Michael Moore: thief extradanoire

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
Professur said:
Do you mean outside of the fact that he's a declared opinionist? That this movie, like all his others, has no chance of being unbaised?
Show me any opinion that isn't unbiased..or any newscast..or pretty much any article. If it's written, spoken or filmed by human beings, it'll be tinged by that human being's ideals and attitudes, if not by the editor's attitudes.

Tell me...are the following movies unbiased?

Schindler's List
Amistad
The Colour Purple
The Passion of the Christ
Braveheart

Not really... history isn't unbiased either...the victor writes the history books the way he remembers it.
 

Professur

Well-Known Member
Bish, read willya? It's billed as a documentary. Last time I checked, nobody was claiming that Braveheart was filmed as-it-happened. The Passion of The Christ either.
 

Winky

Well-Known Member
Bish and Prof is that the
"can Libs and Right thinking people be friends"
thing again?
 

Inkara1

Well-Known Member
Considering how accurate the facts presented in Bowling for Columbine were (the errors were so bad that even fellow liberal Roger Ebert had to step back and say that the movie hurts their cause), I don't have much hope for the new film.

I thought it was interesting, though, how Moore offered to help teenagers sneak into theaters to see the film after the R rating was uphels.
 

markjs

Banned
Of course I am probably going to get fried for this because I am left of center, but mind you I know zip about Moore or his movies and am showing no personal bias. Remember what I am about to say is incontrovertable fact.

Fahrenheit 9/11 won top honors at Cannes, widely regarded as the worlds most prestigious film festival, and both Roeper and Ebert give it two thumbs up.
 

Winky

Well-Known Member
Michael Moore: Poster boy for the Left

Funny thing is you gentle readers are already paying that http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday.html ]portion[/url] of your income whether you know it or not and I’m sure you aren’t pulling down seven figures.
Now I know why I have assiduously avoided any and all exposure to all of Mike's crap. But at the end I actually had to respect the guy for being able to make so much money for merely spewing crap! America what a country!
 

Winky

Well-Known Member
tax.JPG
 

markjs

Banned
From Fox News

'Fahrenheit 9/11' Gets Standing Ovation
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
By Roger Friedman

The crowd that gave Michael Moore's controversial "Fahrenheit 9/11" documentary a standing ovation last night at the Ziegfeld Theater premiere certainly didn't have to be encouraged to show their appreciation. From liberal radio host/writer Al Franken to actor/director Tim Robbins, Moore was in his element.

But once "F9/11" gets to audiences beyond screenings, it won't be dependent on celebrities for approbation. It turns out to be a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail.

As much as some might try to marginalize this film as a screed against President George Bush, "F9/11" — as we saw last night — is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty — and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice.

Readers of this column may recall that I had a lot of problems with Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," particularly where I thought he took gratuitous shots at helpless targets such as Charlton Heston. "Columbine" too easily succeeded by shooting fish in a barrel, as they used to say.
 

markjs

Banned
From FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"

Review: Fahrenheit 9/11 [New M. Moore Movie]
BBC Online ^ | May 18 2004 | Ian Youngs


Posted on 05/18/2004 12:24:06 AM PDT by Brit_Guy


The film shows army recruiters in Moore's deprived hometown of Flint, Michigan Controversial documentary-maker Michael Moore's intensely political new film, Fahrenheit 9/11, was screened for the world's media at the Cannes Film Festival on Monday.

Disney has refused to release this film, other distributors also seem reluctant and - if Moore is to be believed - the White House wants to stop it being seen.

The reason is if viewers take the film at face value, they will think George Bush is a fraudulent and possibly corrupt president who went to war in Iraq because of a half-baked motivation of grudge, greed and thirst for power.

But this is a Michael Moore film and, while that does not mean he is wrong, it must be watched with a critical eye.

Moore wants Bush removed from office.

He is determined to have this film released before the US presidential election in November for that very reason.

Chilling

The film's conclusions are reached through a mixture of firm evidence, interesting information, moving scenes and tenuous theories.

