DSLRUsers.com

Watched this film last night and I must say that it certainly throws up some questions.

Has anyone else seen this film?
Dubbya comes off looking like a complete moron, but then we already knew that.

There were things in it that really made me just stare with open jawed amazment at the screen.

It's an interesting piece of fiction and like most of Michael Moore's work relies on misleading editing and taking things out of context to achieve its goal of shocking the audience...

Not that I particularly want to discuss politics in this forum, but make sure that you get a balanced view by looking at one of the many websites that discredit the movie...
http://moorelies.com is a good start...

Definately dont want to get into politics here Leek, I agree. Was just interesting. I'll have a look at that link.

Cheers
Matt

I was waiting for someone to bring up the fictional side of Michael Moore's stuff (and I like Michael Moore... but you have to keep your mind open...)

I like him too, but he goes way too far sometimes...

Moore would have 'succeeded' if Dubya wasn't voted in a second term - but it seems more American voters (that's the 5% of the US population that votes) disagrees with dear Mike than agrees with him.

I agree it does raise some interesting questions. Especially so when Bush supporters' counter arguements are largely based on ad-hominem attacks against either Moore himself or the other political candidate rather than substantiating or countering Moore's claims.

Onyx wrote:Moore would have 'succeeded' if Dubya wasn't voted in a second term - but it seems more American voters (that's the 5% of the US population that votes) disagrees with dear Mike than agrees with him.

I agree it does raise some interesting questions. Especially so when Bush supporters' counter arguements are largely based on ad-hominem attacks against either Moore himself or the other political candidate rather than substantiating or countering Moore's claims.

I always take what moore says with a grain of salt... sure he tends to sensationalise some things, but he's also proven to be correct in a lot of cases.. You need to be able to read between the lines and research yourself to know who to believe. Personally, I've seen a lot of things he says get proven correct. I've seen the anti moore sites, and they tend to nitpick with things to prove him wrong.

One of the things I note as an example is when he said that in the days after 9/11, while all other planes were grounded, a bunch of saudi's were allowed to take off and leave the country. Not to long ago, the pentagon was noted as saying that did happen.

It makes you think. But you need to ensure you don't just take everything that is said as being gospel and the full truth.

My 2 cents worth.

Geoff

Well, look at Moore's last book, "Dude, Where's My Country?"

I made the following quote to Dad immediately after reading it (which came from buying it as soon as it came out in this country):
"Interesting book, but it will be outdated very soon, especially if Bush gets back in."

I don't know about you, but I found "Stupid White Men" to be somewhat interesting, if not just because it wasn't completely based around the US government... but damn... he is really limiting himself here.

There is a movie to counter to his 9/11 movie which is actually really funny. It takes some of the original footage he shot and edited (to fit his agenda) and shows how he spun what those interwiewed actually meant. Just like PS'ing a shot excessively so it looks nothing like what you shot, but what you wanted to shoot. I would describe his movie as more for "entertainment" value than documentary value.

However, for the life of me, I can't remember the name of the movie....duh

Ah Ha!!!! found it

Celsius 41.11

Andy

That either taunts Ray Bradbury or the number that liberates the universe and everything, as well as this thing called "life".

Scary........ (about the 41.11 bit)

Actually i am a bit of a fan of Michael Moore. Sure, some of his stuff is sensationalist but i think it is good for the USA that someone can stand up and question the way he does.

I think that what underlines his work is that he is asking the people of the USA to take responsibility for their own actions, whether good or bad.

This Moore's movie kept me glued to the TV screen until the end, and I give it credit for that. It's captivating from the beginning to the end.

That said I would not call it a documentary - the way Moore edits its movies, both Bowling for Columbine and Farenheit, is everything but fair. For instance, I find it too easy to edit and cut an interview short to make the interviewee looking stupid.

It's a pity because the Bush administration lies were so big that it'd have been easy to blast them in an entertaining way, but without doing too much Michael Moore's style.

Link.

With all possible respect to our American members.......

My understanding is that MM designed the movie to be comprehensible to the American audience, which has (in totality, not among Nikon owners) demonstrated a preference for simple concepts in small chunks with no confusing balance.

I was hearing that the British pollie who quit Blair's labour party over Iraq, became an independent, was mercilessly attacked and slandered by the Bush administration, won his seat at the election. Then he went to the USA to confront those who had attacked him. Really laid it on the line, won the day etc. The likes of FOX didn't even report the fact that he was there, although they had happily reported the lies against him.

I don't like seeing people whose views I support use the same disgraceful tactics of those whose views I do not support, but I can to some degree understand why they do.

(I should say for the record that I thoroughly enjoyed Farenheit 9/11)