Trailer for fahrenheit 911....
- Thread starter Djaughe
- Start date
sundevilscott
Kaycee's Daddy
I hate that guy, all he does is say what others have done wrong. If he wants to make such a change, tell him to run for office. Hell Arnold did it.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 92,697
- Reaction score
- 71,646
I don't know how the movie's gonna be - but the trailer was pretty damn impressive.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 92,697
- Reaction score
- 71,646
the editing in the trailer was dead on - I'll be surprised if the movie is half as good as the trailer - Although when Bush was talking in the tuxedo and said "some would call you the elite . . . I call you my base" I almost threw up.
The point is Moore is the only one telling the truth. He is not a politician he is a commentator who tells people the things the rest of the media does not. It is the people's fault for not listening to him. Some people can't stand the truth. He is the conscience of America. There has to be at least one person out there who tells the truth.
What's even more scary is he has to get funding from outside the USA and film distribution to be seen in the USA. Not one voice opposing the system is given a chance to be heard - it takes money to be heard. So much for free speech. His book was actually banned until an internet campaign pressured his publishers to release it. The irony of course is he makes money so the arguement that if American companies financed/distributed him they would lose money is not true. There is no excuse.
Dan H
ASFN Addict
vikesfan said:
Which truth is that? Cutting and pasting segments of Charlton Heston's speeches together to make it seem as though he made a very horrible speech immediately after Columbine?
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016b.html
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020403.html
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016.html
http://www.hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html
Go ahead and tell me Spinsanity is a right-wing site. I'm just waitin' for it.
Last edited:
All films are edited. You don't think the IRAQ ATTACK was edited for american consumption by the media?Dan H said:Which truth is that? Cutting and pasting segments of Charlton Heston's speeches together to make it seem as though he made a very horrible speech immediately after Columbine?
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016b.html
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020403.html
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016.html
http://www.hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html
Go ahead and tell me Spinsanity is a right-wing site. I'm just waitin' for it.
azdad1978
Championship!!!!
vikesfan said:
huh?
The media did not present the truth the presented a false image created by the Bush admin.azdad1978 said:
Then once they got to Iraq what we saw was edited to present it in the best light possible. You will be getting to see some real Iraq footage in Moore's new movie stuff you didn't see on CNN.
Dan H
ASFN Addict
vikesfan said:
Conveniently enough you didn't answer my question.
Dan H
ASFN Addict
vikesfan said:
So taking comments out of context and making it seem as though Heston said something at Columbine he didn't is your idea of "truth"? Jeez you're a nimrod.
azdad1978
Championship!!!!
vikesfan said:
Oic. Did this movie came out in Canada already?
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2003
- Posts
- 27,756
- Reaction score
- 9
Moore preaches to the choir in Fahrenheit 911’
The film is an angry polemic against the Bush administration
REVIEW
By Kirk Honeycutt
Hollywood Reporter
Updated: 4:03 p.m. ET May 19, 2004
CANNES - In “Fahrenheit 9/11,” Michael Moore drops any pretense that he is a documentarian to pull together from many sources an angry polemic against the president, the Bush family and the administration’s foreign policy.
Where “Roger & Me” and “Bowling for Columbine” were personal quests for truth, looking at a subject from different angles and talking to people polls apart in their points of view, Moore stays “on message” here from first shot to last. There is no debate, no analysis of facts or search for historical context. Moore simply wants to blame one man and his family for the situation in Iraq the United States now finds itself in.
The film arrives, of course, amid recent revelations of Bush insiders Richard Clarke and Paul O’Neill, the turmoil over the 9/11 commission and the growing sense that the Iraq problem is not going away anytime soon. And the very public dust-up between Moore and the Walt Disney Co. CEO Michael Eisner, which has left Moore momentarily without a distributor, certainly raises the film’s profile even further. So the film should reach a large enough audience; the question is: Will Moore be preaching to the choir?
Charting the American political scene during the past 3 1/2 years, Moore is forced to rely mostly on other people’s material. The assertion that America’s Saudi policy has been determined largely by financial ties between the Bush family and the Saudi royals — including another Saudi clan, the bin Ladens — comes largely from “House of Bush, House of Saud,” by Craig Unger, whom he interviews.
