therefore, George Bush showed them special treatment, therefore George Bush piloted the planes by remote control into the WTC's himself.
This would be like saying Bill Clinton's sexual adventures distracted himself and the nation, therefore terrorism was allowed to thrive while we all worried where his stains were, therefore Bill Clinton piloted the planes by remote control into the WTC's himself.
The conclusions that the movie makes never give concrete proof and facts, rather show you a series of images and events that play on your emotions and then infers with a raised eyebrow and a chuckle that we are all cows being misled by an evil president who loves to play golf while America gets blowed up.
It is nothing short of propaganda and is unsettling to me that uneducated or lazy people watch this movie, call it 'truth' and then spread the word of these 'facts' much like our esteemed moderator did in his review.
I would be equally alarmed if there was a right wing movie about Clinton or anyone on the left that treated such difficult and gray matters with such a side-show flair as Michael Moore does with this movie.
The way I see it is that a lot of mistakes and ignorance on many fronts both left, right, and foreign interests led up to this event and the current situation and making films like this serve no purpose other than selling films for Michael Moore. The movie itself is self serving propoganda, not 'truth' or 'entertainment' and should be criticized, not glorified.
06-25-04, 12:28 AM
#25
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bethleham, New Jersey
Posts: 1,423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hey, i didn't see the movie but wanted to post about that micheal moore hates america movie because that thread closed. i thought it was funny when moore said he only does his own films and then the titles came up of all the movies he has been that weren't his. the reason why it was funny was because for jesus christ sake, when a redneck who puts country music in the end of the trailer wants to interview you for his schlocky camcorder home movie, then i would say i would be only in my own movies too. what an ass. but anyways, i look foward to F-9/11. whoop whoop.