Fahrenheit 9/11

[NEON MERCURY]

the republican in me cant help but mention that THE REMOVAL OF SADDAM IS WITHOUT QUESTION A POSTITIVE...thats like saying was it a good thing that hitler was put of power?....

do u know anything about hitler? or are u just using him as a name like ppl use the word Einstein to mean smart without knowing a goddamn thing about him..

damn....whats w/ the negative vibe..... i thoguht we were cool w/ each other???

but um....basically, ..

both hitler and saddam:

1.] are maniac power freaks who kill innocent people
2.] we as a planet are better off w/o them

i see what your saying about the cliched einstein thing .yeah, im guilty of that a little.but still my point is right..right?..........

i know i tend to put my foot in my mouth in this issue but all of this sh*t has gotten me thinking.which is good ..im getting involved w/ my opinions.........and i realize this:

-war sucks its ugly and maybe they way the bushs/rumsfields methods are wrong/unclear/ poor planned or whatever....but i do believe that obviously, its a good thing that saddam is gone.

[mutinyco]

but i do believe that obviously, its a good thing that saddam is gone.

It's a good thing they invented Buncha Crunch too...

[NEON MERCURY]

but i do believe that obviously, its a good thing that saddam is gone.

It's a good thing they invented Buncha Crunch too...

...

*closes cements can of worms, tightly*



im out........

[Pubrick]

yeah it's obviously a good idea.

i just don't use the word hitler as lightly as u.

ur still not seeing the point, removing sadam was obviously good as in "about time, why havn't we done this before", and that's the trouble, it hasn't accomplished anything to justify all the disruption it has caused in the long run. it's too little too late for the beloved bush administration.

to put it another way, NEON, for sum reason u believe that Saddam posed as great a threat as hitler, that's what the comparison means whether u intended it that way or not.. so in thinking that, u admit to not even caring that the reasons for his removal were false. u would hav been happy with "he's a bad guy and kills ppl". well, man, do u think that there aren't any worse ppl in the world, in positions of power comparable to sadam? is that what u really believe?

there's two arguments going on in america and the whole world, and unfortunately i think the tone was set for it in the aftermath of september 11.. the argument made by reasonable adults and the argument made my children. they are irreconcilable and the core of the debate, and the reason a George Bush re-election is still an actual possibility.

may God hav mercy on our souls.

[coffeebeetle]

they are irreconcilable and the core of the debate, and the reason a George Bush re-election is still an actual possibility.

may God hav mercy on our souls.

Well put.

I was holding out a pathetic sliver of hope that this film might galvanize the swing vote into voting against this terrorist in the White House.  After seeing this film, I know it won't.  At best, this film is entertaining and laugh-out-loud funny at times.  At worst, it only stokes the Bush haters' fire.  And I mean that in the best possible way.  In a nutshell, Moore has managed to shoot himself in the foot with this one.  I like what GNN had to say: "In an era where authentic journalism and critical analysis have been sacrificed for ambulance chasing and hyperbole, Michael Moore has basically fallen into the same trap. Even worse, instead of attempting to transform the political landscape by appealing to a broader psychographic audience, Moore has simply catered to and played off the angry left, driving his spear further into the wound of the American collective consciousness.


And that is no way to heal a painful rift. If that was ever the point."

Where is Errol Morris when you need him?

[Ravi]

http://www.davisdvd.com/news/daily_news.html


With Michael Moore's buzzworthy Fahrenheit 9/11 documentary finally hitting over 900 screens this weekend, talk is now shifting to the inevitable DVD release. Currently, the film is still without a proper home video distributor, although Lions Gate, which is sharing theatrical distribution with IFC Films, is rumored to be the logical choice. By Moore's mandate, however, the DVD must be released in September. "We want to get it out before the (presidential) election," said Michael Moore during a recent press stop for the film. "We hope the film and DVD will have a significant role in removing Bush from office." Moore's production company, Dog Eat Dog Films, has already produced many of the bonus features. The DVD is said to include additional footage and updates not in the current theatrical edit, a commentary track, man-in-the-street interviews conducted in 30 countries and more to be announced.





