Trailer for fahrenheit 911....
- Thread starter Djaughe
- Start date
Evil Ash
Henchman Supreme
Rivercard said:
Currently I am a journalism major at ASU, but have worked as freelance writer before and will do some of the writing this site eventually (haven't had a chance to write anythere here because I've been busy and unfortunately MLB are pricks when it comes to giving websites media passes)
Now for my rant...
I know how the system works. For those that politically opinionated but have no idea how the media works often accuse them of bias. That is a load of crap! When I meet with an editor they don't throw a story out because it doesn't agree with the corporates that own the media outlet. They want to know what the story is, why its newsworthy, and what angle I'm using. Its not how we can further meet their political agenda.
Now I'm not saying the media doesn't have its faults. Its not that they are biased, they often writers that are simply lazy. The goal with every story is to have a minimum of 6 sources and to always double check your info before putting it into print. Unfortunately there aren't many writers that follow this procedure anymore.
Sorry for the rant but after seeing so much crap either blamed on the media or statements that there is a complete bias by all of the media, I just couldn't take it anymore
just screwing up spe--er, I mean, yeah, I'm being sarcastic...Djaughe said:Are you being sarcastic or just screwed up the spelling?
Man, I suck at spelling.
It's been my experience (8 years in public/media relations) that this is usually the case. Unfortunately, there aren't too many Woodwards left out there. Lots of journalists rely on hacks like me for story ideas and sources. In fact, many view it as their job just to sort through what hacks like me send them and pick the best story from that. Granted, the number of hacks ("like me," in case I haven't been self-defacing enough) don't make it easy for them to do anything BUT try to separate the wheat form the chaff when it comes to PR folks--that in itself is a full-time job, depending on the writer's beat and how many databases they're in (Media Map, Bacon's, etc...).Evil Ash said:
Read Chomsky.Evil Ash said:Currently I am a journalism major at ASU, but have worked as freelance writer before and will do some of the writing this site eventually (haven't had a chance to write anythere here because I've been busy and unfortunately MLB are pricks when it comes to giving websites media passes)
Now for my rant...
I know how the system works. For those that politically opinionated but have no idea how the media works often accuse them of bias. That is a load of crap! When I meet with an editor they don't throw a story out because it doesn't agree with the corporates that own the media outlet. They want to know what the story is, why its newsworthy, and what angle I'm using. Its not how we can further meet their political agenda.
Now I'm not saying the media doesn't have its faults. Its not that they are biased, they often writers that are simply lazy. The goal with every story is to have a minimum of 6 sources and to always double check your info before putting it into print. Unfortunately there aren't many writers that follow this procedure anymore.
Sorry for the rant but after seeing so much crap either blamed on the media or statements that there is a complete bias by all of the media, I just couldn't take it anymore
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Do you understand the english language? The first part which you deemphasized is the reason for the second part.
Do you understand the english language? The first part which you deemphasized is the reason for the second part.
Chaz
observationist
vikesfan said:
The militia is defined by the government then and now as all able bodied people not in the regular military or national guard. The people is regularly referred to in the document as the regular citizen population. What part don't you understand?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 92,697
- Reaction score
- 71,646
SirChaz said:
everything in english? Chomsky's is not God and Mike Homgren's a better coach and more successful than Dennis Green.
If the part about a militia was "deemphasized," it's because that's not what's at issue here. You can't have a militia without citizens bearing arms. As I said before, if anything, a militia (as they exist today) are more dangerous than individuals owning guns. See the Freemen in Montana for more on the subject of modern militia.vikesfan said:
The second amendment was put in place so that the American people could never be disarmed, as began to happen in Britain about the time of the revolution.
Here are some telling quotes from our forefathers:
"Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams
"The great object is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." --Patrick Henry
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." --Richard Henry Lee
Chaplin
Better off silent
That's it guys. Tomorrow morning I'm moving this to the P&R board.
This isn't a soapbox for political views. There's a board already made for that. I've never had to exercise my moderator powers, but I guess there is a first time for everything...