Starting with the presidential election in 2000, it firmly plants the idea that Bush's election - thanks to just 537 votes in Florida - was not exactly free and fair.

Moore makes tough accusations against Bush

The first conspiratorial link comes when he identifies the Fox News Channel employee who took the decision to report that Bush had won Florida on election night - when all other channels were reporting an Al Gore win - as Bush's first cousin.

If true, it is an interesting piece of trivia - but hardly proof of a family plot to steal the presidency.

He introduces 11 September with a blank screen and chilling audio of planes hitting the Twin Towers and the cries of those on the ground.

Moore also has footage of Bush sitting in a school classroom, reading a children's book with pupils, for more than 10 minutes after being told the second plane had hit.

The film-maker said this full footage had not been seen before because no-one had asked the teachers at the school whether they had captured it on camcorder.

One of Moore's chief accusations is Bush allowed planes to pick up 24 members of the Bin Laden family and fly them out of the US in the days following the attacks - when all other aircraft were grounded.

To back this up, he shows a document that seems to list them - and uses it as a base from which to explore the relationships between the Bush and Bin Laden dynasties.

'Little proof'

They go back to Bush's military days, Moore says - and produces military records apparently showing the future president was in the Texas Air National Guard with a man who it says went on to sell a plane to one of Osama Bin Laden's brothers.

When Bush was trying to make his way as a Texan oil magnate, this same man was hired by the Bin Ladens to invest their money in Texas, and he in turn invested money in Bush's company, the film says.

Moore asserts that prominent Saudis invested in Bush's ailing companies to get access to his father, the former US president. But aside from the original military records, there is little proof to firm up links Moore goes on to make.

The result is the oil and arms companies the Saudis invested in, and the Bush family and their inner circle have interests in, profited from the aftermath of 11 September, Moore says.

Moore won an Oscar for his last film, Bowling for Columbine Using a clip of former US head of counter-terrorism Richard Clarke talking about how Bush immediately wanted to find an Iraq link to the attacks, the film moves on to Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Afghanistan section - including a screen shot of a BBC News Online story - is a claim that the military action in Afghanistan was really about laying a natural gas pipeline across the country.

But the Iraq section is more substantial, and changes the film's direction - using interviews with US soldiers, footage of civilian suffering and highly moving testimony from bereaved parents of US servicemen.

The film shows graphic footage of corpses of US soldiers being burnt, dragged behind a truck and strung up, and a scene of US soldiers apparently mistreating Iraqi prisoners.

Emotional interviews

All the while, persuasive army recruiters are followed as they try to sign up young people in Moore's deprived hometown of Flint, Michigan.

So Moore went to Washington to try to persuade Congressmen to send their children to Iraq - the son of only one Congressman is in service there, Moore says.

Moore himself appears less in this film than he has in his previous documentaries, leaving most of the talking to politicians, soldiers, parents, experts and assorted real Americans.

There is highly selective editing, but the story is not totally one-sided. For example, there are soldiers in Iraq who believe in their mission, as well as those who say they are disillusioned.

But the movie's conclusions - true or otherwise - and highly emotional interviews with bereaved parents and injured soldiers will have a big impact on audiences around the world.
 

Inkara1

Well-Known Member
Ebert also loved "Bowling for Columbine" at first, and turned against it after the factual errors were pointed out to him later. Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," I might add.
 

markjs

Banned
That's great, throw out deragatory terms when you got no argument! Cannes is in France, Cannes judges are not necessarily French.
 

ResearchMonkey

Well-Known Member
It once was a respectable festival, no more, now its liberal freak-show, frogs included.

This film, just like his other films, is full of inaccuracies and flat out lies. . . And you will buy every word it as gospel.

He could have came forward with proof of prisoner abuse but chose to hold on to the footage for months in hopes of making more money for his 'revealing' film. He has sold-out for greed.
 

HomeLAN

New Member
No he hasn't sold out. He's always been a dedicated capitalist. That's one reason I find his situation so ironic.

Believe me, no one was happier to see Disney refuse to distribute this film than Moore. Free publicity, and scads of it!
 
Top