Coffeebeetle, Errol Morris usually deals with larger issues by focusing on one person or a handful of persons in a very intimate style, but I too was thinking that Morris could make a great documentary on this subject.

[Jeremy Blackman]

both hitler and saddam:

1.] are maniac power freaks who kill innocent people
2.] we as a planet are better off w/o them

That list is long, my friend, and most modern American presidents are on it...

war sucks its ugly and maybe they way the bushs/rumsfields methods are wrong/unclear/ poor planned or whatever....but i do believe that obviously, its a good thing that saddam is gone.

The only problem is... the way that it happens means everything.

"In an era where authentic journalism and critical analysis have been sacrificed for ambulance chasing and hyperbole, Michael Moore has basically fallen into the same trap."

Please explain how (1) the film is not analytical and (2) the film's original footage (especially the Iraq stuff) is not authentic journalism.

[Jeremy Blackman]

f9/11 made $21.8 million this weekend, good for #1 in the country. white chicks, the #2 movie, played on 3 times as many screens.

More detail...

Fahrenheit 9/11 makes $21.8 million[/b]
And beats Bowling For Columbine total

LOS ANGELES—Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 took in a whopping $21.8 million in North America over its first three days, becoming the first documentary to debut as Hollywood's top weekend film.

If yesterday's estimates hold when final numbers are released today, Fahrenheit 9/11 would set a record in a single weekend as the top-grossing documentary, outside of concert films and movies made for huge-screen IMAX theatres.

Adding the film's haul at two New York City theatres, where it opened Wednesday, two days earlier than the rest of North America, boosted Fahrenheit 9/11 to $21.96 million (U.S.).

Bowling For Columbine, Moore's 2002 Academy Award-winning documentary, previously held the documentary record with a final North American total of $21.6 million. Canadians accounted for 23 per cent of that total.

[Myxo]

Alright. I saw this on Sunday.

My two cents:

It's a good film, but not a great or Oscar worthy film.

You can definetly tell it was not given the time and attention to detail that Bowling for Columbine was. I liked an aweful lot about this film but I have to admit it started to drag once Moore started getting into the "emotional" side of the soldiers and their families who have lost love ones. I can understand how terrible it must be to lose a loved one, but honestly, could he not have done the mother segment in 10 minutes instead of 30?

I felt like the order of things was a little messed up too. The recruiters at Congress stuff would have made an excellent opening bit to hook the audience. Or, I feel like the Senetor saying, "We don't read most of the stuff that we pass".. Something along those lines.

It just didn't flow right for me. The pieces are there, and I'm almost 100% sure if the election was in 2005, this entire film would be totally different. Not just with added content, but I'm talking a totally different structure. I think he wanted to get this thing out there.

[coffeebeetle]

both hitler and saddam:

1.] are maniac power freaks who kill innocent people
2.] we as a planet are better off w/o them

That list is long, my friend, and most modern American presidents are on it...

war sucks its ugly and maybe they way the bushs/rumsfields methods are wrong/unclear/ poor planned or whatever....but i do believe that obviously, its a good thing that saddam is gone.

The only problem is... the way that it happens means everything.

"In an era where authentic journalism and critical analysis have been sacrificed for ambulance chasing and hyperbole, Michael Moore has basically fallen into the same trap."

Please explain how (1) the film is not analytical and (2) the film's original footage (especially the Iraq stuff) is not authentic journalism.

1) The film isn't analytical enough in my opinion because there are some important "facts" that are skewered: for instance, when the Taliban visited Texas, Clinton authorized this visit and Bush never actually met with the creeps.  However, Moore's presentation leads you to believe that Bush met directly with them.  To me, that's not right.  It's sneaky of Moore.  Another example is Richard Clarke: when you have Clarke, who wrote a book damning to the Administration, saying Moore is so far off (i.e. Clarke authorized the pickup of Saudis in the U.S. post-9-11, NOT Bush) the threads that hold this film together start to come apart and the film loses its value as a valid criticism of the Administration.

