...because they are only playing it on one screen!
It's playing on two screens in Harvard Square and two screens in Boston, plus one in Brookline and one in Fenway. It's still kind of hard to get tickets. I got my opening day ticket two days in advance, though.
I guess that probably doesn't make you feel any better. Sorry.
I hear that it has a great fictional story line
Not my monkey, not my circus. - Old Polish Proverb
Not even showing here but I heard this morning that they are going to get it out in DVD before the election.
It is all a matter of perspective!!!
Maybe you should go see the movie and see what it is all about. All the facts presented by Michael Moore have been documented by many other sources. In a fashion, Fahrenheit 911 regurgitates already public information and makes it available in another format.Originally posted by michaelskis
I wonder if all presidential elections from now on will have 2 feature films about how bad the opposing party is.
I saw it last night and found it to be very informative, moving, disturbing, interesting, and so important right now! In fact, this movie coupled with Maureen Dowd's forthcoming book (Bushworld: Enter At Your Own Risk) about the Bush Administration (should be out in September), should be quite a blow to the Bushies. We need a change and we need it in November--vote Kerry!
I saw it, I liked it, there were some parts that were very sad too. I think it was informative and asked questions that a lot of people have been asking. I hate that some people will be too close minded to see the film or start to ask questions about our current leader (nice dictatorship quote, no?).
When Jesus said "love your enemies", he probably didn't mean kill them.
I don't know if you're saying Michael Moore is a Democrat, but if you're not saying it, a lot of people are. It's not true. He rarely refers to any political party in his film, except to identify members of Congress. He doesn't openly support Kerry. I think it's the with-us-or-against-us mentality that gets him lumped with Democrats, poor guy. Also, this film does not talk about how bad Republicans are in general. Just the current administration, and a little of Bush Sr.'s.Originally posted by Seabishop
I haven't seen the movie yet, but a friend who has commented that he thought the film's point could have been even more powerful if Moore had limited his editorializing throughout.
My folks, moderate Republicans well into their retirement years, are seeing the film this week. Can't wait to hear their reaction.
All these years the people said he’s actin’ like a kid.
He did not know he could not fly, so he did.
- - Guy Clark, "The Cape"
I am bothered by a so-called documentary that omits key facts (not opinions, but facts) in order to make its point. The populace is gullible and will easily fall for something without any second-guessing. Moore's clear intention of trying to influence the upcoming general election in this way makes me uneasy. Just my 0.02.
On pitching to Stan Musial:
"Once he timed your fastball, your infielders were in jeopardy."
I agree with Seabishop. I think that Fahrenheit 911 is important in order to cut through all the propaganda from the Bush administration. However, it does open a pandora's box in the future. The election year rot is bad enough as it is.
Which key facts were left out of the movie? Based on your comment, I am assuming you have already seen the film. Please direct me to the specific scenes so that when I see the movie again - this time with my girlfriend - I can spend extra attention to the scenes you claim are lacking.Originally posted by Gedunker
I can't wait to go see this movie. We thought about going to a matinee yesterday, but the weather was too nice to sit inside a dark theater!
I saw it last night. It's only playing on six screens in the entire City of Chicago, so it was selling out two hours before showtime at the place I went to. It's crazy that the distribution is so restricted. I heard they only made 500 prints. I guess losing Disney as a distributor really hurt.
But yeah, it was very well-made and gets Moore's point across well. The most powerful sequence (SPOILER WARNING) was when he was showing all of the dead and mamed iraqis, especially the girl with her arm torn apart and the toddler who was moaning as they operated on the hole in his head, then the mamed American soldiers, like the one missing both his hands, then a cut to never-served-a-day-in-his-life Bush sitting there in a suit and white shirt talking about how he "knows it's tough" but we're "not going to give up" because that's "not what America is about" or something like that. ****ing hypocrite.
Sounds like you are a Democrat. Where did Bill Clinton serve in the military? Dubya was a least enlisted in the Guard. Did more than Bill ever did.Originally posted by jordanb
I can guarantee Bill made the same type of comments on any military operation he ordered. Is the President not supposed to voice support? Remember the success in Somalia? Go watch Black Down.
Any body watch Tim Russert yesterday? Pointed out a few of these quotes below.