This isn't a soapbox for political views. There's a board already made for that. I've never had to exercise my moderator powers, but I guess there is a first time for everything...
The movie(s) we are discussing brought up political ideas and we are discussing the ideas brought up the movie (at least I was). Maybe political and religious movies should be put in the Politics and Religion thread. I don't know, you're the mod? You do know a lot of this type of stuff is going to be discussed after everyone here sees FAHRENHEIT 9/11.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2003
- Posts
- 27,756
- Reaction score
- 9
‘Fahrenheit 9/11' raises temperature for documentaries
[size=-1]By ROBERT W. BUTLER[/size]
[size=-1]The Kansas City Star[/size]
Documentaries are the neglected stepchildren of the movie biz.
But not in the summer of 2004. Right now the most anticipated film of this season isn't a big-budget, f/x-heavy fantasy based on a comic book.
Rather it's “Fahrenheit 9/11,” nonfiction filmmaker Michael Moore's critical look at George W. Bush, the war on terror and Iraq. And whether you're looking forward to it with excitement or dismay, there's no ignoring that it's a very big deal.
Fresh from winning top honors at May's Cannes Film Festival, “Fahrenheit 9/11” opens June 25. In the past Moore's films — indeed virtually every documentary — have debuted on a single screen in America's larger cities. (Here in KC, docs usually find a berth at the Tivoli in Westport or the Glenwood Arts in Overland Park. Both are independent theaters specializing in the offbeat and unusual.)
In the rare instance where a documentary beats the odds and finds an audience, an extra print might show up a couple of weeks later out in a megaplex in the suburbs.
At its busiest, Moore's Oscar-winning “Bowling for Columbine” was playing on only 248 screens and never made it to much of small-town America.
But “9/11” is expected to open on 1,000 screens around the United States. And not at the Tivoli or the Glenwood or other mom-and-pop theaters. We're talking big megaplexes run by major chains. No art-house ghetto this time.
It's almost as if the fates have conspired to elevate a lowly documentary into must-see, blockbuster territory.
But then everything seems to be going Michael Moore's way on this one.
First, “9/11” has controversy in spades. Rarely has a film taken on a sitting U.S. president. Of course Rush Limbaugh and other conservative radio commentators spent most of the '90s bashing Bill Clinton, but they were largely preaching to the choir.
“Fahrenheit 9/11,” on the other hand, arrives as an event that promises entertainment value with its outrage. That Bush-haters will turn out for it is a given. Still to be seen is how many undecided voters in this presidential election year will buy tickets and whether the film will sway them. We could be witnessing the first time ever that a theatrical motion picture has affected the outcome of a national election.
(Critics in KC won't screen the film until early next week, so I cannot report on how effectively Moore makes his case or whether he does such a hatchet job that he creates sympathy for the president.)
Meantime, “9/11” has a reputation as the little film that could. Miramax made the movie, only to see its parent company, Disney, refuse to distribute it. Moore has claimed that Mouse House chairman Michael Eisner feared that “9/11” would anger Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, the president's brother, and possibly bring on repercussions within Disney's many business ventures in the Sunshine State.
Then came the win at Cannes. And now the film is being distributed by a consortium that includes Lions Gate Films and Miramax principals Bob and Harvey Weinstein. They secured the rights only a month ago and have been scrambling to make prints and create trailers and TV spots. A process that that typically takes Hollywood six months has been compressed into just a couple of weeks.
Another problem is securing screens this late in the game. Most exhibitors long ago contracted with other distributors to show their films on that weekend. It may be too late to make room for “9/11” in all the desired locations.
“As difficult as getting the screens on June 25 will be,” writes Gabriel Snyder in the most recent Weekly Variety, “holding them the next week may be even more difficult because on June 30, Sony's “Spider Man 2,” the summer's most anticipated tentpole, will unspool on a minimum of 3,700 screens.”
With 1,000 screens, there's a possibility that “9/11” could open and vanish within a week or two, quickly having exhausted the market of those who want to see it. And that could minimize the film's impact on the election, whereas if it is still playing well into the fall, that impact could be substantial.
