|
Directed by: Alan Peterson Starring: a bunch of politicians I first noticed this movie when I was in Blockbuster with my sister. The packaging on the outside is nice, which is good for people who care about this kind of thing. As far as the content of the movie goes, I think it is an excellent rebuttal to Michael Moore’s movie with a similar title. I won’t go into specific details, but it discredits a few select pieces of evidence used in Fahrenheit 9/11. The documentary shows quite impressive interviews with a police officer and an American soldier who lost his arms in an equipment malfunction in Iraq; in these clips, the subjects state that Moore quoted them in his movie out of context and, in the policeman’s case, without his knowledge. Furthermore, a lot of textual evidence in Moore’s movie is shown to be either unethically tampered with or entirely fabricated. The movie does get bogged down in an annoyingly pedantic manner concerning the facts of where exactly Bush was and what he did during the 9/11 attack, but I think the director felt a point should be made, and I agree with it. Now, in Moore’s defense, I don’t hate Moore. I liked Bowling for Columbine, and I think he deserves every bit of accolade and award he got for that, and he probably deserves more. However, I believe Fahrenheit 9/11 was a work of irresponsible sensationalism, and this opinion is further cemented by the rebuttal, Fahrenhype 9/11. Cinematography doesn't really matter too much in a documentary like this one, but I will say that it was not as great as it could've been. The camera fades in or out or goes grainy or cuts away or does something every few seconds, and it can get a bit tiring. Overall, I’d like to give it a 4/5. RATING: 4 PROS: Puts Michael Moore in his place CONS: Only focuses on points it knows it can win, Also, it shows just how easy to put a slant on things you'd like a slant on. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427228/
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2004 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
The extent that this movie drove me to was such that I actually videotaped myself watching it for the first time and giving commentary on it. It was sad, dispicable, filled with trite drivel, and actually succeeded in being more wrong and pointless in it's crap than Moore's movie (Which is a feat). Now I, also, am not a supporter of Moore, and hate it when I'm grouped with him (which an interviewee does in this film), but I have to call them on it. I can remember perhaps two single points that they actually get sources and call Moore on a direct falsehood. The rest were either totally off topic (a suprising amount was off topic) or lead up to a real possibility of correcting Moore's view or setting things right, but then they just say poo poo like, "C'mon." and then quick move to the next topic. They honestly have chances to disprove things, then assume that the viewer knows already and slide past the answers. The movie contradicts itself on many occasions. I hope someone tells the armless guy the difference between "asking for and recieving from legal copyright holders" and "stealing" is. His words weren't even, as he said, "Twisted." Certainly Moore is the King of Out Of Context, and the film really could have better focused on that. Don't tell the rear end in a top hat actor who's very busy driving and making baseless horrible wrong observations that the statue of liberty was a gift from france, although I'm glad they missed it: It provided a beautiful irony that perfectly ended such a brainless shitpile of a movie. Overall Impressions: RATING: 0.5 PRO: Brought up and set right about 2 falsehoods. Could have done more but chose to move on to opinions instead of backing up claims with fact. CON: Hipocracy, thy name is Farenhype 9/11 JoeAlane_M.D. fucked around with this message at 09:36 on Oct 31, 2004 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2004 09:34
|
|
|
Movie makes a few good points...well...three decent ones. Read the farheheit reader and you'll see that moore knows exactly what he's doing. movie goes too far and should have made the point by staying in bounds, but it failed either way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2004 07:46
|
|