2) You mention Iraq footage.  The footage of disillusioned soldiers and grieving Lipscomb was FANTASTIC.  Because you simply can't argue with stuff like that.  These aspects were the strongest parts of the film.  It's also irrefutable to say that Bush's cowboy mentality and the Administration's neo-con wet dreams led us into that.  

Now let me end by saying I am a HUGE Bush hater.  I also think that this film is based on facts, however the way Moore puts them together, and skewers them to force the viewer to see his (Moore's) conclusions unsettles me.  I wanted to love this film soooo much.  But I can't.  Because I need something alot less distorted.  Thanks.

[Jeremy Blackman]

there are some important "facts" that are skewered: for instance, when the Taliban visited Texas, Clinton authorized this visit and Bush never actually met with the creeps.  However, Moore's presentation leads you to believe that Bush met directly with them.  To me, that's not right.  It's sneaky of Moore.

Perhaps Bush didn't meet with them in his official capacity as Governor of Texas (which, of course, Moore doesn't say), but the Taliban met with Unocal, a company the Bush family is endlessly connected with. I think it's perfectly fair to suggest there might have been a relationship between the Taliban and the Bush people in Texas.

Another example is Richard Clarke: when you have Clarke, who wrote a book damning to the Administration, saying Moore is so far off (i.e. Clarke authorized the pickup of Saudis in the U.S. post-9-11, NOT Bush) the threads that hold this film together start to come apart and the film loses its value as a valid criticism of the Administration

It is a mistake for Moore to draw such a black and white picture of Clarke, then... But has Clarke explained why it happened? It's not exactly a distortion to suggest that the Bush Administration orchestrated and authorized the Saudi pickup... Clarke was part of the Bush Administration, and I really doubt the whole thing was his idea.

[NEON MERCURY]

yeah it's obviously a good idea.

i just don't use the word hitler as lightly as u.

ur still not seeing the point, removing sadam was obviously good as in "about time, why havn't we done this before", and that's the trouble, it hasn't accomplished anything to justify all the disruption it has caused in the long run. it's too little too late for the beloved bush administration.

to put it another way, NEON, for sum reason u believe that Saddam posed as great a threat as hitler, that's what the comparison means whether u intended it that way or not.. so in thinking that, u admit to not even caring that the reasons for his removal were false. u would hav been happy with "he's a bad guy and kills ppl". well, man, do u think that there aren't any worse ppl in the world, in positions of power comparable to sadam? is that what u really believe?

there's two arguments going on in america and the whole world, and unfortunately i think the tone was set for it in the aftermath of september 11.. the argument made by reasonable adults and the argument made my children. they are irreconcilable and the core of the debate, and the reason a George Bush re-election is still an actual possibility.

may God hav mercy on our souls.

.............. .............. ...............i  see now what your saying..........
thanks...........

[coffeebeetle]

Clarke was part of the Bush Administration, and I really doubt the whole thing was his idea.

From what I've read, Bush didn't directly order the emergency evacuation.

Jeremy, I just would've liked this film to not have so many loose ends.  Perhaps I'm asking for too much (or maybe I'm just asking for a documentary in the true sense of the word--i.e. without the director's narration, using cold hard facts and not leaving the information that is presented to mere conjecture).  I'll admit, I am obsessive about some things.  This just happens to be one of them.

[Myxo]

I think you are dead on right.

The film qualifies as a documentary but I feel like it falls short in a lot of areas. It starts going down a road and then never really completes it.

See, in Bowling for Columbine, somebody would raise an objection why we are so violent. Michael Moore would say, "Ok, let's explore that then", and he'd spend 10-20 minutes showing us why it's both true and untrue. The film was far more accomplished than 9/11 is.

It did feel really sloppy. I honestly believe MM wanted this out there before the election and we'd be looking at a far more detailed and accomplished look at George Bush had he had another year to work on this.

[ono]

Haven't had a chance to see it yet, but if that's the case, if this appears to be sloppy filmmaking, then why was it honored for its filmmaking at Cannes?  Just curious.