This is why I hate politics, especially in election years. No matter the incumbant party, it's all the same. The lefts point out all the errors of the rights and vice versa. It's politics.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others. Oct. 9,1998
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27,2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
"Without question, we nee to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is is calculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Wanigas? -- here's a link to a story in the Chicago Sun Times:
Here are several reviews I have read:
Los Angeles Times"Moore has made an overwhelming film. It is propaganda, no doubt about it, but propaganda is most effective when it has elements of truth, and too much here is taken from the record not to have a devastating effect on viewers..."Don't get me wrong -- I am not at all impressed with this administration and its wars on terrorism/Iraq et cetera nor its domestic policies. I lean republican, but more of the moderate stripe than the current cabal. My issue is the use of polemics disguised as documentary/history.New York Times "['Fahrenheit 9/11,'] is many things: a partisan rallying cry, an angry polemic, a muckraking inquisition into the use and abuse of power. But one thing it is not is a fair and nuanced picture of the president and his policies. What did you expect? Mr. Moore is often impolite, rarely subtle and occasionally unwise. He can be obnoxious, tendentious and maddeningly self-contradictory. He can drive even his most ardent admirers crazy. He is a credit to the republic." - A.O. Scott
On pitching to Stan Musial:
"Once he timed your fastball, your infielders were in jeopardy."
Bubba has often commented that he feels that we needed to go into Iraq...and he has not attacked Bush the way Gore has. But then again, past presidents hardy ever criticize a sitting president's policy.Originally posted by SlaveToTheGrind
Information necessitating a change of design will be conveyed to the designer after and only after the design is complete. (Often called the 'Now They Tell Us' Law) - Fyfe's First Law of Revision
We don't believe in planners and deciders making the decisions on behalf of Americans. -- George W. Bush , Scranton, PA -- 09/06/2000
Have not seen the movie yet, but know of, and have admired, MM's work for years as a much needed voice for the working (lower & middle) class, particularly while living & growing up in Detroit, Michigan.
Could not agree more. According to Bernie Ward on KGO AM 810 (out of SF), Al Gore himself requested that no senator sign onto the petition. My theory is that he was more interested in appeasing the corporate media and avoiding the "cry baby" label than standing up for what was,and still is, right. (He then, of course, would retain the highest ability to do big dollar speaking engagements after losing the election....)Originally posted by jresta
That article was written a week before the movie came out - apparently Ebert hadn't seen it yet. The thrust of the article was about Moore's bias not about facts. Your original post made mention to a documentary "that omits key facts (not opinions, but facts) in order to make its point." Perhaps you meant bias? Either way, you should probably go see the movie.Originally posted by Gedunker
Here's Ebert's review of the movie, it's quite a bit different than that article and gives it three and a half stars:
"Fahrenheit 9/11" is a compelling, persuasive film, at odds with the White House effort to present Bush as a strong leader. He comes across as a shallow, inarticulate man, simplistic in speech and inauthentic in manner. If the film is not quite as electrifying as Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," that may be because Moore has toned down his usual exuberance and was sobered by attacks on the factual accuracy of elements of "Columbine"; playing with larger stakes, he is more cautious here, and we get an op-ed piece, not a stand-up routine. But he remains one of the most valuable figures on the political landscape, a populist rabble-rouser, humorous and effective; the outrage and incredulity in his film are an exhilarating response to Bush's determined repetition of the same stubborn sound bites.
Haven't seen Fahrenheit 9-11yet; I'm still getting over seeing "The Control Room" last weekend - a documentary about Al-Jeezira. I've also got mixed feelings over Moore's motivations as he can be entirely self serving at times.
I suppose though if a film can elicit such strong responses and get the uninvolved away from the remote control long enough to take an interest in current affairs and either support the status quo or get engaged on the train for change, it's achieved something worthwhile.
More than just draining my pocket for a $7 ticket, anyway.
Actually I did see it this weekend. I was just mad because the useless Multiplex (Showcase - who else?) had three screens playing that turdfest Chronicals of Riddick but only one to F-911. We saw a matinee, got there 15 minutes early and it was still a packed house. Five more minutes and we wouldn't have got a good seat.Originally posted by Achernar
In the long run though, it will work out in F-911's favor. By being restricted to relatively few screens, the movie will "get legs" and retain high ticket sales for weeks to come (instead of these typical bloated, big-budget, overproduced, blockbuster movies that make $50M the first week and $2 million the next because everyone was duped into believing it was such a great movie because it's playing on 6 screens). I theorize that F-911 will make $100 before the end of July and keep on scoring reasonable returns well into August.
BTW, I give the film an A: 9.5 out of 10. My only wish is that he would have shown more scenes of the bombed out sections of Flint (like he had in Roger and Me and Bowling For Columbine . Those were the most powerful segments of the films and by showing more footage of abandoned and burned out homes - I think he really would have driven the point home.
I can't wait to get a copy of the movie when it comes out on DVD....a copy for me to poop on!