Jump to content
dude

Movies!

Recommended Posts

Dude, GO see this film. For any American who deeply cares about the direction that this country has been taken over this past presidential administration, Moore has really raised some significant issues in it that everybody should think about. Dubya is definetly shown in a light that clearly defines the term "shady." :lol:

Link to comment

I agree that it is a very powerful experience, although since I'm in southern California, he is mostly preaching to the choir. The audience I was with applauded at the end.

The first part of the film goes to great lengths to demonstrate the ties between the Bush administration and the Bin Ladens through various large corporations, most focused on oil.

The second part of he film deals directly with the war in Iraq, showing us the decidedly politically incorrect angles, such as foul-mouthed, grumbling, mean-spirited soldiers, terrified Iraqi women and children, and plenty of injured, maimed, and dead.

One of the most powerful sequences in the film actually came about by, well I can't really say luck, but chance, and concerns a hard working woman in Moore's own home town of Flint, Michigan.

It is hard to criticise a film like this because it is so very obviously pointed, very skewed, and very biased towards Moore's vision of an administration motivated purely by greed and led by a dim witted puppet. But I do wonder if, by taking all the cheap shots at the president (not to say he isn't deserving), that he damages his own credibility somewhat. By taking a slightly higher road, he may have been able to persuade some of those who are Republicans but on the fence about GW. As it is, I imagine that many moderate conservatives will find Moore's flagrant nose thumbing to be another reason to despise the liberal left.

Link to comment

If you want to see Fahrenheit 911, Jim... you 'll have to go see it in a theater. It isn't being circulated on the web yet.

I am sure it is playing in Vancouver, however. It will be playing here soon and I am really eager to see it.

I'm on Michael Moore's mailing list and he makes no apologies and says right up front that the movie was produced to rid the US of Bush... but nobody has been able to successfully accuse him of not telling the truth.

It is interesting to note that it is the first time a documentary has ever taken the Palme d'Or the top prize for Feature Films and Short Films at the Cannes Film Festival. This is going to be worth seeing! :p

Link to comment
It is interesting to note that it is the first time a documentary has ever taken the Palme d'Or the top prize for Feature Films and Short Films at the Cannes Film Festival.

More important than that, it's the first documentary ever made to make more than $50 million. It's well on its way to making over $100 million, which is unbelievable, given that Farenheit 9/11 only cost $6 million to make.

I studied documentary filmmaking in college years ago, and I've worked on many, many TV documentaries over the years. The last one was Motown 40, which aired on ABC about five years ago, and a PBS documentary on the history of Money, right around the same time.

The problem with Farenheit 9/11 is that Moore hasn't made a strict documentary. This is a film with a very strong point of view, and he chops and edits footage specifically to create a deliberately-slanted look at a complex situation. I think Moore is also guilty of "stacking the deck," arranging the facts (and carefully eliminating others) to make his targets look as bad as possible.

That having been said: while I criticize his methods, I think Moore's intentions are good, and I also think he's right. I already planned to vote Bush out of office in November, if only for his anti-gay-marriage attitude (and the bad economy and the ongoing war). I like the fact that the movie will get more people behind the same idea, so that's a good thing.

But a strict documentary, it ain't. It's very skillfully-done propoganda, by a very good filmmaker with a deliberate agenda. Don't fool yourself into thinking that everything in the movie is 100% accurate and true.

--Pecman

Link to comment
The problem with Farenheit 9/11 is that Moore hasn't made a strict documentary. This is a film with a very strong point of view' date=' and he chops and edits footage specifically to create a deliberately-slanted look at a complex situation. I think Moore is also guilty of "stacking the deck," arranging the facts (and carefully eliminating others) to make his targets look as bad as possible.

[ ...SNIP... ']

But a strict documentary, it ain't. It's very skillfully-done propoganda, by a very good filmmaker with a deliberate agenda. Don't fool yourself into thinking that everything in the movie is 100% accurate and true.

--Pecman

Although I haven't seen it yet, people who have (and liked it) said much the same thing: It is Moore's opinion, an editorial/opinion piece, more than a strict documentary. So his opinion will be instructive and influential, but might have reached a few more people in a more objective form. But we can't know that, for sure, because what we've got is what he wanted to say, and it will have an effect. Just the discussion from it is good for the debate among voters. -- The democratic process still works, thank heavens.

Link to comment

michael moore made a disgusting and seditious movie. then called it fact. and you all jump on his side saying how great a creation it is. its lies the movie has been thurowly debunked and michael moore wont even interview on larry king because he knows he cant defend his creation. people like michael moore want to see a fundamental change in american polititics. and that is they want to see everyone on oposing sides hate eachother and question more than just the methods of the other side but also there sincerity to do what they believe is right for this country he wants you to think bush is evil and hates america when really those are his own attributes. this countries system will not work if we all fall in line with bomb throwers like michael moron

Trent

Link to comment

That's quite a viewpoint, Trent. As I said in my comment, Moore was preaching to the choir. In other words, it seemed to me that the people going to see Farenheit were already convinced that G.W. Bush has taken this country down the wrong road. The divisiveness in this country existed long before the release of this film, and perhaps Michael Moore's work is only a symptom of this phenomenon.It would be very interesting to see a blow by blow account of what is inaccurate in the film.

