Fahrenheit 9/11 is a great movie.

[patrice]

[RagAss]

1. Yes...and it was mild compared to what we now know was the truth !

[aquart]

2. So is Sicko which is now free online and very to the point.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

3. It sure is -

and Michael Moore not only nailed it, but saw it all coming.

I don't think I could watch it now. I honestly don't think I could stand it, not now...................................

[patrice]

5. It IS harder to watch now, all of the Wounded and Dead.

:cry: . . .

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. Going to see his new movie tomorrow night!

Can't wait.

[patrice]

6. I'm looking forward to this one - Capitalism: a Love Affair

[DefenseLawyer]

7. I was actually a little disappointed by it.

Although my expectations were admittedly far too high. Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie, and I can't state enough what an important thing it was for our country. I just thought there were a lot more opportunities to show what liars they were. I would have liked to have seen more of a "Daily Show" technique of showing video of the liars repeatedly saying contradictory, misleading lies about the war. There was some of that to be sure, but there was a lot more material out there to hammer the point home using their own words. In a way I thought he kinda let them off the hook.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

9. Everyone's an editor,

everyone's a critic.

Everyone thinks the book should have had a different ending, the movie shouldn't have made that character into such a wimp, the song needed a different chorus.

The notion, given the time when it was made, that Moore let anyone even remotely "off the hook" is truly funny....................

[DefenseLawyer]

11. Just my opinion

And I don't mean to dismiss the importance of the movie or say that it wasn't effective. But there was a lot more out there to hit them with, that was left unmentioned. I'm a cross examiner, not a film maker.

[Art_from_Ark]

13. I agree with you.

I was also disappointed with Moore's final product. I think Moore let the liars off the hook too much, inserted himself too much in the documentary (making it seem semi-amateurish to me), and he really blew it with what could have been the hardest-hitting scene (the Florida classroom video, as I mention in another post).

[Tangerine LaBamba]

14. Did you know

you can sometimes be a direct examiner?

No, really. You can.

As a working artist, I just grow weary of those people who sit back and, from the comfort of their own limited ideas, pronounce how much better something could have been if only it had been done the way they think it should have been done. If you think it should have been done differently, I recommend you get out there and do it.

Opinions, assholes - they do have a whole lot in common.

Ask a lawyer about that "direct" thing. It will considerably expand your role, such as it is...........................................

[DefenseLawyer]

16. Thanks for the lesson in pompous gibberish

Damn. I never said "how much better it would be" or suggested that the film wasn't a success or remotely suggested that I could make a better film. I praised the film and gave a very limited critique of one aspect of it. I didn't mean to imply that I was cross-examining the film. What I meant was, I think the evidence was there to systematically tear them down brick by brick with their own words, much like in a cross examination. That would have been more satisfying to me. "As a working artist" surely you expect other to have an opinion on your work, because if no one does you probably aren't selling much art.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

17. I do all right, thank you -

I'm very lucky at that intersection where art meets commerce. Lots of friendly traffic.

But, look at what you wrote - how much Moore missed.

As I said, you do it, and show Michael Moore your vision. You "think" - really, you "think" - the evidence was there? Really? And how do you know this?

I know, I know - it's only your opinion.

Too bad you weren't able to clarify your position without trying - and failing - to take a cheap shot at me, but, hey, seriously, ask a lawyer about that "direct examination" thing.

You'll flip........................................

[DefenseLawyer]

20. You are losing me

on that "ask a lawyer" line. I am a lawyer, in private practice for the last 15 years. I don't need to ask anyone about direct examination. The fact is as a criminal defense lawyer I make my living cross examining the government's witnesses far more often than directly examining my own. So I'm really not sure what you are talking about. If that is intended as some kind of a slam, I'm sorry to report is was lost on me. I'm not sure what cheap shot I took, but if one was perceived, then I apologize. That being said, your position that no one can have an opinion about art unless he can make better art himself is untenable and just plain goofy.

p.s. I really am glad to hear that business is good.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

21. I'm sure you're glad -

your shot at me was a clear indication of how you cherished my professional well-being. That's the kind of passive-aggressive that warms anyone's heart.

You weren't stating just an opinion; you were stating how it should have been done. That's a bit more than having an opinion; it's stating flat-out that your vision was superior to that of the artist.

My editor at HarperCollins told me that every monkey with a pencil fancies himself an editor. She was right.

And congratulations on your career as a lawyer. I did that for almost thirty years, and it's always funny to find out how many lawyers there are online.................................

[DefenseLawyer]

22. Seriously

What was my "shot at you"? Humor me. I am tired of splitting hairs over over whether my opinion was too opinionated for you, but I would like to know what you consider a cheap shot. You have a lot of anger for an artist. None of my business, I'm just saying.

p.s. The namedropping of your publisher was a nice move. Well done.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

23. Let's go past "pompous gibberish,"

and straight to ""As a working artist" surely you expect other to have an opinion on your work, because if no one does you probably aren't selling much art. "

And now you're a therapist, seeing anger in direct words. For a defense lawyer, you surely do skip the forest for the trees.

