...because they are only playing it on one screen!
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.michaelskis said:I hear that it has a great fictional story line
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.Seabishop said:I wonder if all presidential elections from now on will have 2 feature films about how bad the opposing party 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.Gedunker said:I am bothered by a so-called documentary that omits key facts (not opinions, but facts) in order to make its point.
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.jordanb said: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.
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
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.SlaveToTheGrind said: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.
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.
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....)jresta said:The fact that NOT ONE democratic senator signed any of the petitions brought forth by any member of the congressional black caucus (to order an investigation of the election results) is shameful and has to make you wonder if they care more about each other than they do for their constituents.
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.Gedunker said:Wanigas? -- here's a link to a story in the Chicago Sun Times:
"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.
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.Achernar said: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. :-D
I guess that probably doesn't make you feel any better. Sorry.
SGBSGB said:I'm actually hoping that you'll go see it, EG. I've enjoyed your past critiques of the liberal media. Really.
Oh, this offer is too good for someone in the St. Joe area not to take you up on it. If not for the movie, do it for the opportunity to exercise your Second Amendment rights with a fellow Cyburbanite.el Guapo said:I've seen most of his prior work, and I even enjoyed "Roger and Me." But the chances of me spending more than a 49 cent rental fee are long indeed. So look for my review in 2008. That is unless one of you generous liberals thinks that it is your duty to drive to St. Joe, MO and take me to the movie. I will pay for my own snacks, as well as share my popcorn. Afterwards I'll let you rip off 100 rounds of 7.62x39 (no, not in the theater)
Did anyone else think that the caricatures of Micheal Moore look an awful lot like a scruffy looking "Family Guy" Peter Griffin?Planderella said:
There will be no rebuttal. Nothing there to rebut. The facts in the film are indeed facts.SGB said:I'm waiting for some objective (is there such a thing anymore?) and factual rebuttal of some of the facts Moore lays out in the film about the conflicts of interest the Bush family have with the Saudis and the Bin Laden family. I may have a long wait...