A few years ago, a "documentary" aired on FOX (who else?) entitled, if I remember correctly, "Fact Or Fiction: Our Landing of a Man on the Moon."  Throughout the "special report," "experts" discussed all about how there is such a large amount of evidence against our landing on the moon.  All of this evidence was actually quite compelling, made even more so by the fact that everytime the NASA representive was shown, he looked like... well, an ass.

Yes, very compelling... until you realize that there are foot prints on the moon.  Also, how the hell did we get all of these rocks that can only be obtained on the surface of the moon?  All of a sudden, the "compelling evidence" was worth nothing.

Such is the case with Michael Moore's new documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11."  Now, granted, he has already confessed that this truly is just his own opinion... still, that doesn't explain the inconsistencies in his "compelling evidence."

I really like Moore.  That has to be said first.  "The Awful Truth" was a fantastic TV series, and if you have never seen it, I suggest you pick up the complete series on DVD.  As for "Bowling For Columbine," I always thought Moore did a great job presenting the fact, and I truly believe that his Oscar was very well deserved... hell, I even appreciated what he had to say during his speech.

Well, if you really, really, really liked his speech, than you will probably very much enjoy "Fahrenheit."  After all, that's all Moore's newest film seems to be: a two-hour version of his Oscar acceptance speech.  Clips are shown as well as actual (sometimes hard to watch) footage from the Iraq war.  Now, I do not agree with Bush (nor do I think he is the greatest president the U.S. has ever had), but I had to feel bad for him while watching this.  He is painted as some sort of inhuman monster, and even if that is the truth (that he is nothing more than a money-hungry tyrant), than why show clips ranging back to 1999 showing this?

Rather than make a personal attack against Bush, I think Moore should have ivestigated why certain U.S. agencies (namely the F.B.I. and C.I.A.)   ignored warning signs throughout the Summer of '01.  That would have made for a very compelling documentary.  Instead, we have a filmmaker bombarding Congress men on city streets, asking them why their son or daughter is not in the milatary.  How do they react?  Why, they dodge the question... like any parent probably would do in the same awkward situation!

Don't get me wrong.  There are some very interesting ideas here... I just wish they had been explored rather than turned into a propaganda film with more conspiracy theories than the series finale of "The X-Files."

** out of ****  

About the Moon, if people faked it how do you know that there are footprints on it?. Obviously fake too then. About the rocks, I work in a nuclear plant, there where rocks and dust there I've never seen before.

Anyone who believes as I do that Bush is fronting a secretive and deceptive administration needs no swaying and this film will just re-enforce what we already believe.

Those who buy that only other countries are capable of corruption and deceit and that Bush is a principled Christian freedom fighter won't bother to see the film, but will bash it as unpatriotic conspiratorial propaganda.

NONE OF THIS IS IMPORTANT.

The film should be looked at and embraced as an alternative point of view. Alternative to the inert, truncated and utterly anesthetizing points of view put forth daily by mainstream media. This is essentially an opinion piece of Michael Moore presented to pose questions and show those "BORING" clips that others were either too afraid or too restrained to show.

Showing Bush in front of a five thousand dollar a plate crowd joking about their "have and have more" status may suit Moore's agenda, but it also serves an alternate purpose. Since it is not newsworthy enough for Fox News, those people struggling to feed their children that did not get a nifty three hundred dollar "economy stimulating" check because they don't make enough money, get a chance to see it.

They get an "obscure" look into the life of a crass and insensitive "man of the people" at his Christian worst.

Seriously, joke or not it is a terrible image for a president to put forth. The more people who get to see this arrogant mans "let them eat cake" soul laid bare the better.

Watching the president lay impotent for seven minutes while our country is experiencing one of the worst tragedies in our lifetime may not be compelling television and it may be uncomfortable to watch, But it also serves a purpose.

