Well since it's back onto movies--I will not watch Farenheit 9/11 because:

1. Michael Moore is a propagandist. I'm not interested in the cinematography, or his "talent" as a film maker, so why else would I watch the movie if I know it's impartial and imbalanced?

2. Wait, I don't have a second reason, and the first is enough of a reason by itself. Well, I suppose I do have a second reason: I'd rather not support someone when they're intentionally spreading untruths.

3. Oh yeah, I knew there was another reason I don't like Michael Moore: he didn't have enough respect for Bradbury to ask him if he could name the movie after Bradbury's story.

P.S. The election is a long way off, but right now it looks like I'm not going to vote for Bush, so no comments saying I'm biased, okay? 

. 

I apologize for the typo error... anyway
Even if you think M.Moore is a propagandist, even if you don't like his "poor cinematographic talent", I think his film is really worth seen... just to understand what is M.Moore's feeling about US administration politics... I agree he overdoes a lot all the related topics, but it's for him the only way to make understand some people what is really Bush administration...
Furthermore, I'm not able to vote for Bush or Kerry... I don't live in USA.. I'm french...
Oh, just one thing... you are biased.... he he he...
;D 

I'm glad you liked the movie. I'm still not going to watch it. :) 

No problem... It was just my opinion... Everybody is free to watch or not any movies he wants...
... and you are still biased ... :D !!! 

all I've seen of his is Bowling for Columbine and based on that, I agree with RPG's assessment of him as a filmaker and interviewer.

Having said that, I still found BFC to be quite good simply because the topic, the people he interviewed and some of their viewpoints were just flat out interesting. 

Finally caught Big Fish and thought it stank. It's like a collection of snippets from all of burton's other filmas mismashed with an overdose of sentimentality.

Also saw Shrek2 and was disappointed, no where near the same level as the first (which was pretty good), some good laughs though. 

I have also seen the other Moore movies Roger & Me, and Bowling for Columbine. Too much of his work is dependent on distortion of fact (in Roger & Me, he literally turned the time line of events backwards to achieve his narative logic). In Farenheit 9/11 he spends the first thirty minutes or so making the argument that the Bush family is in cohoots with the Saudi's and that the reason we went to war is due to these vaguely defined powers-that-be and their commercial interest. However to achieve this logic Moore ignores the fact that the Saudis opposed the war!
Moore's agenda would be worse for this Nation than what the Democrats or the current Republicans have to offer. I have read his blogs and know his opinions pretty well. He is a creature of the hard Left. Whatever peace he advocates on the foreign policy scene would be more than made up for by the coercion he advocates in matters of domestic policy.

My biasis certainly are not pro Bush. I voted for him in 2000, but like RPG I am not at all happy with the results. 

One would think Moore would be the guy to open people's eyes with all sorts of truths, but now that people evidently hate him, and no one likes Bush, I wonder who the fuck to trust? No one, I guess. 

How do we know Moore is lying? 

How do we know Moore is true ?? There certainly in Moore, like in Bush a part of truth, and a part of lie.. more or less.. Just a question, after 9/11, the target was Bin Laden, in Afghanistan..I'm sure Afhganistan war was justified, but Iraq was was not for sure.. oil was the only target, like if Bush was frustrated not to catch Bin Laden... Do you really think Irak was friendly with AlQaida ?? Anyway, oil is there for sure ... do you really think Saddam have massive destruction weapons ?? And so where are these weapons ?? Anyway, oil is here for sure ... The target has just moved..
And I agree Moore exagerate deliberatly in his film and he is clearly not impartial...
And like Phait said, Moore would be the guy to open people's eyes with all sorts of truths ... and sure truth will be very hard to find.. even if we are hardly looking for it... 

that gets off the subject of the movie. But ask your self this, the claim that it is 'about oil', what does it answer? Does Exon need war to get rich off of oil? No. Do the Saudis need war to get rich off of oil? Or even as a precursor to jack the price up? No (the supply peaks are doing a good job of that). Does even the milatary-industrial-complex need the war to get rich? Not even them. Their stock shot up and their contracts were signed in the days fallowing 9/11.

The war was ideologically drive, and its perpertrators and their interests are easy to identify by their own writings. 

No film ever made is "true" -- it's been edited and even before the edit phase shots were taken while others weren't. For it to be "true" it would have to conisder all angles and dimensions of every given argument, and -- short of turning it into a Charles Ives-esque assault with multiple screens and soundtracks -- this simply isn't possible.

Additionally, if anyone's viewpoints are so weak that any documentary -- no matter how badly made, edited or planned -- could radically change them, the said viewpoints were either unfounded or the person is a complete schizophrenic.

BTW, I want to see Fahrenheit 9/11. 

'-- short of turning it into a Charles Ives-esque assault with multiple screens and soundtracks -- this simply isn't possible. '

That is a pretty fucking awesome idea. Imagine a documentary on the drug war using cinematography like that, interlaced with psychedlic effects and music. 

I'm sure it's been done, but yeah -- it is a neat idea =D 

His lips are moving.

I'll be here all week. Remember to tip your waitress. 

If Moore was to present "factual lies" about Bush, he would get sued into oblivion. He hasn�t been sued, thefore he is not lying. 

3. Oh yeah, I knew there was another reason I don't like Michael Moore: he didn't have enough respect for Bradbury to ask him if he could name the movie after Bradbury's story.

Fahrenheit 451

http://www.raybradbury.com/books/fahrenheit451.html 

I didn't mean that Bradbury's book title was "Fahrenheit 9/11." Obviously that wouldn't have made sense when the book was published in 1953. But Moore's movie is clearly named after the book, and as I said, Moore didn't care enough to ask Bradbury if he could name his movie after Bradbury's story.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/21/bradbury.fahrenheit.ap/ 

I'm not saying everything Moore says is a lie, I just couldn't resist.

Libel suits aren't so easily thrown around. This is a pretty good summary:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102725/

You don't need to tell lies to propagandize though. A careful choice of what facts you want to present can be even more powerful (see Leni Riefenstahl), and there's no question that Moore is being selective. I saw an article listing a bunch of examples but can't find it now. That wouldn't bother me except somehow his film got labeled a documentary. 

R.P.G. I just read that article. Thanks for the link! If the article is accurate then Ray Bradbury is a real dick.

Bradbury, who is a registered political independent, said he would rather avoid litigation and is "hoping to settle this as two gentlemen, if he'll shake hands with me and give me back my book and title."

Ray...get over it, you hack. 

Here is a fairly balanced article on the Farenheit 9/11. He makes some of the same points that I made earlier but obviously he can afford to go into greater legnth.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2891

BTW, go see the movie. Whatever you think of Micheal Moore, and I am not what you may call a fan, just seeing Ashcroft being his nutball self is worth the ticket price.

Better yet, rent Waco: Rules of Engagement, a documentary with better research standards and presentation. If you are looking to get pissed off at your government, that is a mighty good place to start. 

I just finished watching this and I'm kind of dissappointed. The acting was top notch though and I thought it was worthy of the accolades it recieved.

I thought the pace was too plodding and ultimately while the story was entertaining, I thought it didn't pack enough punch in terms of being deep enough or conveying some kind of message. I don't know whether this is Eastwood's fault or Lehane's. (I've never read the book)

The last 10 minutes seemed out of place and the ending as a whole was generally unsatisfying. 

I hope Moore's viewpoint is slanted as hell, it makes for better entertainment. It's just no fun when everyone is being "politically correct". 

Mystic River's weak point was the script, but the directing and acting were on the mark.