However it plays out, the saga of “Fahrenheit 9/11” is every bit as interesting as the movie itself.
You must be registered for see images
[size=-1]By ROBERT W. BUTLER[/size]
You must be registered for see images
[size=-1]The Kansas City Star[/size]
You must be registered for see images
Documentaries are the neglected stepchildren of the movie biz.
But not in the summer of 2004. Right now the most anticipated film of this season isn't a big-budget, f/x-heavy fantasy based on a comic book.
Rather it's “Fahrenheit 9/11,” nonfiction filmmaker Michael Moore's critical look at George W. Bush, the war on terror and Iraq. And whether you're looking forward to it with excitement or dismay, there's no ignoring that it's a very big deal.
Fresh from winning top honors at May's Cannes Film Festival, “Fahrenheit 9/11” opens June 25. In the past Moore's films — indeed virtually every documentary — have debuted on a single screen in America's larger cities. (Here in KC, docs usually find a berth at the Tivoli in Westport or the Glenwood Arts in Overland Park. Both are independent theaters specializing in the offbeat and unusual.)
In the rare instance where a documentary beats the odds and finds an audience, an extra print might show up a couple of weeks later out in a megaplex in the suburbs.
At its busiest, Moore's Oscar-winning “Bowling for Columbine” was playing on only 248 screens and never made it to much of small-town America.
But “9/11” is expected to open on 1,000 screens around the United States. And not at the Tivoli or the Glenwood or other mom-and-pop theaters. We're talking big megaplexes run by major chains. No art-house ghetto this time.
It's almost as if the fates have conspired to elevate a lowly documentary into must-see, blockbuster territory.
But then everything seems to be going Michael Moore's way on this one.
First, “9/11” has controversy in spades. Rarely has a film taken on a sitting U.S. president. Of course Rush Limbaugh and other conservative radio commentators spent most of the '90s bashing Bill Clinton, but they were largely preaching to the choir.
“Fahrenheit 9/11,” on the other hand, arrives as an event that promises entertainment value with its outrage. That Bush-haters will turn out for it is a given. Still to be seen is how many undecided voters in this presidential election year will buy tickets and whether the film will sway them. We could be witnessing the first time ever that a theatrical motion picture has affected the outcome of a national election.
(Critics in KC won't screen the film until early next week, so I cannot report on how effectively Moore makes his case or whether he does such a hatchet job that he creates sympathy for the president.)
Meantime, “9/11” has a reputation as the little film that could. Miramax made the movie, only to see its parent company, Disney, refuse to distribute it. Moore has claimed that Mouse House chairman Michael Eisner feared that “9/11” would anger Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, the president's brother, and possibly bring on repercussions within Disney's many business ventures in the Sunshine State.
Then came the win at Cannes. And now the film is being distributed by a consortium that includes Lions Gate Films and Miramax principals Bob and Harvey Weinstein. They secured the rights only a month ago and have been scrambling to make prints and create trailers and TV spots. A process that that typically takes Hollywood six months has been compressed into just a couple of weeks.
Another problem is securing screens this late in the game. Most exhibitors long ago contracted with other distributors to show their films on that weekend. It may be too late to make room for “9/11” in all the desired locations.
“As difficult as getting the screens on June 25 will be,” writes Gabriel Snyder in the most recent Weekly Variety, “holding them the next week may be even more difficult because on June 30, Sony's “Spider Man 2,” the summer's most anticipated tentpole, will unspool on a minimum of 3,700 screens.”
With 1,000 screens, there's a possibility that “9/11” could open and vanish within a week or two, quickly having exhausted the market of those who want to see it. And that could minimize the film's impact on the election, whereas if it is still playing well into the fall, that impact could be substantial.
However it plays out, the saga of “Fahrenheit 9/11” is every bit as interesting as the movie itself.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2003
- Posts
- 27,756
- Reaction score
- 9
HOLLYWOOD VS. AMERICA
Michael Moore film
appeals to terrorists
'Fahrenheit 9/11' gets thumbs-up from Hezbollah
Posted: June 17, 2004
5:00 p.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Opponents of filmmaker Michael Moore are making the most of an endorsement his Bush-bashing film "Fahrenheit 9/11" received from terrorists affiliated with Hezbollah.