One might view the footage and feel they are viewing the absolute honesty and frailty of a vulnerable human being battling the same fear, sadness and horror that we all felt while he contemplated how he would prepare himself for the leadership we would need to cope with this tragedy.

Or you might view the footage and see a confused man so paralyzed by his own incompetence that he refuses to leave an irrelevant photo op because it has finally set in that he is in way over his head. Either view is valid since it is highly unlikely that Bush will ever go on 20/20 and explain his inner dialogue in an honest and inarticulate manner.

The facts of this film can not be denied. It is Moore's conclusions that will draw fire because lets face it, they are hasty and simplistic in many places.

Regardless of the flaws I say, cheers to Moore. He is necessary, not because he is "right" but because he is forcing people to figure out what they think is right.

I am of the view that we need as wide and as diverse a view of everything that is right about this country, everything that is wrong and everything else that needs to be sorted into either pile.

Yes, the views were there... just, like you said, I thought the conslusions were entirely too hasty.

Though, one thing is for sure:  I will be extremely upset if this is even nominted for an Oscar for Best Documentary.  Like it or not, this is not a documentary, but a propaganda film.  So far, "Super Size Me" seems to be the best (though, I've yet to see it).

Now, though, I'm very interested in seeing "Michael Moore Hates America."

I don't think Moore "hates" America. I offer that he like many of us hate American policies and foreign police actions.

The fact that we get to express these hatreds freely is inspiring and I think Moore has to love this about America.

So I think it is just too hasty and simple to explain away dissention as "hating" America. Dissention does not equal hate. It equals freedom.

LET FREEDOM RING!

(That last part was for Sean Hannity)

Quoted from AmericanSyCo, posted July 12th, 2004, 10:45pm at here Though, one thing is for sure:  I will be extremely upset if this is even nominted for an Oscar for Best Documentary.  Like it or not, this is not a documentary, but a propaganda film.

I had some qualms about this as well, but it may be possible that Moore is re-defining the constraints of documentary filmmaking or challenging what we have all traditionally thought a documentary was supposed to be.


According to the strict definition of a Documentary film:

doc·u·men·ta·ries
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

It's debatable...Right?

Fahrenheit 9/11

This movie may no longer be eligable to win the Best Documentary Oscar is Michael Moore sticks to his plan of showing it on TV before the election.  I sincerely hope two things: 1. It does not get a nomination for Best Picture
            2. People do not let this sway how they vote

Now I'm not a Bush supporter, nor do I hate loathe him half as much as Moore does (hell, I live in Canada...what do I know?) but while watching this movie I got to thinking, "This movie raises some good questions, offers no answers and ultimately won't change the minds of anyone who isn't already praises at the altar of Michael Moore."

While the film has some really quality scenes for a documentary:
- A woman who was pro-war until she lost her son in Iraq and began to question the whole herself and her country
- Footage of George Bush reading to a classroom of children for seven minutes after the WTC was attacked
- Using only audio, and no visual to create the terror of 9/11
- All the footage in Iraq is very riveting and often hard to watch

But too much of this movie gets bogged down with either facts from no source, (such as scene where Moore claims that Bush was on vacation for seven months in his first year as President, with nothing to back it up but footage of the President playing golf) or long series of facts which seem to lead nowhere (such as documents which have a named blacked out - - I still don't know their significance).

At the end of the day Moore points the finger squarely at Bush and blames him for any problem he can conjure up.  He, however, in similiar fashion to Bowling For Columbine, offers no solutions.  He gives the impression that if Bush were not around the world would suddenly fix itself.  The fact of the matter is there are terrorists who pose a threat, but Moore would have you believe otherwise.

The movie does get your brain working though, which is something more than most movies do. And there is some quality stuff in the mix, but overall the flick seems lacking in something I can't quite put my finger on.  It's almost as if I have to treat everything Moore says as a lie until I'm proved otherwise...but then again he's given me no reason not to.

**1/2 (out of 5)
GQ