Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
CANNES (Hollywood Reporter) - In "Fahrenheit 9/11," Michael Moore drops any pretense that he is a documentarian to pull together from many sources an angry polemic against the president, the Bush family and the administration's foreign policy.
Where "Roger & Me" and "Bowling for Columbine" were personal quests for truth, looking at a subject from different angles and talking to people polls apart in their points of view, Moore stays "on message" here from first shot to last. There is no debate, no analysis of facts or search for historical context. Moore simply wants to blame one man and his family for the situation in Iraq the United States now finds itself in.
The film arrives, of course, amid recent revelations of Bush insiders Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill, the turmoil over the 9/11 commission and the growing sense that the Iraq problem is not going away anytime soon. And the very public dust-up between Moore and the Walt Disney Co. CEO Michael Eisner, which has left Moore momentarily without a distributor, certainly raises the film's profile even further. So the film should reach a large enough audience; the question is: Will Moore be preaching to the choir?
Charting the American political scene during the past 3-1/2 years, Moore is forced to rely mostly on other people's material. The assertion that America's Saudi policy has been determined largely by financial ties between the Bush family and the Saudi royals -- including another Saudi clan, the bin Ladens -- comes largely from "House of Bush, House of Saud," by Craig Unger, whom he interviews.
The Bush White House's obsession with Iraq in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11 despite overwhelming evidence that al-Qaida was behind the attacks comes from former counterterrorism czar Clarke in his book "Against All Enemies." Most of the film's interviews come from TV network news shows or CNN's Larry King.
The movie begins with the contested 2000 presidential election. Moore takes the usual anti-Bush view that the election was stolen. Moore then characterizes Bush as a country bumpkin in the initial months of his presidency, spending 42% of his time on vacation and falling rapidly in public opinion polls.
Then comes 9/11. Moore touchingly conveys this day of infamy with a montage of sounds and visuals that refrains from showing images of airplanes hitting buildings or the World Trade Center collapsing. Instead, we get noise of horror over a blank screen, then shots of crying, horrified people staring into a sky filling with smoke and debris.
continued in link above
NEW '9/11' FLICK HAS FAR 'MOORE' FIZZLE THAN SIZZLE
By LOU LUMENICK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 18, 2004 -- CANNES, France - President Bush need not lose any sleep over Michael Moore's much-hyped "Fahrenheit 9/11," which turns out to be a wet firecracker.
Moore's virulent feature-length attack on Bush, which premiered yesterday to a 20-minute standing ovation at the Cannes Film Festival, falls far short of delivering on the filmmaker's extravagant promises of election-swinging revelations.
"You will see things you haven't seen before and learn things you have not learned before," he vowed on Sunday.
Well, maybe if you spent the last three years hiding in a cave in Afghanistan.
Sure, there's some media-grabbing footage - apparently shot by one of the camera crews Moore claims to have smuggled in with embedded troops - of American soldiers laughing as they place hoods over Iraqi prisoners, and one GI touching a detainee's genitals through a blanket.
But that footage actually conflicts with one of Moore's main arguments - that GIs have been victimized by being forced to participate in what he considers to be the unnecessary and immoral invasion of Iraq.
Moore's big stop-the-presses revelation is that the name of an old pal of the president who works for the bin Laden family was excised from 1972 National Guard records released by the White House in 2002. Yawn.
Mostly Moore dusts off a litany of old accusations against the president - whom he portrays as both a buffoon and a world-class conspirator - and lands few solid blows as he takes on targets like the Patriot Act and supposed war profiteering by the politically connected Halliburton Corp.
The sheer scope of the material he's trying to cover in a two-hour documentary - the Sept. 11 attacks rate maybe five minutes - leads to incredibly superficial and misleading treatment at times.
As a critic who awarded Moore's Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine" four stars, I was particularly disappointed with "Fahrenheit 9/11."
In "Columbine," Moore had something new to say about the gun-control debate and did so in a refreshingly entertaining manner.
"9/11" does not lend itself to such a glib approach, and while Moore may get laughs by presenting Bush and his staff in a brief "Bonanza" spoof titled "Afghanistan," the humor often seems much more forced here.
By far the best sequence features Lila Lipscomb, a woman from Moore's hometown of Flint, Mich., who lost her Marine son in Vietnam.
But when she tries to go to the White House to express her antiwar feelings, Moore ends up delivering a pallid echo of the high point of "Columbine," where victims of that high school massacre descend on Kmart headquarters to demand that the chain stop selling ammunition.
Far from the political hot potato Moore has been tub-thumping to secure a rich U.S. distribution deal and the July opening he lusts after - after Miramax was forced to sell it at the insistence of its corporate parent, Disney - "Fahrenheit 9/11" is more like a lot of hot air.
Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
I beg to differ, I think this film will make a bunch of money. I'll go see it and I would encourage every American to hear his point of view, but I would also say that after hearing his, you should listen to the other side, in this case someone as insane, like Ann Coulter.
Originally posted by nycflasher
Like to hear a review from a critic I respect.
Originally posted by insein
This same critic gave bowling 4 stars. I don't know who else you would want.
Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Thanks man. I respect you too.
Originally posted by insein
This same critic gave bowling 4 stars. I don't know who else you would want.
Originally posted by nycflasher
Really, interesting. I'm just saying, movies are so subjective. I only seriously consider reviews from a select group of individuals. I've been led astray to many times. Shit, I've had three of my best friends tell me a movie sucked and then loved it or vice versa.
That's all I'm saying.
Originally posted by MadMax
That is sooo true, people have different tastes in movies and you should really see them for yourself. I worked in a video store years ago and absolutely hated telling customers my opinion and vice versa... Just led to arguments and people wasting money on something they didn't like, who do you think they blamed????
Hell I kinda liked the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre ( which EVERYONE hated ) but that's just me
Originally posted by nycflasher
Really, interesting. I'm just saying, movies are so subjective. I only seriously consider reviews from a select group of individuals. I've been led astray to many times. Shit, I've had three of my best friends tell me a movie sucked and then loved it or vice versa.
That's all I'm saying.
Originally posted by Pale Rider
If you truely hate this fat, lying, traitorous pig, and the vile anti-American filth he creates, then let it be known to those who support him...
http://www.pabaah.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=506
Originally posted by nycflasher
Thanks for the info, movie comes out June 25...
Originally posted by Pale Rider
I've never really been fond of protestors, but I hope they're out in force against this piece of crap.
I know if it comes out in a theater here in Phoenix, and it more than likely will, and there's a protest there, I'M GOING!
Originally posted by nycflasher
Any GOP response yet?
