 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
So today was the first day of the German " premiere " of this film. I was eager to see it having read so a many things about it.
Well, it was not only a waste of time but also of money.
It is not a film, and not even a documentary, it is populist, manipulative, one sided and on top of that not even good cut. The only thing I did like was the few second of darkness when the planes got into the building with the shouting, so that every one could remember his own shocke wave of this terrible event.
I am very deceived, that this film is so much talk about and won the Festival of Cannes.
It is just a hate statement against Mr. Bush and his administration.
Terrible and devoying any kind of intelligence.
Follow Ups:
Op-ed piece. He had an opinion and found small clips of film to support that opinion. Not a documentary, not a film based on fact, but simply an op-ed piece based on his opinion that he wanted to use to brainwash others.
...do you think it would have had the immediate impact on his targeted audience Mr. Moore´s is having?Sure, it would have been a great film, one to enjoy and remember, something as funny and corrosive as "1, 2, 3..." is, but are you sure the message would be understood in full? I have serious doubts...
Amused regards
BF
Well let just face it, my deception comes from my own bias view that the left has to be more intellectual than the right. It is my heritage. And it is false.
It is McDonald versus McChicken, do you want to choose?
No for me, I have since a long time ago, no more interrest for politics, but for people.
You may find them, from left to right.
I must have this freedom, and can not stand prison from within.Patrick
...one could argue at great length about the relative merits (or lack thereof) of the movie--as is clear from this thread.Perhaps the most effective aspect of the movie, however, is when it simply shows Bush being Bush. The one factoid that no one really seems to be able to refute is that Bush is, by just about any estimation, a stupid individual. He is barely able to put together any kind of complex sentence--listening to him speak, especially spontaneously, is extremely painful. Compare Bush's speeches with those of Blair, for example.
Bush's world-view appears to be extremely narrow, which one might indeed expect from someone with very little to no experience living outside of the US. The US is not simply a larger version of Texas, and the world is not simply a larger version of the US. Moreover, it is not reasonably possible to divide the world into "good" and "evil", as he seems to want to do. There's a lot more grey in the world than that.
Cetaele (aka Bob)
Clean your other places? If so, then a movie could be made of you showing you in a not so pleasant light.A public figure always offers wealth of video material, some flattering, some otherwise.
The most beautiful woman in the world could be shown ugly and unpleasant... as mags like Srar have done for ages.
So it is not the material, it is what the movie maker does with that material.
One could cut and paste phrases and bits from speeches of ANY figure to make it fit ANY agenda he wants, so it is not abotu material, it is about what is done with it.
Like all of us, Bush could be presented as a warm, smart, caring person (I believe he is such person) but selecting his videos.
Obviously Moore had a different objective, and one doesn't need Einstein's brain to understand how easy it is to build a satire.
That many fall for it is a great disappointment. But then - no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of American public.
Certainly Moore did not go broke.
You are right, Victor, that anyone can be made to look bad by selective editing. However, in this case, one merely has to look at just about any footage of Bush speaking spontaneously--not just the snippets in the movie. The broad image thus created is not a flattering one in term of his linguisitic ability, and muddled linguistic abilities in one's native language is also a often a reflection of one's cognitive abilities.I cannot adequately judge whether Bush is a warm, caring person--but his intellectual inabilities seem blatently obvious to me.
That being said, I know that this topic, and discussion thereof, is not going resolve the polemics--we'll simply have to respect each other's opinions and disagree, and move on to the next movie. :)
Cetaele (aka Bob)
I will absolutely agree that Bush is not a good spontaneous speaker - no argument there, and I wish he was better in that area.But whether this correlates to the ability to make right decisions - that is not a given. I know a couple of people - quite bright - who are lousy public speakers. In addition I know I am very prone to stage fright, but I would not consider myself dumb and unable to think logically... how's that for nasty jokes invitation?
Bush is not free of problems, but that is not what the election is supposed to be about... it is about the guy with more right fundamental approach. His conservative one is more right in my view, even if he faulters sometimes... that's all.
Talk about shallow..
Certainly not, when the subject under comment is GW Bush.Regards
BF
A primitive collage. Badly cut.
I was referring to the above comments about the Presidents public speaking ability. Some people value style over substance which is a rather shallow view, especially when looking through a filter like this film.You're correct about the film being a collage. However I would say "cut with a purpose", not "badly cut."
Hi Vedric,not sure I understand the exact intent of your post, but I would say that, sometimes (certainly not always), style and substance go hand in hand. I find Bush's public speaking (and any other type of speaking I've heard of him), even when reading, lacking in both--simplistic in content, perception, and linguistic ability. But this is just MY opinion, and a large proportion of people will certainly disagree with me.
Cetaele (aka Bob)
nt
If " he " would be that stupid, he would not have made to be the " alpha " of America.
Or do you think he is the " puppet " of the oil industry?
That would be, indeed, black and white.Patrick
Hi Patrick,primates become alpha males for a variety of reasons, but often it involves coalitions and alliances, and I would maintain that this is certainly the case for presidential elections. The true test of an alpha animal's success is the duration he (usually) spends at the top of the hierarchy. As such, only time will tell whether Bush has been a successful alpha. Unlike other primates, Bush has been guaranteed 4 years at the top--whether he stays there or not will be determined in the next election.
Is Bush a puppet of the oil industry? I don't know. I was only commenting on his cognitive abilities as I perceive them. I do believe Bush has benefitted greatly because of his alliances and because of his family name. Not an unusual thing at all--same could be said for many of the Kennedys.
And as I said to Victor, I think we're probably not going to convince each other one way or the other, so we'll have to agree to disagree, and move on.
Cetaele (aka Bob)
One more word Bob, what you write is true, but also true for every one! Not only for your president!
Patrick
Yes, he is that simple: a spoiled brat who never grew into a true man; a Puer Aeternus, who will grow straight into a cynic Senex. And these people are extremely dangerous to everybody.Daddy and his buddies bought him the ticket to the WH. And yes, they used oil money for that.
Regards
BF
It is this epic we are talking about, not Mr. Bush.PS: If we were talking about him I would say that a president is as good as his administration is. That apply for all modern time presidents. More or less.
But I have seen how Mr. Bush has misbehaved: that´s why I was talking about him.Regards
BF
Let us know your views when you have seen it.
it is very consistent with the many other credible reviews that I have read on this deceitful satire.
Who say " thank you " ...
I wish this film would have been a spiritful, mordant intelligent satire or a pamphlet with real dimension, in the end it has the same taste as a Mc.Donald.
It is a missed opportinuty.PS: What is terrible too, is our zero humour.
The greatest tragedy IMO is that so many people, for whatever reason (another debate), simply lack factual relevant knowledge surrounding so many issues and are incapable of dissecting this hacked political porn for what it truly is.
..also what do you consider Rush Limbaugh?
I would call Rush "one of a few" places a person can get an honest (non-hatchet job) view into the conservative philosophy on any given issue. Most conservatives would agree with this.On the other hand, all but the most left wing zealot and uninformed initiates have distanced themselves from Moores film. He has even gained the endorsement of Terror organizations with Hamas (or was it Hezbollah?) offering to help with mid-east distribution.
Unless you are right wing sympatizer there is nothing good that came out of current administration. For the World or the US. Besides that you do not even live here (US that is) to feel the "effects" of his policies.
Too bad he doesn't state that in his tv performances to the nation at large.
Did I say I like Mr. Bush*?
That is my very private opinion. I spoke about A film. Still more than 50% of the American would vote for him.* Or that I do not like him?
nt
Is so much better than Mr. Bush...Well, I do not know, but he seems not to be very, how should I say...very deep.
Maybe we get the president we deserve?
nt
The usual suspects.
No wonder. But you do not have to be communist to love it....
(nt)
;^)At least Michael Moore backs up his documentaries with evidence and doesn't rely on his motor-mouth, angry platitudes and lemming-like audience to provide artificial credibility to his poetic waxings.
AuPh
nt.
Not on DVD.
Probably in 6 months. Is it my imagination or are movies coming out on DVD less than a month after they get released? I swear I saw an ad for Spiderman 2 on disc earlier this week.
Thanks for your comments, patrickU.I agree that "Farenheit 9/11" is a mess. Michael Moore does not use a rapier, he uses a shotgun and hopes that something will hit something somewhere. The last third of the film is overlong. The finale with the mother from Flint in front of the White House is a bit much. The "pipeline" hypothesis is stretched beyond thinness.
That said, please keep in mind, as other posters have pointed out, that the shots of Iraq before the war, the wounded and dead U.S. soldiers, the other God-blessed troops listening to "Burn down the motherf---ers" while attacking Baghdad, and our President talking about "his base" are not shown on any American television station. Moore had an abundance of amazing material to work with, and perhaps you should be glad he only made one film out of it...and not a trilogy (called, say, "Lord of the..." oh, nevermind!).
For populists and socialists and Democrats and liberals and independents who have not seen a hammer like this used on the Right since the mid 70s, well, allow us our enjoyment of this messy work.
Godard may not care for it, but HE had his period of using sledgehammers instead of rapiers. Anyone up for "British Sounds (See You at Mao)", "Till Victory", "One A(merican) M(ovie)"? I prefer "A bout de souffle" or "Alphaville" or "Week-end" but as Pauline Kael once pointed out, sometimes the artist has no idea how brillantly he is making their ideas and throws away their art and just starts speaking. Moore is not a brillant satirist, he is not an artist. He is a gadfly who makes his rather broad points in whatever medium is available to him: print, TV, movies, etc. Like Lincoln Steffens and Upton Sinclair he makes socialism seem almost gee-whiz Archie! All-American. His use of humor is not used with a surgeon's finesse, but I hope you will allow that broadness is not unknown in producing laughter.
At least you saw the film before delivering your opinion. Here in America we often like to damn things without seeing or hearing or experiencing them! I hope you at least enjoyed your evening out!
When does the next Ludivine Sagnier film open?
Take care and have fun!
May wish them. Well I think every one knows the horror of war, of course a reminder, a kind of wake up call will not be a bad thing, for those who need it, and I won´t exclude myself.
Allow? With all irony, where am I not too?! I would have respect this film if it would have been well made, as Democracy always need a strong opposition.
I do not like Godard, but I respect him and his work, they are brillant. And the works you are commenting where made long time ago, Mr. Moore just right now.
Absolutely in accord with what I said and what I think of Mr. Moore, so we are of the same opinion, even if our analyse differs as it working range, and even there I am not certain that it really does.
Well, I may think that with age & experience you don´t need to see physically things, you have a certain instinc for not losing your time, but of course to be certain, you should.
As I knew no much on Mr. Moore, I wanted to see it with my own eyes.
I wished I wouls have seen something worse ( for me! ).You mean the one about Mesrine ? The famed French terrorist, it must be now.
The last I saw with her was the very horrible " Napoleon " and before the nice but without consistence " Ma femme est une Actrice " and before " 8 Femmes " who was terribly bad too.Good time for you too! My pleasure.
I hardly thought it was a waste of my time and money. However, I didn't go into the movie thinking that I was going to see a "documentary" although a lot of detractors seem to think of it as such.F/911 was entertaining, although fairly disorganized. I think that Moore could have made much a much stronger case against Dubya if he just picked a couple of themes and stuck to them. Instead he tried to throw in every piece of anti-Bush footage he could get his paws on. Maybe he thought all these 1 - 2 minute clips of Dubya's crazy antics were all the American public could take, given our limited attention spans?
I did. Because there was nothing new for me in it. And maybe because I live in another part of the world, and these problems do not affect me the way it may you.
I would say a lot of " approvers " think of it as a documentary!
I found it plainly boring and way too long, particulary the last third.
A little bit of humanism there sugar coated with political statement.
This guy, Moore play with feeling, without anykind of finesse, and his ropes are so thick that it feels the whole screen.
It is a film not worth all our comments.
But life is made of this too.
Ca se passe le temps, il n´y a plus pour tres longtemps....As says the song.
I haven't seen it, or Bowling and I'm not itching to do so anytime too soon.Chris
I read quite a few reviews in French magazine and the latest one in the " Cahiers du Cinema " which is the very best we have, saying that without having won the Festival price this film would have NOT been even worse to be taken seriously! But now that it have so it must be considered. So they goes...naive, primitive, dilletante, confuse.
Godard said that is not a film but just a discourse.
I did not read one French review ( three or four I must have ) that state it as a good film.
In Germany it looks similar.
n
;^)
n
(nt)
nt
Few second of darkness was the one thing that michael moore needed to keep people from seeing past his sad and boring film. Nice to hear your review.
...that Victor's pet parrot (i.e., kaka bird) wouldn't approve! Is Fahrenheit 9/11 populist? Yep! Is it manipulative & one-sided? No more than any other documentary trying to approach an issue from a particular perspective. But for you to have the chutzpah to suggest that it's "not even a film, and not even a documentary" is simply disingenuous and, ironically, demonstrates that you've taken a partisan position of your own!> > > "Terrible and devoying any kind of intelligence." < < <
Funny, one might make the same observation about some of your posts.
AuPh
If you can't control your idiotic emotions - shut up and stay away.A man was discussing a movie. You attacked him... while this is typical of you, this is not what we come here to do.
Shame on you for dragging in into your cesspool.
;^)Oh, and FTR, it would be relatively easy to locate the personal attack posts which you and patrick have so graciously contributed to this forum if you like; they've been meticulously archived in their natural olive-brown unwashed state, with every "kaka" intact, bandwidth limitations notwithstanding! And just so we're on the same page here, my favorable views on Fahrenheit 9/11 are widely known, so I had good reason to consider patrick's remarks as personal insults as well.
FYI, earlier discussions of Fahrenheit 9/11's pros & cons have been relatively civil and without the kind of rancor patrick introduced by dismissing the film out of hand and then trying to insult the intelligence of those that appreciate it. If he wanted to discuss F9/11's merits or failings in a conversational tone he wouldn't have lied about it being 1) a documentary, which it is, and 2) "terrible and devoying[sic] any kind of intelligence."
> > > "shut up and stay away" < < <
No offense, but it shouldn't surprise anyone that you'ld like to see informed opinions which don't concur with your own wished into the corn field.
Regards,
AuPh
Jeff post is way better and his last post was really worth a discussion.
He can't argue a single point about a film, he just gets irritated when someone doesn't like "his" movie and always rerosts to personal insults.
(nt)
He agreed that you are boring. And he said that your post is just polemic.
The POINT I was trying to make, before you so rudely inserted your two deutsh marks, is that Victor again is spouting off about a film that I doubt he has seen. At least you have seen it, even if you failed to appreciate it and felt the need to slice and dice Michael Moore's work of genius while rubbing salt in the wounds of those who DID like the film.AuPh
***Victor again is spouting off about a film that I doubt he has seen.Show me where I said anything about the film, you lying scum.
> > > "...you lying scum." < < <Please don't confuse me or my opinions with the residue in your shower; if anything, I'm providing the means of cleaning up your mess. All you have to do is SEE THE MOVIE; then when you post in these threads you'll have "some" credibility.
AuPh
First, you insulted a decent guy, who knows more about movies than you will in 1000 years... no, make it 1002 years, and has far better taste than you do.That insult was so gratuitous and so unrelated to the subject, it simply showed you as an hateful unstable character.
It seems, every time someone dares to dislike the films you admire you immediately resort to slimy personal insults.
Then you proceeded to make a direct lie about me. When confronted you didn't even see it fir to say "Sorry!", you tried to weasel out.
So, you despicable liar, where did I say anything about this movie? And - you despicable liar, where did I support Patrick's position on it?
You are truly beneath contempt for making those personal and completely uncalled-for attacks, and for lying through your teeth.
So you are getting yourself deeper and deeper into your lies... where did I do that:
"You're supporting patrick's positon"
I objected to your insult of him, as any decent human being would. I said nothing about his position, but even if I did, only a person like you would consider that an invitation to personal attacks.
It looks like you are simply unable to say anything about anything without resorting to direct lies.
If you, despicable liar, called myself of a friend of mine a parrot in my face, I would have slapped you.
As you - surely as next year taxes - deserve this for your lies and insults.
I haven't said anything about patrick being indecent; that's your warped perspective apparently. You keep siding with him about a film you haven't seen and making rude comments about Michael Moore, who may in fact be a very decent guy himself not to mention an inspired filmmaker; at best, that makes your opinions on Fahrenheit 9/11 less than informed and possibly even dishonest.As for what patrick does or does not know about film, I would never question his vast knowledge of European cinema except perhaps from the standpoint of personal preferences or tastes. European films aren't my primary area of expertise nor even a major interest although I do have a fairly broad collection of films including many European classics and a keen interest in German silent cinema. However, without any offense intended, patrick apparently knows diddly squat about American cinema and the tastes of the American viewing public. Now you can insult me all you like, and I'm sure that you will, but I've probably seen more American films and have greater personal knowledge of film history, especially silent cinema from having studied it (i.e., casually and academically), than you and patrick combined.
> > > "I objected to your insult of him, as any decent human being would." < < <
Your defense went far beyond that, IMHO.
> > > "If you deSSSpicable liar, called mySSSelf of a friend of mine a parrot in my faCCCe, I would have SSSlapped you." < < < (excuse the paraphrasing; embellished for proper context)
What IS your problem with animals? First DOGS, and now PARROTS! You apparently loathe DONKEYS and have a hard-on for ELEPHANTS; I hate to think what'll happen when I tell you that you're full of BULL! ;^)
Cheers,
AuPh
First I love the American Cinema, I grow with it too, and it is the mother of the professional way of marketing movies.
What I don´t like are junk films made of images taking out of you the ability to think! And that is what the kaka of today movies does. The US gave the bad example, and now it is the world that have followed. Sign of the times.
You as a so proclaimed left with an intellectual heritage you dispute to the right, YOU should be aware of THAT! ( images overkill versus reflection )
You know what silent movies are? You should follow their mutism.
Get an analyse.
Filthy liar, show me where this happened:"You keep siding with him about a film you haven't seen"
I would be ashamed to be you, with lie after lie, being caught again and again, yet refusing to admit it.
You insulted a man and then you lied about me, and yet you have arrogance to try to giggle it all away.
Filthy liar, what exactly was my opinion on that film?
"that makes your opinions on Fahrenheit 9/11 less than informed and possibly even dishonest."
This is completely slimy behavior.
"Your defense went far beyond that, IMHO."
You have no "humble opinion" in this matter. You called him a parrot, a strong insult to any thinking individual, and you never even thought to apologize. You behaved like the worst kind of a person.
So, you filthy liar you, where did I support Patrick's opinion on this film?
Filthy liar.
After that you can come back here and belittle my opinions all you like in a thread about Fahrenheit 9/11; in the mean time, you haven't paid the price of admission.'Nuff said.
AuPh
***After that you can come back here and belittle my opinionsCan't you say a SINGLE word of truth, you filthy slimy liar?
Where did I belittled your opinion on that film? A quote?
Delusional filthy liar you are.
A "SINGLE word of truth" is generously provided in the subject line. There are many more, but you're obviously not ready for them.*** "After that (i.e., having seen the film) you can come back here and belittle my opinions all you like in a thread about Fahrenheit 9/11; in the mean time, you haven't paid the price of admission." ***
> > > "Where did I belittled you opinion on that film?" < < <
Read my comment again s-l-o-w-l-y, and then THINK about it: My point was that before jumping into a thread to criticise someone else's opinion you should at least take the time to see the film being discussed yourself. Patrick is supposedly an adult; you don't have to wipe his nose every time someone disagrees with him over a film he trashes.
By involving yourself in a difference of opinion between two individuals who maintain TOTALLY different perspectives on a film they've seen, you're taking sides. Since you haven't seen the film in question, that makes you a kibitzer! If you don't understand the meaning of that Yiddish word, especially MY meaning of it, then I suggest looking it up in Webster's; you probably won't like it.
Food for thought, mull it over and have a nice evening,
AuPh
I presume in your trailer park it is normal to lie about people and never apologize, but here we consider this behavior one of scum and trash, and you have done very well with it.The smallness of your mind is obvious in the fact that you never answer any direct question, you instead try to constantly change the subject in order to avoid exposure.
Filthy liar you are, and I hope this thread stays, as I will be constantly refering to it in the future.
You apparently don't fathom how arrogant, petty and off base you appear here. You accuse others of lying while lying yourself, you stick your nose into situations that are none of your concern while having no clue about the subject being discussed, and you expect an apology when your own errors in judgment have resulted in almost all of the rancor.> > > "I presume in your trailer park..." < < <
That's odd, because after seeing Fahrenheit 9/11 and reading the outrageous comments you've made in this thread one might assume that you currently live in one of two places: 1) A ranch on the outskirts of Crawford Texas, and 2) 2600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington D.C. (until January, 2005)
Take care! :o)
Regards,
AuPh
Patrick posted his view of a film.You responded immediately with personal insult. As many of know, and as clark loves to point out, you always insult people when you have nothing to say.
In your "retort" you said nothing about the film, you simply insulted the poster. Apparently you are quite jelous of his friendship with me, and to a small person like you this is enough justification for an insult.
Of course a rude insult like this demanded a response, and I properly slapped you in the face. And of course my response did not say anything about the film, but everything about your trailer trash behavior. The behavior appropriate of the sewer, but not the forums where people try to exchange their opinions on films.
To that ou replied with lies. When I asked you to substantiate your lies, you of course changed the subject, eventually dropping down to the gutter level, suggesting that my criticism of your RUDE behavior and lack of civilized manners was equal to my endorsing a particular viewpoint.
Given your typical rhetorics found on Outside, where you are rightly considered a king of hypocrisy, this was not surprising.
What IS disgusting and slightly surprising, is your desire to bring your trashy morals here, to the forum where most people manage to stay away from personal petty insults.
So, you filthy liar, let me slap you in the face once again, and once again, ask you: what exactly did I say about that film in this thread?
If folks want to see what was really said and how you inserted yourself into the conversation without having seen the film they can simply click on the Film Asylum button and scroll down to the thread.Facts:
1) You jumped into a conversation over a film you hadn't seen.
2) You insulted me personally when I hadn't even addressed you.
3) You persisted, ignoring my recommendation that you see the film first.
4) In his original post, Patrick's remarks were arguably inflamatory, inviting my strong response.
5) I did apologize for ruffling Patrick's feathers after suggesting that he was your pet parrot. ;^)
AuPh
Really AuPh, here you are 100% wrong. You take your desire for reality.
Try to be honest.
Grrrrr....
Which wound are you talking about...Hehe....Deutsch. ( sc )
;^)
Up side down....
From the periphery this I have noticed as well.Did you catch Kopple interview?I felt MM blinked and rambled somewhat.
clb~out
"The line between America's funniest videos and the emergency room is fine".
You are kinda of generous.
But for someone who admire LOTR, it comes to no wonder....
Read the post down bellow.
One thing about this movie. The reaction to it seems directly connected to a person's political beliefs. Although I have heard accounts of a few Bush supporters turning agianst him after viewing this film.
I have no particulary political beliefs, and I tried to be as neutral one can be. But this film is garbage, it could have been well done and with some intelligence.
It is just a one sided hateful political statement.
This film is NOT garbage, whether you approve of it's message or not, and yes I do think you're espousing your own political beliefs and are being disingenuous when you claim neutrality.AuPh
It is not a documentary but it is shot on film stock. So, it is a film. Moore would have done well under Hitler. Imagine his films on all the social undesirables in a Germanic Flint, MI. Bet he could tear'em a new one.
There is only one candidate in this race whose family has direct ties to the Third Reich, and here's a clue, it isn't John Kerry! So, technically speaking, Moore has managed to do well under an almost fascist Administration that has tried every possible way to prevent his film from being released this side of threats, arrest and confiscation.You may not like Michael Moore or what he had to say in Fahrenheit 9/11; you may not like the manipulative techniques he employed to get his message across; you may think Moore is a propagandist, but when all is said and done, there is far more reality in his documentay than there is embellishment. The packed audience in the theater where I saw F9/11 gave Moore's film a standing ovation; it was well deserved. BTW, reports have 3000 folks showing up for the Crawford, Texas screening last night; as expected, the bogus POTUS wasn't in attendence.
AuPh
For what? For this naive piece of bad cinema? If only he would have arise about sheer mediocrity and made a mordant critic of the Bush administration, and you can do that on ALL administration, it would have been fun.
In the end it is as stupid and larmoyant than the most stupid propaganda film from the other side.
Arise, arise!
To fight a propagandist like the bogus POTUS one must employ the tools of his trade, and Michael Moore did this brilliantly; sorry you failed to appreciate it.Fahrenheit 9/11 is a polemic, but it's also a work of art. The propaganda utilized, and please note that all documentaries are propaganda of one sort or another if the idea is to sway public opinion, is based on fact. What Michael Moore attempted to do was to connect enough of the dots for the audience to get an accurate picture of the Bush Administration and George W. Bush, the man. He did that, and I can't wait for the DVD; hopefully there will be LOTS of bonus footage!
Regards,
AuPh
Well, If you reading some other posts here you will see, what a good and balanced answer there can be. Why being always so agressive?
You meant certainly a LOTR of bonus....
Freudian slip?Regards,
PatrickPS: And do not ever think that I am ever taking party for what I do not stand for!
Think of all the material he must've had to edit out in order to bring the film in at a reasonable length and maintain it's focus. This short-hand may in fact be one of the unfortunate albeit necessary drawbacks to filming such a complicated subject; in fact, this may be what is feeding many of his critics. However, instead of just connecting the dots to suggest the Bush portrait, a Director's Cut may be able to include enough damning evidence to paint Picasso's friggin' Guernica.BTW, I will ALSO be purchasing the Extended Version of LoTR: Return of the King, but that's another thread! ;^)
AuPh
Curiously one of my friend ( very right ) did love this film. I fits well on the not anymore latent anti Americanism in Europe....
Sorry, not buying it. No one capable of talking about politics is devoid of political beliefs and most people fancy themselves as middle of the road no matter their beliefs.
Sorry too, I have nothing to sell. I love satire and well done above all. I don´t make politic, I may speak about, but choose from case to case.
I was in this film with a women friend who is politically VERY left, she did not find this film good at all, by the way.
Can you cite a specific example?So far, all of your comments have been emotional and nothing else.
Jeffery
Mr. Moore just manipulate the thruth like he needs it, no he does not lie, being to intelligent for that, but he manipulate , and he does with so very few finesses that it is stupid.
Emotional? Absolutely not! I wish I would have seen a good satire and a good film.
That would have give some strenght to our democraty.
It is just a phamplet who at best is very naive.
...expecting a documentary. :)! I didn't.I think some of the ideas in the film needed to be aired.
I really liked how Moore reminded Americans that the U.S. military recruits poor kids from down-and-out parts of the country to fight in wars meant to protect the status of rich people---one more way the Iraq War is like the Vietnam War.
Some of the film footage was priceless. I don't think anyone in the U.S. broadcast the footage of people egging Bush's car during his inauguaral parade, and I did not know that (1) Bush had been told about the first plane hitting the WTC BEFORE he entered that classroom, (2) that the statement whispered in his ear while he was in the classroom essentially was "The nation is under attack," and (3) Bush just SAT THERE while McClellan and other minions waited for him to tell them what to do.
I think there is probably a lot to the story about the Bush family's personal and business relationships with the bin Laden family, but I think a different director (or writer) could do a better job with it than Moore.
I laughed at some of Moore's humor. The "Gunsmoke" "smoke 'em out" segment cracked me up.
But the whole thing with the mother in Michigan really got on my nerves. I didn't like her personality, and I thought Moore spent way too much time on her.
And I thought the structure of the film was pretty messy---lots of tangents---but he tied things up pretty well with his little speech at the end.
I think Americans ought to see the carnage of the Iraq War, the dead soldiers and Iraqis. American television stations don't show this, so I thought it was good that Moore did.
I don't watch TV at home (I did watch for few days following 9/11), so I had never really seen Bush in action until I saw this movie. He can't talk, he can't think. At first, I though maybe Moore was selectively choosing footage that made Bush look stupid, but there was so MUCH footage I came to the conclusion that Bush must look stupid most of the time. I found that pretty alarming.
Jeffery
Yes that is true. I expect a documentary, more some thing well balanced, and not THAT one side manipulative.
As for the military, you could say that it offers some good side too. But do you really think that they recruit the young people just in cool blood to send them to the slaughter as MM describe it? That is my point of my critic just so biased.
When he learnt of the second attack he could have done ANYTHING and it would have been wrong!
In Saudi Arabia if you want to do buisness, you must then deal with some Bin Laden as they are everywhere!
In fact the humour was one of the thing I sorely missed.
I felt the same with this women, even I could feel her pain!
Well I knew of all, so it did not came as a surprise. But I do not hink he so stupid, but anyway he has, I think a pretty good staff.
...from boning up on your American history a bit.The last war Americans across the class spectrum fought in was World War II. The Vietnam War was primarily fought by drafted poor black Americans, while the sons of rich white Americans (such as George Bush) somehow managed to avoid having to serve. Look at the Americans fighting the Iraq War: most of them are not white, most of them come from lower-class backgrounds. Generally speaking, Americans only sign up for military service if they don't have any other options. Rich kids have tons of options. Senators are rich; therefore, their kids don't serve. Moore made this quite plain, I thought.
I disagree with your statement that anything Bush did after the second attack would have been wrong.
Yes, there are bin Ladens everywhere in Saudi Arabia. But should American policy be driven by the Bush Administration's relationships (business or personal) with the bin Ladens? In the film, Moore makes it clear that he thinks the answer to this question is "no," and I agree with him.
Jeffery
Lotta dead honkys for a war that was fought *primarily* by black Americans. Just helping Patrick bone up on his American history.
When Bush received the news what should he have done? Stand up and say like Rambo " let´s fight? He would have act like a cow-boy.Or begin to cry? He would have been a coward ! Would he have left the room? He would have not be able to cope with the situation...So no way, Mr. Moore just set HIMSELF in the spotlight. That is cheap.
What I see, is just a melange of colours in the soldiers fighting in Irak, but that means nothing, can you give me the exact numbers of how many ethnicity and in % are there?
What Moore show was so bias that I do not believe him " a priori ".
The film reveals his biggest ennemy, his ego.PS: I speak of this war and not of Vietnam. Vietnam was a BIG mistake.
"When Bush received the news what should he have done?"He should have gotten off his ass, said sorry to the kids but I have some business to attend to and then find out every thing he could as quickly as he could. Moore illustrates clearly, Bush did not do what he should have done. How sad is it that the average Joe knows better than our President what to do and what not to do in a crisis? That revelation was worth the price of admission for me.
"Stand up and say like Rambo " let´s fight?"
Well that is what he did after he came out of hiding.
"He would have act like a cow-boy.Or begin to cry?"He managed to do both.
" He would have been a coward ! Would he have left the room? He would have not be able to cope with the situation...So no way, Mr. Moore just set HIMSELF in the spotlight. That is cheap."
I'm not really sure what you are saying here.
"What I see, is just a melange of colours in the soldiers fighting in Irak, but that means nothing, can you give me the exact numbers of how many ethnicity and in % are there?"Would it affect your view of the movie?
"What Moore show was so bias that I do not believe him " a priori "."What specifically in the film do you believe is not true?
"The film reveals his biggest ennemy, his ego."It revealed a lot of things one doesn't find on Fox, like real civilian casualties in Iraq amoung other things. Do you think Moore created this on a sound stage or do you think the footage is real?
"PS: I speak of this war and not of Vietnam. Vietnam was a BIG mistake."Eventually most people got that. I think people will eventually mostly conclude the same about this war.
I think if you are not bored to read, in case you did not, all the posts I send that I told everything I thought of!
What can I add? The rest is just supposition, it would be even more subjective.But let me say some point again.
Mr. Bush could have done ANYTHING but it would always had been in a " no-no " situation. with people who hates or dislike him.
I think that Mr. Moore is the star of his show. He must have a big ego.
Which part? BUT all was true!!! BUT what was not was his way of manipulate things and facts.
Look at the camera...the ridiculous music, the slow motion...the.....Of course hating the Bush´s make you blind.
Of course the footage were real! Everybody knows that there is no war without horrors.
But now less than before because of the better weapons, and of course I do not need to add that ervery death is one too much ( or must I ? )
But did Mr. Moore showed the SH gazed Kurds? Or SH sons horrors? Or? Or?
No, mr. Moore took only what he needed.
And that is not honest.
And the film is a very bad one, his only strenght is its controversies.So, now you see I did not hold my words and wrote really more that I wanted to do...
Patrick
"I think if you are not bored to read, in case you did not, all the posts I send that I told everything I thought of!"I've read them but unfortunately they tend to not deal with the subatance of the movie.
"What can I add?"critism based on substance rather than bias.
"The rest is just supposition, it would be even more subjective.
But let me say some point again.""Mr. Bush could have done ANYTHING but it would always had been in a " no-no "situation."
That is simply wrong. Only a few rfringe left wingers would have objected to him doing the obvuious, that being excusing himself from the students and then gatehring all the information he could as quickly as he could.
"I think that Mr. Moore is the star of his show. He must have a big ego."
"Which part? BUT all was true!!! BUT what was not was his way of manipulate things and facts.
Look at the camera...the ridiculous music, the slow motion...the.....Of course hating the Bush´s make you blind." It was the facts that were telling. His style simply added satire.
"Of course the footage were real! Everybody knows that there is no war without horrors."Tell that to Fox.
"But now less than before because of the better weapons, and of course I do not need to add that ervery death is one too much ( or must I ? )
But did Mr. Moore showed the SH gazed Kurds? Or SH sons horrors? Or? Or?" He didn't show any unrelated vicims of war.
"No, mr. Moore took only what he needed.
And that is not honest."It is not dishonestto argue a point without arguing thje counterpoint.
"And the film is a very bad one, his only strenght is its controversies."I disagree. It isn't his best film but it is far from bad.
So, now you see I did not hold my words and wrote really more that I wanted to do...
Patrick
So we agree, as they say, to disagree.
When Bush received the news what should he have done? Stand up and say like Rambo " let´s fight?- No it's not what he should have done, it's what the secret service didn't do. The first thing they should have done after hearing the first plane hit (esp. after the CIA found out about "Project Bojinka", and received numerous threats against WTC in the past) was taken him to the nearest military base (Eglin AFB or Tyndall AFB?) and make sure Cheney was enroute to Mt. Weather or another secure spot. This is standard procedure. This did not happen. Why?
Why? Well first to react cool is not bad. But it may have been such a moment of surprise ( it is what I think ) that Mr. Bush tried to get the pieces together...mentally reviewing all the the little indication of the puzzle.
And trying to sort it out.
He was not attack in the school, and that prove him right.
Now, I think that I would have react more briskly...But only maybe...Who can tell???
I have no idea. I also agree, I think personally he was shocked. Who wouldn't be? I was shocked for a very long time. However the secret service should have moved him immediately, even by picking him up by the arms and legs and running, to the nearest military base. This is standard procedure. Same with Cheney. This did not happen.
Well, I may think ..There were shocked too, but if I remember the moment on Fahrenheit film, there was a short moment where you could see the two guys of the secret service, and they were clearly waiting what the boss want to do.
He will write his memeories...Hehe...
I think you are right, I bet his will definitely be the most hotly debated presidency in history.best regards,
Rich S.
My best to you too! And thanks for the link!Patrick
Being populist is a bad thing.Jeffery
In the modern understanding of this word, it is meant to speak as a certain category of people wish you to do.
Playing with words or only with their etymology?
Or did you just like this film?
...pander, which essentially means telling people what they want to hear.Jeffery
Here in Europe when we says " Populist " it is like I told you.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