The Guardian of London reported today organizations related to the Middle East-based terrorist network have offered to help promote the film in the United Arab Emirates.
The terror-war supporting organization Move America Forward released a statement today saying the news about Hezbollah proves a contention it made about terrorist endorsement of Moore's award-winning documentary.
Earlier this week, Move America Forward Vice Chair Melanie Morgan declared: "It would be more appropriate to have this propaganda shown at al-Qaida training camps rather than American movie theaters."
The organization released an "apology" for Morgan's statement today, saying she didn't go far enough with her criticism.
"I regret that we limited our comments solely to the terrorist organization al-Qaida and failed to mention that other terrorist groups, like Hezbollah, would also rally behind this film," said the group's chairman, Howard Kaloogian.
"'Fahrenheit 9/11' serves one purpose and one purpose only: to undermine the United State's war against terrorism. This is precisely why Move America Forward has asked Americans to register their dissatisfaction with movie theaters that choose to show this film."
Concluded Kaloogian: "Now is the time for Americans to stand united behind the men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to preserve our safety and national security, not promote the agenda of radical terrorist organizations like Hezbollah."
Tina Brown reviewed the movie for the Washington Post, hammering Moore for his use of "wacky insinuations."
"In Moore's version of Iraq nobody was hanging from a meat hook in Saddam Hussein's jails. Baghdad was a happy city where children frolicked in the streets until boom! we blew them away," she writes. "The invasion of Afghanistan? That was just a cover for running an oil pipeline across the country. …"
[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times][/font]
Michael Moore film
appeals to terrorists
'Fahrenheit 9/11' gets thumbs-up from Hezbollah
Posted: June 17, 2004
5:00 p.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Opponents of filmmaker Michael Moore are making the most of an endorsement his Bush-bashing film "Fahrenheit 9/11" received from terrorists affiliated with Hezbollah.
The Guardian of London reported today organizations related to the Middle East-based terrorist network have offered to help promote the film in the United Arab Emirates.
The terror-war supporting organization Move America Forward released a statement today saying the news about Hezbollah proves a contention it made about terrorist endorsement of Moore's award-winning documentary.
You must be registered for see images
Earlier this week, Move America Forward Vice Chair Melanie Morgan declared: "It would be more appropriate to have this propaganda shown at al-Qaida training camps rather than American movie theaters."
The organization released an "apology" for Morgan's statement today, saying she didn't go far enough with her criticism.
"I regret that we limited our comments solely to the terrorist organization al-Qaida and failed to mention that other terrorist groups, like Hezbollah, would also rally behind this film," said the group's chairman, Howard Kaloogian.
"'Fahrenheit 9/11' serves one purpose and one purpose only: to undermine the United State's war against terrorism. This is precisely why Move America Forward has asked Americans to register their dissatisfaction with movie theaters that choose to show this film."
Concluded Kaloogian: "Now is the time for Americans to stand united behind the men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to preserve our safety and national security, not promote the agenda of radical terrorist organizations like Hezbollah."
Tina Brown reviewed the movie for the Washington Post, hammering Moore for his use of "wacky insinuations."
"In Moore's version of Iraq nobody was hanging from a meat hook in Saddam Hussein's jails. Baghdad was a happy city where children frolicked in the streets until boom! we blew them away," she writes. "The invasion of Afghanistan? That was just a cover for running an oil pipeline across the country. …"
[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times][/font]
Yeah? The Second Amendment has been posted verbetim now a few times, it still doesn't help your case. You're going to need to do more than read it to me if you want to convince me it doesn't mean I can own a gun.vikesfan said:
What do you have to say about the quotes from the framers of the US Constitution on the subject?
Their quotes are not in the Constitution.
Why don't you reprint their quotes on SLAVERY and we got rid of that.
