Farenheight 911

[davida.b.]

Everyone in America needs to see this movie. End of story.

[white Boy]

  There's lots of sites such as www.bowlingfortruth.com and www.moorewatch.com that uncover his biased opinions.

the bowlingfortruth one is really good

[Rain]

Michael Moore's movies are interesting, I'll give you that.  However, like it or not, his movies are biased.  You can argue whether they are extremely biased or not, but there's no doubting that they are.  Although his movies do hold some truth, people shouldn't regard it as a documentary, because documentaries have to be based on pure unbiased fact, which Moore obviously does not do.  There's lots of sites such as www.bowlingfortruth.com and www.moorewatch.com that uncover his biased opinions.

...every single  documentary ive seen is biased. its not very intelligent to claim otherwise, can u think of one doco that isn't biased?
to release a film that was entirely objective in its filmmaking would be suicide - it would be too boring because the film isnt really saying anything. as soon as you let a human being tell a story whether by film, novel, article or just speaking - it becomes biased.


anyhoo - I've just seen Fahrenheit 9/11 - i would have seen it earlier but it took a few weeks longer then america to arrive in australia. i loved it. one of the best documentary films ive seen in a long time - and it is a documentary because all its footage are real and its full of facts, even if they are only facts to support one argument, they are still facts.

i thought Moore made a good point - and as not being an american - i see it as more then just a piece of propaganda to get bush out of the white house later this year. I found the overwhelming point of the film to be how pointless the Iraq war is. how people are dying for no particular reason over there at the moment. And although yes, moore is attempting to persuade you to a particular point of view, as any good filmmaker will, (just because he is trying to persuade you, donest mean he is convincing you, thats up to yourself) it appears clear that Moore doesn't really care if u disagree with him or not.

Moore's ultimate goal for this film appears to be to get the masses interested in politics once more. i'm not sure of the exact numbers but i think its something like less then 50% of americans vote. Moore is just trying to get the rest to go out and vote. he doesnt really care who u vote for, just as long as you vote. Moore is the only person i can think of trying to make politics popular again, by using a medium for the masses. and i admire him for it.

overall - i give this film 4/5

[RXL]

Of course the movie is biased, but the facts aren't. This was a very eye-opening and captivating movie. Showing you a side of the Bush administration that most are not familiar with, and for many, a side you want to blow off as nothing.

You're right for the most part.  However, Moore uses facts, and then twists and obscures them in all of his movies to make them "fit" with what he's trying to present.  Check out http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm.  This site shows 59 deceits, and counting, in Fahrenheit 9/11.  Using an example from the link:  Moore shows one scene where Bush is in the classroom reading to the students, and then he's informed of what happened to the World Trade Centers, and he sat there calmly.  The way Moore presented it, Bush looked like he didn't know what he was doing, but do you think it would've been better if he entered a state of panic in front of the class?  The principal even acknowledged to the media, “I don’t think anyone could have handled it better.” 

[RXL]

Michael Moore's movies are interesting, I'll give you that.  However, like it or not, his movies are biased.  You can argue whether they are extremely biased or not, but there's no doubting that they are.  Although his movies do hold some truth, people shouldn't regard it as a documentary, because documentaries have to be based on pure unbiased fact, which Moore obviously does not do.  There's lots of sites such as www.bowlingfortruth.com and www.moorewatch.com that uncover his biased opinions.

...every single  documentary ive seen is biased. its not very intelligent to claim otherwise, can u think of one doco that isn't biased?
to release a film that was entirely objective in its filmmaking would be suicide - it would be too boring because the film isnt really saying anything. as soon as you let a human being tell a story whether by film, novel, article or just speaking - it becomes biased.

OK, you're right about every documentary being somewhat biased.  It really isn't the case with this movie, though.  Although documentaries are biased, they still present one side, and take a little time to express another view, even though more emphasis is made on the first side.  Moore's movie is simply presenting one side, making it a Bush-bashing movie.  It's like me saying "dubcc is a great board, there's lots of annoying posters, but it's still a nice place."  I say both pros and cons, that's what a documentary is supposed to do.  In theory, a documentary is supposed to be unbiased.  Of course, it really can't be, but a movie that is this one-sided should not even be considered a documentary.

[Rain]

Michael Moore's movies are interesting, I'll give you that.  However, like it or not, his movies are biased.  You can argue whether they are extremely biased or not, but there's no doubting that they are.  Although his movies do hold some truth, people shouldn't regard it as a documentary, because documentaries have to be based on pure unbiased fact, which Moore obviously does not do.  There's lots of sites such as www.bowlingfortruth.com and www.moorewatch.com that uncover his biased opinions.

...every single  documentary ive seen is biased. its not very intelligent to claim otherwise, can u think of one doco that isn't biased?
to release a film that was entirely objective in its filmmaking would be suicide - it would be too boring because the film isnt really saying anything. as soon as you let a human being tell a story whether by film, novel, article or just speaking - it becomes biased.

OK, you're right about every documentary being somewhat biased.  It really isn't the case with this movie, though.  Although documentaries are biased, they still present one side, and take a little time to express another view, even though more emphasis is made on the first side.  Moore's movie is simply presenting one side, making it a Bush-bashing movie.  It's like me saying "dubcc is a great board, there's lots of annoying posters, but it's still a nice place."  I say both pros and cons, that's what a documentary is supposed to do.  In theory, a documentary is supposed to be unbiased.  Of course, it really can't be, but a movie that is this one-sided should not even be considered a documentary.

i agree with u in a certain way - the film certainly never mentions any other sides and i am  having trouble placing it in a film genre. its hard to call it a doco for the reasons u mentioned but then again it uses all real footage and comes with a lot of facts. having had time to see it a second time and think about its defiently propaganda, and propaganda defiently has its place in cinema and to be respected even if u dont agree with the argument. take 'Truimph Of The Will' - but propaganda isnt a clear cinematic genre - probably because its numbers are so few. so Fahrenheit 9/11 is a hard film to classify.