Fahrenheit 9/11

Discussion in 'Reviews' started by Zhukov, Jul 28, 2004.

  1. Zhukov

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Dec 21, 2003
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    As some may have read, Spillmind sent me a check for $15 to go see F9/11. This is the general review of the movie. Here is my critique of the informational content of the movie itself.

    I'll be honest, I went into this movie expecting to dislike it.

    Surprise, I did.

    First, as everybody already knows, and few deny, this isn't a documentary. Therefore I ask, can one really be expected to enjoy a propaganda film that espouses the antithesis of their beliefs? Probably not.

    I wasn't a big fan of Bowling for Columbine, but I think I still liked it better than this one. Honestly, it just wasn't very interesting. And it didn't really offer any new information or fabricate any new conspiracy theories. It's all been heard and discounted or ignored due to it's immaterial nature before.

    The blank screen during the actual 9/11 attacks is supremely uninspired (possibly the most pivotal historical moment of the past half century, and all he can come up with is a blank screen?) and most, if not all, of Moore's comical or dramatic attempts to belittle or mock Bush Administration officials fall flat.

    The play for the audience's emotions with repeated and lengthy segments showing mother of fallen soldier Michael Pederson, first reading a letter from her son and then walking in Washington D.C., are needlessly drawn out and in my opinion exploitative and tacky. Perhaps it would have been better to have learned who Michael Pederson was. His name is mentioned I believe once in the movie, and not remembering it I had to read through two lengthy internet news articles about his mother to find it listed once. Evidently the mother is of more importance than the son who laid down his life for our country.

    Ultimately this wasn't worth taking the time to watch except of course, due to it's nature and relative popularity, just to say you've watched it.

    I've watched it. I wasn't impressed.

  2. Dan

    Dan Senior Member

    Aug 28, 2003
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Aiken, SC
    I hate people that defend or trash movies without having seen them, but I'm about to do that for 2 parts of your review (which, by the way, is probably the least biased review I've read for the film, so kudos to you for that)...

    I heard about it, and I thought this was a nice way to handle it. Those images are so familiar to us, to just show them again would be kind of unaffecting. I know this doesn't say much for me, but by the end of THAT DAY, I had already been completely numbed by the videos of the planes hitting the towers. It stopped being footage of 1000+ people dying simultaneously and became a great special effect, almost. To take away the video forces the viewer (well, listener) to expose themselves to it in a completely new way and, thus, makes it horrifying all over again. You can close your eyes from a video, you can't turn off your ears.

    Or, maybe the answer is simpler. Maybe Moore knows that he used that footage in Bowling For Columbine and didn't want to rehash it. Who knows.

    While I agree that some time certainly should have been devoted to Pederson, and while he has all of my respect for even joining the military, let alone fighting in war, I don't know that this would have been an appropriate route. From a storytelling standpoint (which is not probably the most important one to most viewers) the film was about how the war was affecting America and Americans (correct me if I'm wrong, that's what it seems like it's about), so concentrating on the soldier's mother was appropriate.

    What were your thoughts on Bowling for Columbine? I thought it made some good general points (location, race, etc. can't account for level of violence; guns should be kept out of the hands of crazy people). 2 things really bugged me about the movie though:

    1) The Charleton Heston interview was just horrible. It was obvious Moore expected him to be some sort of stark-raving lunatic, and when he turned out to be a calm (if somewhat confused) older man, it totally threw him off. Did anyone actually enjoy Moore attacking a man who is probably inthe first stages of alzheimer's? Then, the picture of the little girl... WHether it was faked or not, it was so damn sappy and corny, I almost laughed out loud. "Please... Please look at the picture, Mr. Heston." I'm not a Moore-hater, but that was the worst acting job I've ever seen in my life.

    2) The K-Mart thing, where he tries to return the bullets the kids from Columbine got shot with. He goes to the main office, and K-Mart agrees to stop selling bullets. And Moore is completely and utterly stunned! So, if you delve into this deeper, you realize Moore is shocked because he never expected his plan to work. And since he never expected his plan to work, he was basically using those 2 kids to put forth his own agenda. That really bugged me.

    Roger and Me was a little better, but it's been years since I've seen that.

Share This Page