"Two Big Thumbs Up" Ebert and Roeper
"Scorching. The best film Moore has made so far, a powerful and passionate expression of OUTRAGED PATRIOTISM." NY TIMES
"A Cultural Juggernaut." The WASHINGTON POST
"Enthralling. Brisk and entertaining should engage audiences of all political persuasions" TIME
"IMPRESSIVE. Ambitious and unapologetic Has Moore's sharp eye for what he can make fun of and what makes fun of itself. LA TIMES
Why don't you reprint their quotes on SLAVERY and we got rid of that.
"Two Big Thumbs Up" Ebert and Roeper
"Scorching. The best film Moore has made so far, a powerful and passionate expression of OUTRAGED PATRIOTISM." NY TIMES
"A Cultural Juggernaut." The WASHINGTON POST
"Enthralling. Brisk and entertaining should engage audiences of all political persuasions" TIME
"IMPRESSIVE. Ambitious and unapologetic Has Moore's sharp eye for what he can make fun of and what makes fun of itself. LA TIMES
No, their quotes are not in the constitution, but they were said in the context of forming amendments to it. Have you changed your arguement? Are you now accepting that the second amendment DOES grant the right for American citizens to bear arms, but now it needs to be repealled or again amended?vikesfan said:
Amendment 13 did just that--it changed the consitution and abolished slavery. So, your analogy to slavery is only appropriate if you concede that the second amendment grants US citizens the right to bear arms (which, for the life of me, I don't understand why you don't anyway).
PS--Thanks for the reviews, but I have no doubt that it will be entertaining--which is what those reviews are claiming. I question it's "truth," not it's ability to pass the time.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2003
- Posts
- 27,756
- Reaction score
- 9
What's remarkable here isn't Moore's political animosity or ticklish wit. It's the well-argued, heartfelt power of his persuasion. Even though there are many things here that we have already learned, Moore puts it all together. It's a look back that feels like a new gaze forward.
Washington Post
This is an angry film about greed, the abuse of power, the betrayal of the people by their leaders. Moore says he hopes to keep it up to date between now and a pre-election US release in July - assuming Miramax find a distributor to their liking. Republicans will be infuriated by the film's simple emotional message. The rest of us will hope it reaches as wide a congregation as The Passion Of The Christ.
The Independent
Moore's big omission is Tony Blair and the UK. He has a clever pastiche of the opening title-sequence of the old TV western Bonanza, with Bush and Blair mocked up to look like cowboys. But in a section about the ramshackle "coalition of the willing" which was supposed to lend international legitimacy to the invasion, there is no mention of the part played by this country. This can only be because of Moore's insistence on America's international isolation and arrogance. It's a strange, skewed perspective.
The Guardian
Fahrenheit 9/11 may be seen as another example of the liberal media preaching to its own choir. But Moore is such a clever assembler of huge accusations and minor peccadilloes that the film should engage audiences of all political persuasions.
Time Magazine
It's a storming work of tempered polemic, gripping from start to last, that uses the war in Iraq as a starting point for offering a largely convincing class-based analysis of contemporary America. Small wonder that few US distributors want to touch it.
Daily Telegraph
There are still some classic Moore moments here, notably when squirming US congressmen are invited to sign up their own children to fight in Iraq. The director has always been strongest on the cusp between anger and humour, but there are simply too few such inspired episodes here. Fahrenheit 9/11 hits enough of its targets to qualify as an important and timely film. But it should have been a smart bomb, and it feels more like a blunt instrument.
The Times
Told with passion and cutting sarcasm, the film has a good deal of the Moore trademarks, from a deft use of various television and pop culture clips to embarrassing encounters with the great and the good. Moore is mischievous as ever - at one point he tries to convince members of the Congress to encourage their children to enlist and fight in the war. The irony and childish iconoclasm are still there but this is a film in which an adult sense of anger and frustration also dominate.
Screendaily
Its title notwithstanding, Michael Moore has delivered a film rather less incendiary than might have been expected - or wished for by his fans - in Fahrenheit 9/11. The sporadically effective documentary trades far more in emotional appeals than in systematically building an evidence-filled case against the president and his circle.