I've humored you in all kinds of ways, but, really, your position is right out there, from your first post. You thought Moore could have done it better. I love that you say something about my anger, and then proclaim "None of my business, I'm just saying." There's nothing cuter than a clueless passive-aggressive.

I wish you'd do it. I really do. If, in that time frame, there was a better work on the subject than that movie, I'd love to see it.

"You have a lot of anger for an artist" might be one of the most inane sentences ever uttered. Do you think artists are something besides human, with only the lightest and sweetest of emotions?

And straight, direct language is interpreted by you as anger, when, in fact, you didn't even realize that you took a shot at me (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, and agreeing that you are as clueless as you claim to be.)?

I'm finished here. Carry on by yourself..............

[DefenseLawyer]

24. You don't have a lot of anger for an artist, I stand corrected.

You have a lot of anger for a person. Peace.

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. I was disappointed that it wasn't enough to defeat dubya

When I went to see the movie in June of 04 I was convinced there was no way dubya would get re-elected.

[tabbycat31]

8. yes it is

I credit that movie with my political awakening

[Art_from_Ark]

10. Moore blew it with the classroom scene

He should have shown it in its entirety, from just before bu$h was told of the second attack until the filming stopped, without any verbal comment, just let bu$h's actions (or inactions, as the case may be) speak for themselves. Instead, he cut the video to a few seconds and inserted his own half-assed verbal comments, which destroyed the impact, and led to right-wing accusations that Moore was just out to get bu$h.

[Luminous Animal]

18. Nope. I don 't agree.

The comments weren't half-assed at all and gave Mike ample time to insert facts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rO3F6mZUaE

[Art_from_Ark]

25. Then we will have to disagree

I saw the original school video, and it was damning. Several minutes of bu$h looking like an idiot after hearing the 2-second message from his chief-of-staff, and then getting reinvolved with the reading lesson, as if nothing had happened. :wtf: Yet Moore cut out most of it and did his stupid commentary to boot, which completely destroyed the impact that the raw footage could have had. When I saw it in the theater, I wanted to shout "Shut up, Moore, and let bu$h do the "talking!". When I talked to people about it later, most of them seemed to think that Moore just edited the video to make bu$h look stupid. They actually believed that bu$h started to "take charge" right after hearing about the 2nd attack.

By the way, this is another pet peeve of mine, and something that Moore got wrong in the movie-- the name of the book was "The Pet Goat", not "My Pet Goat". The teacher clearly states the name in the school video as "The Pet Goat", and the kids start to read from the book, which is told in the 3rd person-- not the 1st person. So if Moore could get something simple like that wrong, did he even see the entire school video?

[Luminous Animal]

26. Bush didn't talk. It would have been 7 minutes of listening to children read.

Oh, yeah. That would have been "fantastic" use of film time. By the time, F11 came out, most everyone knew or had seen the footage so their was no point to show it again and they'd already been subjected to 3 years of Bush looking like an idiot. Also, I guess you can't see because Moore put a countdown on film of the minutes of Bush's inaction which blatantly illustrated the time frame of his inaction and you or anybody else who didn't notice that is a fucking idiot.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Mike and every body else in the entire media got the title wrong. Boo fucking hoo.

[Art_from_Ark]

27. That's precisely my point

bu$h didn't do a DAMN THING for that entire time except look like an idiot and then rejoin the reading lesson. Showing that would have been more effective than making a stupid commentary for a few seconds. Think about it-- bu$h hears the news-- everybody thinks he jumped up and started taking action-- but he just sits there-- and sits-- and sits-- and then picks up a book.

And NOBODY I talked to had seen the original school version of the video on the Internet. NOBODY I talked to knew about bu$h's inaction on that day. They looked at me like I was crazy when I told them that bu$h did nothing for such a long time.

And excuse me for wanting factual information in documentaries .

[Luminous Animal]

29. Actually, Mike's countdown clock engraged the Bush apologists.

I'm having trouble believing you saw the film. Mike ran a visual countdown clock to account for the full 7 minutes of Bush's inaction. Meanwhile, he did not make "stupid" commentary. He provided facts about the months of warning of a probable attack over the course of several minutes.
You are blatantly lying about that scene.

[samsingh]

15. its brilliant and brave

[orleans]

19. yep. i cry every fucking time i see it.

i haven't watched it for a couple years--probably for at least a year.

[AllenVanAllen]

28. I would pay a million dollars to know

what Bush was thinking the in the moments after Andrew Card told him the nation is under attack. His eyes tell a story, but there's no way to know for sure.