TK, Grandpa and PP, I'm sure that the anticipation of this movie's release is just killing you, but don't forget, its not too late to get your tickets.....


Michael Moore

I'm looking forward to it actually. Sounds like it will go over like a lead balloon and I look forward to watching it crumble.

Even most in the liberal press are hating it:

MSN Slate:
"fighting words A wartime lexicon.


Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004, at 12:26 PM PT



Moore: Trying to have it three ways

One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight.

Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. There, one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even distant cousins. With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery."


"Moore has announced that he won't even appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning. I notice from the New York Times of June 20 that he has pompously established a rapid response team, and a fact-checking staff, and some tough lawyers, to bulwark himself against attack. He'll sue, Moore says, if anyone insults him or his pet. "

Full article:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

"The company distributing filmmaker Michael Moore's Bush-bashing movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" says it won't reject an offer of help from Middle East terrorist organization Hezbollah. "

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39079

Michael Moore VS Richard Clarke??


By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
June 01, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - One of the central charges made by left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore in his upcoming, Bush-bashing film is being undermined by another critic of the president -- former White House counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke.

Moore's upcoming film, Fahrenheit 911, points to President Bush's rumored relationship with Saudi officials as the motivating factor in the president allegedly allowing relatives of terror mastermind Osama bin Laden to fly out of the country following the Sept.11, 2001 terror attacks.

But Clarke recently admitted that he alone approved the exit of the bin Laden kin -- damaging the key premise of Moore's film.

Chris Horner, a GOP strategist, finds irony in the fact that the credibility of Moore's film is being undermined by one of Bush's biggest critics even before the film is released in the United States.

"When self-promoting, Bush-hating conspiracy theorists collide," Horner said of Moore and Clarke.

"One self-promoting, Bush-hating conspiracy theorist (Clarke) proves the undoing of another Bush-hating conspiracy theorist (Moore)," Horner told CNSNews.com.

Moore has alleged in interviews promoting the film that Bush and his father, former president George H.W. Bush, had close ties to the Saudis, which led to the decision to help bin Laden's family leave the country following the terrorist attacks.

Clarke's sworn testimony before the 9/11 Commission in March, describing how the FBI approved the flights for the bin Ladens and other Saudis to leave the U.S., may have strengthened that premise. But Clarke's interview with The Hill newspaper, published on May 26, contradicted that previous testimony.

The decision to approve the flights, Clarke admitted last week, had been his own. The request "didn't get any higher than me," he told The Hill .

"On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn't get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI," Clarke said of the plane flight carrying bin Laden's relatives.

"I take responsibility for it. I don't think it was a mistake, and I'd do it again," he added. The Saudis and bin Laden's relatives were flown from the U.S. out of fear for their safety following the terror attacks.

Clarke turned against the Bush administration and became a darling of the left earlier this year when he criticized the government's anti-terror policies. His book Against All Enemies : Inside America's War on Terror , detailed his frustrations working in the administration, and news clips of Clarke appear in Moore's documentary, according to film critics who have screened the movie.

But Moore's film relies in part on Clarke's original comments, the ones he has now contradicted.

According to a movie review by the BBC, one of the film's "chief accusations is Bush allowed planes to pick up 24 members of the bin Laden family and fly them out of the U.S. in the days following the attacks - when all other aircraft were grounded."

The BBC review states that the movie explores "the relationships between the Bush and bin Laden dynasties."

Fahrenheit 911 received a 10-minute standing ovation and the top award at the Cannes Film Festival in France in May. It is expected that the film will be released in the U.S. in July.

While promoting the documentary, Moore has not been shy in linking Bush's alleged "relationship" with the bin Laden family to the flight that took the bin Ladens and other Saudis from the U.S. following Sept. 11, 2001.

"So here is Bush trying to deal with everything on Sept. 11, 12 13th, you know. You remember, everybody remembers the total state of chaos and people, just everyone, all of us, discombobulated by the whole thing, and he had the time to be thinking -- what can I do to help the bin Ladens right now," Moore told Pacifica radio last October.

"And all of these elaborate plans were made, because [the Saudis] were spread out throughout the country, to be able to pick them up, get them to Boston and then get them to Paris," Moore said.

"While we are being told that the hunt is on for Osama bin Laden, what is really going on is when you got 24 bin Ladens here, (a disputed number) you know, none of them are asked for any kind of help. None of them are interrogated, and they are given the royal red carpet treatment in the days after September 11th. My question is why? What is really going on here?" Moore asked.

But Horner believes Moore's film will eventually be discredited.

"In his rush to ensure that no credit goes un-annexed, Clarke exposes Moore's rant as based on paranoia and the presumptions common among fever-swamp liberals that never survive the slightest encounter with facts," he said.