The Bush White House’s obsession with Iraq in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11 despite overwhelming evidence that al-Qaida was behind the attacks comes from former counterterrorism czar Clarke in his book “Against All Enemies.” Most of the film’s interviews come from TV network news shows or CNN’s Larry King.
The movie begins with the contested 2000 presidential election. Moore takes the usual anti-Bush view that the election was stolen. Moore then characterizes Bush as a country bumpkin in the initial months of his presidency, spending 42% of his time on vacation and falling rapidly in public opinion polls.
Then comes 9/11. Moore touchingly conveys this day of infamy with a montage of sounds and visuals that refrains from showing images of airplanes hitting buildings or the World Trade Center collapsing. Instead, we get noise of horror over a blank screen, then shots of crying, horrified people staring into a sky filling with smoke and debris.
Moore recounts the Afghanistan invasion, the “botched” search for Osama bin Laden and the administration’s alleged fear-mongering through constantly upgraded, color-coded levels of the terrorist threat issued by the Homeland Security Department, all designed to make the public more willing to back the invasion of Iraq.
Even if one agrees with all of Moore’s arguments, the film reduces decades of American foreign-policy failures to a black-and-white cartoon that lays the blame on one family. He ignores facts like the policy to arm and support Afghan rebels that began in the Carter administration. For that matter, the Clinton team never mounted a serious effort to go after al-Qaida even after the 1998 embassy bombings in East Africa.
The Iraq violence is more gruesome than what normally appears on American TV. One particular sequence follows an American patrol on Christmas Eve, but Moore never identifies who shot the footage. Because Moore is very good at jumping in front of a camera when he is around, one can only assume he shot none of the Iraq footage. But his editing is designed to emphasize Iraqi suffering and U.S. military personnel indifference or even hostility.
The movie contains only one episode of Moore’s patented “ambushes” of the famous. He collars congressmen leaving Capitol Hill and tries to persuade them to enlist their children to fight in Iraq. Not surprisingly, he has no takers.
When the movie devolves into problems of veteran benefits, harassment of peace groups or the grief of one family over a killed son, Moore simply loses his focus. These are worthy topics but have nothing to do with why the United States is in Iraq.
What Moore seems to be pioneering here is a reality film as an election-year device. The facts and arguments are no different than those one can glean from political commentary or recently published books on these subjects. Only the impact of film may prove greater than the printed word. So the real question is not how good a film is “Fahrenheit 9/11” — it is undoubtedly Moore’s weakest — but will a film help to get a president fired?
The film is an angry polemic against the Bush administration
REVIEW
By Kirk Honeycutt
Hollywood Reporter
Updated: 4:03 p.m. ET May 19, 2004
CANNES - In “Fahrenheit 9/11,” Michael Moore drops any pretense that he is a documentarian to pull together from many sources an angry polemic against the president, the Bush family and the administration’s foreign policy.
Where “Roger & Me” and “Bowling for Columbine” were personal quests for truth, looking at a subject from different angles and talking to people polls apart in their points of view, Moore stays “on message” here from first shot to last. There is no debate, no analysis of facts or search for historical context. Moore simply wants to blame one man and his family for the situation in Iraq the United States now finds itself in.
The film arrives, of course, amid recent revelations of Bush insiders Richard Clarke and Paul O’Neill, the turmoil over the 9/11 commission and the growing sense that the Iraq problem is not going away anytime soon. And the very public dust-up between Moore and the Walt Disney Co. CEO Michael Eisner, which has left Moore momentarily without a distributor, certainly raises the film’s profile even further. So the film should reach a large enough audience; the question is: Will Moore be preaching to the choir?
Charting the American political scene during the past 3 1/2 years, Moore is forced to rely mostly on other people’s material. The assertion that America’s Saudi policy has been determined largely by financial ties between the Bush family and the Saudi royals — including another Saudi clan, the bin Ladens — comes largely from “House of Bush, House of Saud,” by Craig Unger, whom he interviews.
The Bush White House’s obsession with Iraq in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11 despite overwhelming evidence that al-Qaida was behind the attacks comes from former counterterrorism czar Clarke in his book “Against All Enemies.” Most of the film’s interviews come from TV network news shows or CNN’s Larry King.
The movie begins with the contested 2000 presidential election. Moore takes the usual anti-Bush view that the election was stolen. Moore then characterizes Bush as a country bumpkin in the initial months of his presidency, spending 42% of his time on vacation and falling rapidly in public opinion polls.
Then comes 9/11. Moore touchingly conveys this day of infamy with a montage of sounds and visuals that refrains from showing images of airplanes hitting buildings or the World Trade Center collapsing. Instead, we get noise of horror over a blank screen, then shots of crying, horrified people staring into a sky filling with smoke and debris.
Moore recounts the Afghanistan invasion, the “botched” search for Osama bin Laden and the administration’s alleged fear-mongering through constantly upgraded, color-coded levels of the terrorist threat issued by the Homeland Security Department, all designed to make the public more willing to back the invasion of Iraq.
Even if one agrees with all of Moore’s arguments, the film reduces decades of American foreign-policy failures to a black-and-white cartoon that lays the blame on one family. He ignores facts like the policy to arm and support Afghan rebels that began in the Carter administration. For that matter, the Clinton team never mounted a serious effort to go after al-Qaida even after the 1998 embassy bombings in East Africa.
The Iraq violence is more gruesome than what normally appears on American TV. One particular sequence follows an American patrol on Christmas Eve, but Moore never identifies who shot the footage. Because Moore is very good at jumping in front of a camera when he is around, one can only assume he shot none of the Iraq footage. But his editing is designed to emphasize Iraqi suffering and U.S. military personnel indifference or even hostility.
The movie contains only one episode of Moore’s patented “ambushes” of the famous. He collars congressmen leaving Capitol Hill and tries to persuade them to enlist their children to fight in Iraq. Not surprisingly, he has no takers.
When the movie devolves into problems of veteran benefits, harassment of peace groups or the grief of one family over a killed son, Moore simply loses his focus. These are worthy topics but have nothing to do with why the United States is in Iraq.
What Moore seems to be pioneering here is a reality film as an election-year device. The facts and arguments are no different than those one can glean from political commentary or recently published books on these subjects. Only the impact of film may prove greater than the printed word. So the real question is not how good a film is “Fahrenheit 9/11” — it is undoubtedly Moore’s weakest — but will a film help to get a president fired?
Dan H
ASFN Addict
vikesfan said:
I'm not arguing that Heston said those things. The point is that Moore presented his comments in such a way as to make it seem as though Heston made the statements in Denver right after Columbine - WHICH HE DID NOT. That is not my definition of truth, perhaps it fits yours.
And this is another somewhat falsified segment - one of the senators told Moore that he in fact had two nephews serving in the military. But you won't see that in the film because it doesn't fit Moore's version of the facts. A lie by omission is still a lie.
Last edited:
Rivercard
Too much good stuff
Dan H said:
You are misrepresenting the scene. Moore wasn't saying the interview took place a week after Columbine, they were talking about an NRA event that happened the week after Columbine. There is a big difference.
Dan H
ASFN Addict
Rivercard said:
That's not the scene I'm talking about. I'm talking about the video from the NRA convention.
This breaks it down:
http://www.hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html
MaoTosiFanClub
The problem
vikesfan said:
Vikesfan, you're about as clueless when it comes to the Michael Moore issue as you are with most things you talk about. Moore is about as truthful as George Bush or FoxNews is. His movies are known to exaggerate, speak complete lies, and spread half-truths under the mantra of being a documenary, which is supposed to be non-staged film based on factual information and events. Moore's work clearly do not fit into this genre, they are works of propaganda only dissimilar to those of Limbaugh or Coulter in terms of beliefs. It's actually quite juvenile how liberals bitch and moan about the lack of honesty that's prevalent in the Bush Administration and entities such as Fox News or the WSJ, but do not acknowledge the same BS in one of their own kind.
Rivercard
Too much good stuff
Dan H said:
I don't see what was edited out that would have made heston look good. Is Moore supposed to show the whole boring speech? How can you defend these clowns? Moore was right. Having that meeting at that time in Colorado came across as cold and classless even after cancelling the so called "events".
Last edited:
Dan H
ASFN Addict
Rivercard said:
How about adding in remarks that didn't even occur in the same speech and making it seem as though Heston said them in Denver? You're being obstinate. The NRA issue is just one of many things Moore has trouble telling the truth on.