Link to comment

certainly farenheit 911 is not the begining of the problem but rather and effort and the most succesful one yet to exacerbate the problem beyond where it is currently at. anyway i was trying to make it seem like ann coulter and al franken were created by this movie and this is some how new. as far as a blow by blow i might do one but id have to do some more research to make sure i have complete and accurate info

Link to comment

I finally got to see Farenheit 9/11 with my partner and a friend last night. It was pretty much as I expected: a slickly-made bit of entertainment, with some facts covered up by lots of opinion.

That having been said, I think the three biggest points of the movie are true:

1) Bush didn't really win the last election

2) the war in Iraq is being done for reasons other than terrorism.

3) Bush and the government are beholden to a lot of Mideastern money people.

I think many hundreds of commentators around the world agree on most of this, so this is not just Michael Moore's idea. Granted, some of Moore's reasoning is flawed, and the movie has moments that are extremely contrived and manipulative, but my gut feeling is that if even 60% of the movie is true -- which I think it is -- Bush should be voted out of office.

The two things that affected me the most in the movie were: the images of the wounded soldiers, like the young guys in their early 20s, who are coming back with missing limbs and so on; and the middle-aged woman who starts out as a conservative war Hawk, and winds up despising Bush after her son comes home in a coffin. Very sad and touching -- that's the kinda thing that stays with you for a long time.

I don't agree (as Trent says elsewhere) that basically the movie is a pack of lies. You may not be aware that Moore hired the fact-checker who worked for The New York Times to check all the facts presented in the film, and he also had three attorneys check everything that was said, to ward off any threat of a lawsuit. Note that no lawsuits have been filed at all against Moore over this film.

I'm not saying the film is 100% truthful, since some of it is largely opinion and conjecture. But there's no question to me that the war in Iraq is muddled, and is being fought over reasons that have little to do with terrorism. I also believe Bush is a very stupid guy -- probably the dimmest bulb we've had in the White House in many years -- and that bothers me more than anything else. Say what you will about Nixon, but at least that guy wasn't a dummy.

Link to comment

lets examine those three major points sha;; we

1) Bush didn't really win the last election

yes he did its a fact the votes were all counted and bush won even the new york times said so this is over he won sorry

2) the war in Iraq is being done for reasons other than terrorism.

no its not this is exactly what im talking about. you dont question bushs methods you think he is out to do it for personal gain or to help his greedy friends or to to revenge for his father or OIL!!!!! even as gas prices go up

3) Bush and the government are beholden to a lot of Mideastern money people.

this one is just stupid folks.

first agian bush is not the evil corporate sell out you all see him as just cuz you disagree dosent mean you have to say he sold out our country. second why would mideast money people want bush to do what he did? you think hed do the oppesite of his existing policys. and what exactly are you impling anyway that bush sent american sodiers to there death to get money from diffrent mideatern sources? do you really believe our president is that evil.

nixon was scum

bush scored a 1200 on his sat and in flight school bore the nickname data because his freinds thought he was an encyclopedia

everyone that has had the opportunity to know bush that i have ever heard speak liberal or conservative has always said that bush isa man who is very sincere and believes what he i doing is good for america.

trent

Link to comment

Hi Ya Dude!

Jim and I finally got to see Spidey.2 yesterday. Really enjoyed it and I felt that it adhered much, much closer to the theme of the comix than did the first film. Was alot of fun and a great way to kill a couple of hours.

Paul :mrgreen:

Link to comment

Not a big fan of the comic book films. They are inherently phony and difficult to translate into three dimensions, physically and humanly. Having said that, I agree that Spiderman 2 is probably one of the more successful renderings of the genre. Through sharp direction and strong performances, it grounds the characters in a strong sense of humanity while giving us a visually impressive villain to challenge our hero.

My only complaint would be that they went to the well once to often in revealing Spiderman's true identity. That's a guaranteed dramatic moment, and loses its impact if repeated too many times--especially in one film.

Anyone else think J.K.Simmons deserves an Oscar for his spot on portrayal of newspaper maven J. Jonah Jameson?

Link to comment

has anybody watch that chronicle of riddick (or is it roddick)?

my friends and I will go watch that movie this weekend and I don't

have any idea what that film is about.

Spiderman 2 umm....I think there's too many romance in that movie.

just my opinion of course.

Link to comment

it's a story about one of the characters in a cheesy sci-fi scary called "Pitch Black"...the antihero of the movie was Riddick. The character was played by Vin Diesel...one of the few redeeming qualities of the first movie. Not that mr diesel is a very good actor, but he is oh, so very fine. :p In any case, i suspect it's a good one to see on DVD once it hits the video stores.

cheers,

aj

Link to comment

Just saw this movie on Thursday evening--it was very good, i thought.

1.) it deals very honestly with gay/bisexual relationships. No hiding in the closet or trying to pass off love between two men as "a very close friendship." There is a scene where Alexander is promising his men what are essentially domestic partnership benefits, saying that their women will be cared for, and their children well educated. One of the soldiers shouts "What about our boys?" In an earlier scene, there is a recognition--for the first time in any mainstream film that i have ever seen--that achilles and patroclus were lovers. It is clearly acknowleged that Hephaiston was Alexander's soulmate, and that his wives were only there for the purpose of breeding a successor. Very nice!

2.) the cinematography is astounding.

3.) Collin Farrel is sexy as hell, and there is a shot of him rolling into bed that is quite revealing *wolf whistle*

4.) Several scenes evoked a lot of emotion from me, with the lump in the throat and tears in the corners of my eyes--and i'm not an easy touch.

Go see it! it's long, but it's worth every minute.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...


×
×
  • Create New...