Horner sees Clarke's admission and its impact on the credibility of Fahrenheit 9/11 as just the latest setback for what he calls the "conspiratorial left" in the past year.

"First [former Democratic presidential candidate] Howard Dean implodes in a fury. Then Clarke bombs, and then the [Al] Franken/[Al] Gore political MoveOn-ment (MoveOn.org) lashes itself to the hilariously hapless [global warming disaster film] The Day After Tomorrow . And then there is the collective failure of [the liberal] Air America radio," Horner explained.

"Now Moore's movie's premises are revealed to be nothing more than huffing liberal anger. Every weapon in the pacifist arsenal has proven, fittingly, a dud," Horner charged.

His work is mildly entertaining. Only the severe whacko's take it serious. It is so full of holes and leading conclusions according to the reviews.

Love it or hate it PP, my money says it'll be the blockbuster of the summer, if for no other reason than the brilliantly controversial marketing strategy used to drum up hype for the film.

Liberals will go to cheer it on, Conservatives will go just to see how contentious it really is.

Documentary, Mockumentary, Op-Ed film... whatever you want to call it, if it's as good as "Bowling for Columbine", look for a sequel.

What a slimeball!

He capitalized on the job loses in Flint, MI when the GM shut down.

He capitalized on the dead children at Columbine.

And now on 911

If lies and mistated facts can be considered good.

Obviously you haven't even seen "Roger and Me" or "Bowling for Columbine" eh slappy?

p.s. I mean good in an entertainment sense King... more so than an actual un-biased account of history. It's no secret where Moore's political affiliations lie, but if you can get past all of that, he actually makes some pretty good movies.

watched as much of both as I could stomach

Mel Gibson capitalized on the persecution, torture, and death of Jesus. What a slimeball. :rolleyes:

"my money says it'll be the blockbuster of the summer"

I'll take that bet.

I bet these movies smoke it:
Spiderman 2
The Village
The Manchurian Candidate
I,Robot
Shrek 2
... and plenty others...

I doubt it will even be in the top 10.

"Mel Gibson capitalized on the persecution, torture, and death of Jesus. What a slimeball. "

LOL. Comparing moore to gibson is a crazy stretch of the imagination. Comparing the 2 films is even a bigger stretch, but one that I was expecting to see sooner or later...

Moore's movie is targeted AT somebody in a very nasty and political way. Nobody is knocking capitilasim and the ability to make a few bucks (or millions) from a well made and\or well hyped movie.

Besides, you left out the most important part of Mel's movie - the Resurection. Sure, it only got a few seconds of screen time, but without those few seconds, the point of the entire movie is lost.

Essentially, Gibson was promoting his religious beliefs via a graphic and 'artistic' depiction of a well known event. Moore is promoting his political agenda via a personal and political smear campaign.

Anyway, I'm sure many people will see it, but I really doubt it will come close to 'block buster' status as did the "Passion of Christ" or many of the other great flics coming out this summer...

You missed my point, or rather tried to embellish the hell out of it.

Two men used historical events on which to base a documentary from which they profited. Simple.

"Two men used historical events on which to base a documentary from which they profited. Simple."

LOL. Give me a break...

Neither was a documentary by a long shot. Mel's was a movie - a historically based drama.

Moore's was a mockumentary - or maybe even a new genre called something like "political activism".

I haven't seen the movie and am not endorsing or critiquing it yet (don't know how some of you have such a strong opinion when it hasn't even been released yet), but it appears to me, for better or for worse--based on Moores comments and interviews regarding the movies release, that Moore is trying to carry the mail for the liberal left and even leveling the playing field a bit from the right wing attack dogs who looked in every corner of Clinton's life in order to smear him and used tax payer $$$'s to do it. Granted, Clinton left quite a few corners to peak under, but this is nothing short of payback. He has admitted that this movie is not an objective documentary, but rather a politically motivated movie to serve the cause of removing this president.

The slate article above gives another view as to why this 'work' is not a documentary and why moore is clearly just a slime ball as noted above:

"So I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (…), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer. He pitilessly focuses his camera, for minutes after he should have turned it off, on a distraught and bereaved mother whose grief we have already shared. (But then, this is the guy who thought it so clever and amusing to catch Charlton Heston, in Bowling for Columbine, at the onset of his senile dementia.) Such courage."

Those unwilling to do the work to reasearch the facts or devlop an informed opinion will love it much like they did Bowling . Moores dilevery is engaging and his storytelling ability is there. Do a little work to peel the layers and you find all the mistakes half truths etc. Most Americans are too lazy and it easy to accept it as fact or out right deny it has any merit. But hey Leo Dicaprio liked it and fully supports it's conclusions that has to account for something as he is as deep as a teaspoon of water.

Kinda like the press and 65% of Americans buying into Bush's assertions that Iraq was behind 9/11.....

Refresh my memory, please