Variety
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 Hollywood Reporter
Washington Post
This is an angry film about greed, the abuse of power, the betrayal of the people by their leaders. Moore says he hopes to keep it up to date between now and a pre-election US release in July - assuming Miramax find a distributor to their liking. Republicans will be infuriated by the film's simple emotional message. The rest of us will hope it reaches as wide a congregation as The Passion Of The Christ.
The Independent
Moore's big omission is Tony Blair and the UK. He has a clever pastiche of the opening title-sequence of the old TV western Bonanza, with Bush and Blair mocked up to look like cowboys. But in a section about the ramshackle "coalition of the willing" which was supposed to lend international legitimacy to the invasion, there is no mention of the part played by this country. This can only be because of Moore's insistence on America's international isolation and arrogance. It's a strange, skewed perspective.
The Guardian
Fahrenheit 9/11 may be seen as another example of the liberal media preaching to its own choir. But Moore is such a clever assembler of huge accusations and minor peccadilloes that the film should engage audiences of all political persuasions.
Time Magazine
It's a storming work of tempered polemic, gripping from start to last, that uses the war in Iraq as a starting point for offering a largely convincing class-based analysis of contemporary America. Small wonder that few US distributors want to touch it.
Daily Telegraph
There are still some classic Moore moments here, notably when squirming US congressmen are invited to sign up their own children to fight in Iraq. The director has always been strongest on the cusp between anger and humour, but there are simply too few such inspired episodes here. Fahrenheit 9/11 hits enough of its targets to qualify as an important and timely film. But it should have been a smart bomb, and it feels more like a blunt instrument.
The Times
Told with passion and cutting sarcasm, the film has a good deal of the Moore trademarks, from a deft use of various television and pop culture clips to embarrassing encounters with the great and the good. Moore is mischievous as ever - at one point he tries to convince members of the Congress to encourage their children to enlist and fight in the war. The irony and childish iconoclasm are still there but this is a film in which an adult sense of anger and frustration also dominate.
Screendaily
Its title notwithstanding, Michael Moore has delivered a film rather less incendiary than might have been expected - or wished for by his fans - in Fahrenheit 9/11. The sporadically effective documentary trades far more in emotional appeals than in systematically building an evidence-filled case against the president and his circle.
Variety
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 Hollywood Reporter
Hmm. An admission followed by a parting shot about "media lies." Figures.Djaughe said:
Anyway, VF, good luck to you. Godspeed.
Dan H
ASFN Addict
Ray Bradbury is upset with Michael Moore . . .
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040619/D83A0PJ00.html
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040619/D83A0PJ00.html
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2003
- Posts
- 27,756
- Reaction score
- 9
Fahrenheit 9/11 Filmmaker Loses Appeal to Change Age Restriction
VOA News
23 Jun 2004, 11:34 UTC
Filmmaker Michael Moore and the distributors of his controversial film, Fahrenheit 9/11, have lost an appeal to change the movie's rating.
The Motion Picture Association of American Tuesday refused to lower the rating from "R" to "PG-13" to allow moviegoers under 17 to see the film without a parent or guardian.
The movie's restrictive rating is based on its violent content. The film, which opens across the United States Friday, depicts President Bush's actions before and after the Iraq war, and includes graphic scenes from the conflict.
The president of one distributor, Lion's Gate Films' Tom Ortenberg, said Tuesday that 15 and 16-year-olds should be free to see images of a conflict in which they might be asked to participate.
VOA News
23 Jun 2004, 11:34 UTC
Filmmaker Michael Moore and the distributors of his controversial film, Fahrenheit 9/11, have lost an appeal to change the movie's rating.
The Motion Picture Association of American Tuesday refused to lower the rating from "R" to "PG-13" to allow moviegoers under 17 to see the film without a parent or guardian.
The movie's restrictive rating is based on its violent content. The film, which opens across the United States Friday, depicts President Bush's actions before and after the Iraq war, and includes graphic scenes from the conflict.
The president of one distributor, Lion's Gate Films' Tom Ortenberg, said Tuesday that 15 and 16-year-olds should be free to see images of a conflict in which they might be asked to participate.
Last edited by a moderator:
