!Michael Moore's New Movie!

[Marigold]

Hey, :stars:fishy's:stars,

This is from the website: moveon.org - concerning Michael Moore's new movie, "Fahrenheit Nine/Eleven". Everyone who wants to see this movie is being urged to see it on opening night (or weekend) if possible (June twenty-fifth) to send a message to Disney (which tried to censor the movie) that the American public supports Fahrenheit Nine/Eleven.

I'm going to see it as soon as it opens. I know it's going to be big - and that attempts to censor it will only make it even bigger - not that it needs this. From all I've read about it, the movie speaks for itself.
Michael Moore also directed "Bowling for Columbine" - the extremely compellling movie about Columbine and gun control. He's very talented. That movie won alot of academy awards - this one will too, you can be sure of it.

Here's the article:

Date: Wed, ******** Jun ****************
From: Eli Pariser, MoveOn PAC
Subject: Stop the Censorship of Fahrenheit ****/********


We're launching a major campaign to turn out tens of thousands of us in support of Fahrenheit ****/******** on the opening weekend. To view the trailer and sign up to be a part of the campaign, click here.

Dear MoveOn member,

Last night, I got a chance to see a sneak preview of Michael Moore's new film Fahrenheit ****/********. It is an incredibly powerful movie that lays bare the cynicism and greed behind Bush's war policy. And the astonishing and revealing footage in it has the power to change the course of the **************** election. (There's a full review below.)

Given how devastating the movie is to President Bush's carefully crafted facade, it's hardly surprising that right-wing groups who call Moore a "domestic enemy" are using censorship and intimidation tactics to try to get it pulled from theaters. That's why we've got to do everything we can to make the opening a huge success.

Today, we're asking MoveOn members to pledge to see the film on the opening night -- Friday, June ********th. (If you can't make it on Friday, pledging to go on Saturday or Sunday is fine, too). It'll be fun, of course -- you'll be watching the movie with lots of other MoveOn members. It'll also send an unmistakable message to the media and theater owners that the public is behind this movie.

To see the Fahrenheit ****/******** trailer and pledge to see the movie on the opening weekend, go to:

http://www.moveonpac.org/f************/

Then please pass this message on to your friends, family, and co-workers.

Fahrenheit ****/******** isn't just the most powerful and complete indictment of the Bush administration that I've ever seen - it's one of the best movies I've ever seen. It's a knockout blow: a poignant, darkly funny film that deftly interweaves footage of the President, his allies, and the Americans his policies betrayed. As Fox News' reviewer put it, the movie "is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty - and at the same time an indictment of stupidity and avarice." (See http://www.foxnews.com/story/****,****************,************************,*** *****.html for the full review.)

Despite years of television coverage on Iraq and the war on terror, most of the movie consists of footage you'd never see on TV. There are heart-breaking interviews with troops in Iraq, chilling scenes of the civilian consequences of that war, and footage of Bush so candid and revealing that it's hard to imagine how Moore got his hands on it. In one unforgettable scene from the morning of September ********th, Bush blithely reads a children's book to a classroom of kids for seven long minutes after his chief of staff quietly informs him that the second plane has hit the World Trade Center and "we're under attack." The film is filled with this stuff, and it's hard to imagine seeing it and not being moved, shocked, and outraged.

Fahrenheit ****/******** opens with footage of Bush administration officials putting on their TV makeup. Paul Wolfowitz sticks his comb in his mouth, slathers it with spit, brushes it through his hair, and grins a toothy grin. Colin Powell eyes the camera nervously as a makeup artist dusts his face. And, moments before President Bush goes on TV to somberly announce the beginning of the Iraq war, we see him goofing around, making funny faces at the folks behind the camera.

These candid portraits encapsulate the genius of Moore's documentary. Compared to his other films, there's little pranking or moralizing. Moore basically stays out of the picture: he doesn't have to indict the Bush administration, because with powerful and indisputable video, Bush and the rest indict themselves.

As Moore unravels Bush's story, he joins it with the stories of the real Americans who have shouldered the burden of the post-****/******** war policy. In Flint, Michigan, we hear from a group of inner-city kids whose only option for education and a better life is to enlist in the Army - and then, in a scene that's both humorous and deeply creepy, join two Marine recruiters as they case a local mall for possible enlistees. We watch a California peace group that was infiltrated by the local police department under the Patriot Act. And, in the final heartbreaking scenes, we witness the pain of a mother who lost her son in Iraq.

In the hands of other directors, the content could easily feel exploitative. But Moore is grounded by a patriotism that rings through every frame of the film. Compassion and love of country give the film its striking authenticity: it's clear that what stings most about the President's behavior, for the subjects of the film, is Bush's betrayal of our country's soul.

Fahrenheit ****/******** is a film with the power to change hearts and minds. It's brilliant, funny, moving, and authentic. And together, we can make it a huge success.

Watch the trailer and pledge to see the film opening night at:

http://www.moveonpac.org/f************/

Sincerely,

--Eli Pariser
MoveOn PAC
Wednesday, June ********th

-Marigold:sun

[ribbon]

That is definitely on my to see list to see! Thanks for the link. Go Michael :yay. He's one of my role models. I love how he stands up for what he believes and doesn't give a damn if he comes across as crass or "politically" correct-- such as his speech at the academy awards when he won for Bowling for Columbine . He leaves trying to get his point across diplomatically to others :muhaha. I'm sure glad he's a liberal :muhaha.

[Feak]

Any idea when it'll be out over here in the :uk ?

I'll definately be off to see it with my bro, we're both Moore fans. He, my dad, my Godmum and her sister went to London for the protests :yay

[ribbon]

Here's a link :hugonfeak:hugoff http://www.michaelmoore.com/

For :usa :pinkfishyies he's going to be on David Letterman tonight, Friday the eighteenth.

[Amber_Heathen]

I most definately want to see that, though I'm debating whether I'll see it at the theater or wait till dvd. I KNOW I'll cry and I hate crying in public. Not sure if it will come to the theater in my little podunk town anyway, I would probably have to go to another town.

[shortstop]

I know that this is going to be unpopular but.....
I have mixed feelings about this new movie. I feel like Moore does the same things that the conservatives do in the news. He is only showing one side...he is very biased. And I hate how biased the news is. Now, his saving grace is that it is a movie; not a newscoverage.
It's not a real documentary if it only shows one side of things.
And I know that the argument is that since the conservatives only show one side, so the liberals need to show the other.
I feel that the liberals could show both sides and still prove that things need to be changed. To me, Moore is just feeding the monster of biased coverage and reporting.

[Marigold]

:starsShortstop:stars,

I know what you're saying but his movie consists mostly of actual footage that speaks for itself.

Think about giving the movie a chance before you "pre-judge" it - you don't have to agree with it - or all of it - but see it before you decide it's "biased" - you might change your opinion.
-Marigold:sun

[ribbon]

:hugonss:baseball:hugoff
I see Moore's one sided movie as ART not NEWS. Yes, he's using news footage, but
This is his way of using his voice. If he was claiming otherwise that would be one thing. I think his abrasiveness isn't aimed at changing the minds of the bush fans, but off rallying together those who want anyone else as president.

[Vicks]

Already signed up to see it on the day!

I really admire move on. While I do not agree with everything that they adhere to, I do admire the grassroots way in which they have mobilized people into careing about issues.

I went to see an event a few weeks ago that they hosted. Al Gore, Al Frankin, Robert Kennedy JR., and a few doctors where at it, talking about the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" the event was free, and awesome!

I know that was a tangent, but I just wanted to voice my enthusiasm for a group really making a difference!

Vicks

[ribbon]

Vicks, please post your thoughts about the movie after you've seen it. I'll probably have to wait for the DVD to see it $$$.

[Catherose]

Shortstop-

I agree with you. I'm glad that Bowling for Columbine was made... it needed to be made... but I had a lot of problems with it. There are some good discussions about the movie at www.imdb.com. I just thought it treated complex problems very simply... ie: the houses being locked, the differences in American and Canadian news shows, some of his statistics, linking lots of different shots of Charlton Heston together to create the image he wanted to present us with... and then the little picture of the girl at the end. I felt insulted as an audience member. He also never really answered his own question.

I can't seem to keep my mouth shut tonight.

I will probably see his new movie, not because I love Michael Moore but because he happens to be the one tackling subjects that no one else will. I'll probably see it and leave feeling pissed off and cheated, and I'll probably be ranting about it as much as I did Bowling for Columbine.

I'm looking forward to what everyone has to say once it comes out.

Catherine

[Marigold]

I want to give this a bump and remind everyone who wants to see the film that it opens this weekend - if we come out in droves to see it, a clear message is sent to the "powers that be" that censorhsip is *not* okay - and that there is a real demand for this movie!:yay

PS: in response to those :fishy's who think this movie will be "one-sided" - I think documentaries are very important because they so often present the side or aspects of a situation that is ignored - and/or suppressed. They very often tell of things that powerful people deny.

[shortstop]

The thing is, true documentaries aren't supposed to be one sided. They give all of the information possible on the subject they are tackling wether they agree with it or not.

[Marigold]

Michael Moore makes clear his position re: Bush - the man has to GO.

He's honest and upfront about WHY he thinks this.

His movie will Show viewers why with, no doubt, very powerful, potent details.
Anyone is free to disagree with it.

I do think, however, when people are presented w/views and even *evidence* that contradicts positions they hold dear - they often resist.

This is human nature.

I still say: see the movie and judge for yourself.
You haven't seen it yet, SS, yet already you feel it is one-sided.

Yet I could make the same claim in terms of how news (and Bush) is presented to us in America.

I do think MM will be showing many sides that Americans haven't seen (and no doubt Many will not Want to see).
But I sense that many people Do want to see what he has to say and show.

Also - he is under no obligation to Not be one-sided - in a way. If you look at it as his side - and examine Why he thinks this way - you can than decide if you agree or not - or agree partially.

I really admire him because he has Guts to go against the power elite in this country and expose the not very nice underside of their "glory".

And I guess I have to disagree - I do not feel he or his documentaries are one-sided at all.

One-sided would mean he was suppressing evidence to the contrary of his claims. Yet He is the one they want to suppress - those who are, Like the Emperor w/no clothes - shown to be Not as they pretend they are.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree - but if you see the movie too - we can all debate it.
If you don't see the movie - you will be relying on second-hand opinions about it instead of what You really think/feel about it, SS.

Reminder:

Opening night is Tomorrow - June twentyfifth!!!!
-Marigold:sun

[ribbon]

Marigold said:
Michael Moore makes clear his position re: Bush - the man has to GO.

He's honest and upfront about WHY he thinks this.

That is the reason I respect him so much. He doesn't pussyfoot around and try to subtlely manipulate the viewer with a hidden adenda.

This is an example if why I don't like subtle messages.

My friend gave me the link to this online dating site that does a personality test to tell you what type person you're best with. She said it was fun and free so I tried it, even though I am not interested in online dating. I took this twenty plus page personality test and when I got to the end and pushed enter, I was in for a :zoinks shock. It took me to a page about the sanctity of marriage and values that sounded suspiciously like a christian agenda :reallymad. Checking into it more the site it was anti a lot of things I believe in and pro things that I don't. Lets just say the guy that runs it is probably out there lobbying against gay marriage as we speak :muhaha. When I called my friend to complain about the site (in a joking way) she hadn't even picked up on it until I pointed it out.

I love my friend and we have very similar beliefs, but she is the first person to send me a "rumor" email about something she heard (usually from an unreliable source :ohboy). Of course, she's the type of person who those documentary makers with a hidden agenda usually target.

[Marigold]

Ribbon,

That's a great point.
It seems to me that when a person takes a strong position on something, they do run the risk of being labeled "one-sided".

The reason MM is not one-sided is because I think he has the knowledge to know alot of things about Both sides.

Anyway:
:starsToday is Opening Night day!!!:stars

And lots of reviewers are calling this movie very :starspatriotic:stars - in the truest sense of that word.
Freedom means: the freedom to criticize one's government too.
-Marigold:sun

[sflathinker]

Here's why I have a problem. Ultimately, he is doing exactly what the media is doing...promoting his beliefs and using his voice to sway the pubic. Unfortunately, too many people can't think for themselves and will side with whatever the popular belief of the moment happens to be. Not all, mind you, but I wish people would form their own opinions without feeling the need to sway everyone to their side. Or feel the need to be quiet in fear that no one will agree with them. I am all for opening the public's eyes to every side of the coin, but is he doing that? Or is this his way of ousting Bush?

I respect him because of a comment he made. He joked that thanks to the politicians, this movie is going to be more popular than he imagined. Let's not forget...his goal isn't just to educate...he's an American in the truest sense, this is about making money as well.

[shortstop]

BINGO Mara. I do feel like he is not trying to inform for the sake of informing. I feel like he is trying to sway. There are two sides to everything and he is only producing one. Movies are produced...he is producing what he wants to say. (Which is the same damn thing we trash the republicans/conservatives for doing.)
I don't think everyone that has a strong opinion is one-sided or biased. But lets be real here, people are seeing it because they know what they're going to get. I'd much rather watch something on the History channel or the Discover channel about what BOTH sides are doing. Just because I don't agree with what he's doing with this movie doesn't mean I don't respect what he's trying to do. I do. I just don't agree with it as a whole.

The reason MM is not one-sided is because I think he has the knowledge to know alot of things about Both sides.
Oddly, that is why he is one-sided. He's only going to show one side of the story. The one he decides to produce.

[Vicks]

YOu know tons of people went to see the "Passion" and they knew what they were going to think about it before they even went. For instance, where I work, which is a Jewish Organization, they organized a group of people to go see the movie. Those people who I do know, saw the movie and came back thinking the same thing they thought before they went that it "wasn't a good portrayal of anything and/or an accurate potrayal"

Same things as this. I am sure some ulta conservatives will go see and come out saying "I knew it wouldn't be any good"

MM also, on the daily show stated that he "knew he was one sided" He knew that he was "promoting one point of view" So what? He is opinionated, who cares? I didn't go see the "Passion" because it wasn't the type of movie I am intersted in, I most likely will go see this movie as "I am interested in Politics" I do not agree with everything he has to say, but he is an "American" and he will make tons of money.

The best way for the "Conservatives and/or Republican party" can combat his movie, isn't by sueing, isn't by chastising, is simply by not going to see it. If we don't have "freedom" of speech and of "communcation" what do we have? If companies get scared of producing something because they fear an onslaught of "public outrage" I will be very sad. People have choices, to watch or not to watch, to listen to not listen.

Vicks

[Marigold]

Okay - here's my take on some things said:

"promoting his beliefs and using his voice to sway the pubic."

Why, exactly, is this a Bad thing? Even this website uses it's "voice" to promote certain beliefs about eds.

"I am all for opening the public's eyes to every side of the coin, but is he doing that? Or is this his way of ousting Bush?'

MM has made it clear he wants to get Bush out of office. So? I'm all for that - as are many other disgusted/tired/disgruntled Americans. MM is using his voice, yes - and also has compiled facts/footage to back up that voice. Of course, if you don't like what he is saying, it's easy to tear any argument to shreds. It's called Denial - people employ it to avoid facing unpleasant realities about situations. It's human - and we all have to work against it.
Chances are good that if a conservative produced a movie of this type - I'd want to see it too.

"this is about making money as well"

And to make money is....bad?
First of all, I do not believe that making money is his Primary motivation for making this movie. He's too passionate about his beliefs to hold that as the Main goal.
But, like so many conservatives, he is a realist and he knows that money is needed to make such a movie as he has.
Plus - in America it's supposed to be okay to make money - and he's doing it honestly. He's presenting a movie that one is entitled to agree with/disagree with - and any variation thereoff.

" I do feel like he is not trying to inform for the sake of informing. I feel like he is trying to sway. There are two sides to everything and he is only producing one."

Okay - I do think that if he showed Every side - this movie would be too long for anyone to sit through.

He is showing a side we usually don't see. He Does want to sway and influence - some think by manipulating the facts - others by bringing them to light. I am in the latter category.
The fact that he wants to influence and sway - big deal. So does your average disney flick:winky too.

"Oddly, that is why he is one-sided. He's only going to show one side of the story. The one he decides to produce."

This is his right - he's not trying to pretend his movie will appeal to everyone. But enough people who have seen it and enough critics who have praised it make a very compelling case that it is, in fact, well worth seeing.

"If we don't have "freedom" of speech and of "communcation" what do we have?"

Well said. In fact, w/the "Passion" - many felt Mel Gibson was definately showing only one side - his. And this for something that can't even be proven w/actual footage, unlike MM's movie. If you believe in the "Passion" - fine - you have that right.

I for one will put my money down for a movie that can back up what it claims.

Of course, faith recquires just that from it's believers.

Politics, on the other hand, does not get to benefit from this "belief w/o proof" sort of thing.

I say: See the movie and Then form your opinion - it's bound to be a More informed opinion just by the fact that you've made an effort to view it w/an open mind.
-Marigold:sun

[ribbon]

Vicks said:
The best way for the "Conservatives and/or Republican party" can combat his movie, isn't by sueing, isn't by chastising, is simply by not going to see it.

From your lips (or fingertips) to republican's ears:ear :ohboy. :muhaha

[Catherose]

I would just respect Michael Moore more (hehe:cheesy) if he respected other viewpoints more. I don't think he considers the value of other opinions or argues against them intelligently. He sets his opponents up to look like idiots, which I think detracts strongly from his own credibility. Bowling for Columbine was very emotionally charged- it relied on us feeling anger/pity/sympathy to the point that intelligent discourse is either impossible or meaningless- for example- his meeting with Charlton Heston at the end of the movie. He wasn't interested in having a discussion, in hearing what Heston had to say. He was interested in making Charlton Heston look like a rich, cold-hearted asshole. He stopped by Heston’s house with a camera crew completely unannounced after finding it on a star map. After offending him and being asked to leave, Michael Moore put that picture of the little girl down on Heston's porch as Heston walked back into his mansion. It was just too much- too over the top. It was like a made for TV movie. I'd like to think that Michael Moore makes strong enough points that he doesn't need to employ Lifetime movie-of-the-week style sap and melodrama. The events of Littleton, CO, the questions and situations surrounding gun control, are dramatic enough without Michael Moore’s extra dose of sappiness. BFC was very impassioned rather than intelligent. It was very “us-versus-the-man.” I found it much more emotional than informative- and I believe the aim of a documentary should be to inform.

I don't think being "one-sided" is a fault- I think Moore's faults are more along the lines of arrogance and over-simplicity.

I probably will check out the new movie. I don't expect to like it, but I'm grateful that someone has the cajones to make these movies, even though I don't think Michael Moore makes them particularly well.

[Vicks]

I thought Bowling For Columbine had a little bit more credibility especially since More is a member of the NRA.

And well, he doesn't have to prove anything to anyone, he doesn't have to be credible, he could go on about the most stupid stuff in the universe, and it wouldn't matter. He himself "admits" he is one sided, he has an agenda. Lots of movies have agendas.

Personally, I do not agree with everything he says, I am not a "huge die heart democrat even" I find his remarks at awards shows annoying and illtimed, but his movie, I expect nothing less than good coversation from it. I get paid Wednesday, after which I will go see it and decide for myself what I think about it.

vicks

[ribbon]

Vicks said: I find his remarks at awards shows annoying and illtimed, but his movie,

That's one of the things I appreciate about Moore is that he says what he wants, when he wants and isn't intimidated by being politically correct. At the oscars last year, he was saying what I was thinking about the war and the president.

[Dorian]

:hugon :bowl :hugoff

Having just seen the movie earlier today, I wanted to share my opinion. First, in the area I live (New England), the film was completely sold out yesterday and even today during the matinee showing, the theater completely filled up (!).

I must say that as someone who considers herself fairly a-political (as much as I think I'm smart, understanding politics is over my head), this film generated an interest in politics for me and in understanding what is going on in our world.

This film was not funny. I was in tears at many points during the film, and left feeling weighed down and sad. There is one woman's journey presented in the film from blind pro-war to informed anti-war, that I imagine is to serve as an allegory for what Moore hopes to incite in the American people.

My one lament is that the film (i.e., Moore) didn't give me a firm sense of what to do next. Clearly, he would like me to vote Democrat, but beyond that, what can I do? The film left me feeling so sad and in a way, hopeless, guilty, and just ashamed of the human race.

One of the most poignant parts of the film for me was the recruitment of young, poor men and women to serve in the military. There is a line in the film about how we, as a nation, ask (and [i]expect) the people who in fact profit the least in our country to then turn around and fight for it - to fight for the little they have and in effect, the subjugation they experience - his quote was something like, "we ask the vulnerable to fight for what we have so that we don't have to." His line was more powerful than I can convey here.

I was also sickened as I watched the scenes from the war (which I typically avoid), and watched our soldiers playing heavy metal songs about burning down buildings as they raided Iraqi villages. I didn't feel it blamed the soldiers so much as the American elite for keeping these soldiers ignorant of what is really going on, and "duping" them into believing they are fighting for what is right and what will free them rather than what in reality, only serves to maintain their oppression.

I am interested to hear more thoughts. As I said in the beginning, these are just my opinions and impressions. I was moved and saddened and want to know how to make things right.

Who knows, had just one senator stepped up and listened to the African-American objection, would Gore now be our president? Could any of this have been prevented? What can we do now...

:love Kate

[Marigold]

I'm seeing it tonight - the five thirty showing. Soon as I'm done, I'm going to post my "review":yay:winky.

For those :fishy's who say his style is "over-the-top" and emotional - well, to each his or her own. I think MM is extremely smart - and Also a man of deep feelings. In his case, it's not a question of intellect vs. emotion - he has Both. And, in fact, to make the good points he does, and with such :starsPower:stars - you Have to tap into people's hearts - not just their minds. He does it honestly - it's not sappy to remember a child's death by putting her picture on Heston's gate - she died from being shot. Moore believes Heston is complicit with her murder because he does not care a fig about gun control What-so-ever. Which is :wacky as far as I can see. So I totally agree with him about this.

Re: this statement: "He was interested in making Charlton Heston look like a rich, cold-hearted asshole." -

Hey, if the shoe fits! (And I think it most certainly Does in Heston's case - and Moore showed us why in "Bowling for Columbine").

I am so psyched about seeing this movie! And other :fishy's who've seen it - please give your views on it too (positive/negative/somewhere in-between)!
-Marigold:sun

[Dorian]

:hugon Marigold :hugoff

Not sure if you saw mine above...

:love Kate

[Marigold]

:hugonDorian:hugoff,

I did read yours!. I'm so glad you posted it. I will comment on yours (and give my own) after I've seen the movie tonight - and again, it's great you posted a review!
-Marigold:sun

[jennifer_dawn]

I must give my opinion...i know that it might not go over well...but here it is....
personally MMs new movie disgusts me. its just basically fires the already negative opinions out there..and even if what he says is right or wrong...SOME people who already dislike the Bush administration are going to believe it just because it gives them more fuel for the fire...everyone has a right to their own opinion, but comeon, where did the respect go to? there are other ways to get opinions out without being disrespectful. im sorry if i offended anyone..its just my opinion and felt i needed to voice it...:lookin

[Catherose]

Marigold said:
Re: this statement: "He was interested in making Charlton Heston look like a rich, cold-hearted asshole." -

Hey, if the shoe fits! (And I think it most certainly Does in Heston's case - and Moore showed us why in "Bowling for Columbine").


Maybe you think the shoe fits, but I don't think that just making your opponents look bad is the way to create an intelligent or thought-provoking documetary. I'd much rather hear him have a real conversation with Heston- listen to his point of view and argue against it with respect and logic. I find it much more interesting when ideas are actually shared, respected, and then argued against, but that's just me.

[Vicks]

where did the respect go to? there are other ways to get opinions out without being disrespectful

Everyone's idea of respect and disrespect is different. I don't like a lot of Rap music, because I find that it is disrespectful to women, but you know what? I know plenty of women who love it.

To me, I admire anyone who can get conversation going about any issue why? Because so many people don't know anything about their government, about policy, about the world, so if a guy, who I don't always agree with, goes out and makes a movie that gets people talking go for it!

The move "The Day After Tomorrow" provided a huge forum for Environmentalists, to promote advocacy on the issue of "Global Warming" the movie, wasn't entirely accurate, but it provoked dialogue. I went to hear Al Gore, and Robert Kennedy JR. speak about this movie, and they used this movie as the background for their presentation.

Respect and disrespect vary. And I give MM credit again for creating dialogue, even if what he says isn't a hundred percent accurate, he is creating dialogue, people who never cared or knew, are seeing his movie and that is a good for all political parties.

Vicks

[Marigold]

Well,
I did get a chance to see MM's newest yesterday - the hotly debated Farenheit nine/eleven.

And the first thing I want to say is that I believe that this whole "respect" theme that's coming up is a diversion from the real issues.

Of course, *Respect* is very important to give and receive even as we debate hot issues.

But Bush, in my opinion, has deservedly lost respect from millions - if he ever had it to begin with.

If someone (like Bush) behaves in a rephrensible manner (I do believe he has and continues to do so - Along w/thousands of other Americans) - and someone (like Michael Moore) has the *Guts*, the courage and the intelligence to film a movie that shows genuine footage detailing the many abuses of Bush- and contribute to the movie his own incisive, deeply funny and quietly scathing commentary as Moore has done -

All I can say is that "respect" doesn't enter into it at all. Not for Bush anyway.
Bush does not deserve respect. Far from it. And he certainly will not get mine (nor anybody elses who really takes in this movie).

If ever a movie can affect world events like an election - this is the one to do it.

About the movie itself: I don't want to get into alot of details - I don't want to spoil it for those who still haven't seen it yet.

I can say:
It's awesome. It's powerful. It's frightening. It's deeply sad - and extremely funny in parts - and mostly - it really makes it's points strongly.
It really makes one *Think*. I also felt deeply affected by it.

People can quibble all they want: (he's only showing one side, he's sappy, he's disrespectful, he's this, he's that) -

But you know what? I view all of these arguments as a smokescreen - attempts, whether consciously or subconsciously to turn away from a truth they don't want to know.

That's how I really feel - and I say this with respect - and w/o pretending otherwise.

I'm sure many :fishy's will vehemently disagree with me.

At this point, I'm don't think I want to argue w/some of you who deeply oppose this movie anymore.
These arguments, to me, are just a diversion from focusing on the Power and the Truth of this movie.

And - I know that *Nothing* I can say about this movie or Michael Moore will change the minds of those of you who feel otherwise.

That's fine. Neither will my mind change about Bush - nor the minds of the countless people who will see this movie - be deeply affected by it - and vote against Bush in the coming election.


Dorian asked - what can one really do after seeing this movie? (Aside from voting against Bush)...

I'm not sure. I still have to give myself time to mull over this movie.

But I do believe: knowledge is power.
It's better to know than to not know. It's better to not dig your head in the sand and keep it there - no matter how much it hurts to look up.

This movie has affected me deeply.
I want to see it again - take more of it in - but it's so awful - alot of the footage he shows. So hard to sit through.
And yet, so damn important.
-Marigold:sun

[ribbon]

Catherose said: Maybe you think the shoe fits, but I don't think that just making your opponents look bad is


I would agree completely if you were talking about political ads. The last thing I want to hear is a negative political ad.
As for MM's movie, I think of the movie as a mockmentary more than a true documentary. If/When I go see it, the reason will be for entertainment value, not one sided information. I find it hard to believe than anyone would go to the movie soley for informational reasons (hard to believe and frightening :muhaha). When I first heard the title I briefly thought they were talking about Ray Bradbury's book Farenheit four-fifty one :ohboy.

[bellydancer]

I saw the movie over the weekend.
This is a documentary. Documentarians have a point of view. That's the point of a documentary. Micheal Moore has written, produced and directed a work of documentary. He is not required to include any one else's point of view. This is not a work of journalism.
If someone doesn't like Moore's point of view, they are welcome to write, produce and direct their own documentary with their own point of view.
If Moore were touting himself as a journalist, I would say that he needs to include another point of view. But he does not consider himself to be a journalist. I am a journalist and I am required to *not* have a point of view on anything.
Most of the movie is based on the same information that Moore used to write his most recent book "Dude, Where's My Country."
The book contains footnotes and a section on reference materials. Most of the references come from easy-to-find articles from publications such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press and the New Yorker. These are mainstream news organizations (and whether or not you think they spew distorted facts--yes I get offended when my profession is maligned) and are not obscure niche publications.
Anything he asserts can be easily cross-checked.

[Marigold]

Thanks, Bellydancer, for your imput.

Ribbon - I don't think MM is simply trying to *entertain* here - though, in fact, parts of his movie are quite funny- but other parts are just wrenching to see.

Fact is, he presents alot of valid information. On his website, he responds, as well, to some in the news media who are discounting the info he uses.

I think for many, myself included, there will be much info that is new - and surprising.
He has and shows footage that he was given that you won't see on mainstream news shows.

I still maintain, -the movie is not one-sided - it is showing the Full side of it.
If you are just going to be entertained - I think that is a waste of this great movie - but go even for that.

It's an important movie and records are being broken in terms of the numbers of people - Republicans included - who are seeing it.

I doubt that they are going to see this just for fun.
Anyone who thinks it's just going to be a laugh-fest are in for a surprise.
-Marigold:sun

[bellydancer]

Thanks for the feedback, Marigold.
You are absolutely right. This film is not a laugh-fest.
My boyfriend and I spent about two hours talking about it afterwards (our matinee was sold out and some people in the audience gave a standing ovation). Then we went to dinner and talked about it then. Then we went home and lay in bed talking about it. Then we woke up and talked about it over breakfast.
It struck a nerve with both of us, and we were already aware of much of what he was going to say.

[shortstop]

Marigold,
I was wondering why you were okay with viewing certain footage that MM has in his movie? You before said that you were not going to view footage like that. Don't you think the terrorists would be happy to know that Americans are paying outrageous prices to see what they did to other humans? (Like they would have been to know that the Nick Berg video was being searched for?)
I agree with :ribpink this is a mockumentary. There is a high entertainment value to it. Unfortunately I think that the demographic it targets isn't proactive enough to know anything else about what is going on.

[Catherose]

I just saw it.

I thought it was a very powerful movie,a nd I'm glad it came out before elections because I think it could possibly influence how people vote (except that I think the majority of its audience was already against Bush to begin with). I liked how there was less of Moore actually in the movie (unlike Bowling) and that it was nearly all archived footage.

Some things I didn't like- he used a lot of extremely short clips that were not dated or identified- I think it could have been all too easy to take clips out of context, and because of this I didn't feel like I could neccessarily trust everything. One example- all the pictures of Bush saying "Iraq" and "Al Quada" at completely different times, different speeches, combined into one convenient little montage.

Some of the film's humor disturbed me a bit. First of all, I think that certain scenes (cowboy movies, Dragnet, etc) will cause the film to lose credibility in the eyes of conservatives- the people who most NEED to see it. It was also a bit confusing emotionally to be thrown back and forth between humorous and devastating scenes.

The humor and the bombardment of short scenes with no verifiable context made it feel a little bit "MTV"- I guess that ties into the mockumentary thing that Ribbon and Shortstop noticed. I can't quite articulate what bothered me... maybe it felt a little too "Hollywood," in that sense, ironically enough.

I also noticed that Michael Moore plays bluegrass whenever he wants something to appear silly.

[Marigold]

You :fishy's are giving some interesting feedback here.

Like Bellydancer, i have discussed this movie alot w/several people - not all of them "liberal". My supervisor at work, who is not particularly liberal at all, saw the movie w/his wife and both were blown away by it. At the show he attended, people clapped at the end of it - just as at the showing I attended.

If you go to www.michaelmoore.com, you can find feedback from people in all states re: this movie. Many of them are *Not* Democrats.

So, I think to say that this is targeted just for us "liberals" is inaccurate - and to also say, as you did, Shortstop - that we, the presumed targeted group of liberals are not "proactive" enough to know about anything else that is going on??? Well, that's just a *bit* patronizing, I think. Or could it be wishful thinking???:sarcasm

You ask: Why did I see this movie - even w/upsetting war imagery?
Let's remember that *context* is very important here. MM is showing this stuff to get us all to reflect on it - not to install weakness in our hearts like the terrorists who killed Nick Berg.
He's also showing the countless number of flag-draped coffins of the men and women who have died in this war - something that has been censored by mainstream powers.

SS - have you *Seen* the movie yet? Are you going to? Because, if not, I have to factor this in when I read your comments.
As for this being a "mockumentary" - Like I said, there was alot of stuff that was very very hard to sit through - alot of pain and grief. It affected me deeply.

Catherose,
Thanks for posting your review of it.
He did use many news clips - and I am sure he will be able to justify this if asked for. He was very careful in editing this movie.
I wasn't bothered by the humor - that's his style - and I feel he uses it to good purpose.
He's not trying to be funny just to make us laugh. The context of the humor is always at the expense of people like Bush and his cronies.
It's really outrage disguised as humor - and some of the clips are very funny indeed.
But - it is intermixed w/painful, serious footage too.
I have no problem laughing and crying w/this movie.
Life is like that too - funny and sometimes devastating. Sometimes even at the same time.

I don't feel the humor will make this movie lose credibility - humor, in fact, can make the point in a more devastating way sometimes. MM is a master at this.

Like him/hate him - the fact is - He is trying to make a difference in the world. He is succeeding.

How many of us can really say the same?
We don't have to feel bad - I'm not trying to shame anyone. I don't go out and try to save the world.

But Michael Moore - a guy who came from Flynt Michigan - of which several scenes are shown in this movie which look like war zones - has taken his guts, intelligence and media savvy and put it all to good use.

Like I said: you don't have to agree w/all of what he says -
But, dammit - he really cares.
Someone like this is not just going to throw crap at us to make us laugh - and then go back to our comfortable, status quo thinking.
He wants to *challenge* us to :digdeep.

Anyone else who tosses this movie off w/the "mockumentary" stuff - well, you definately have a right to your opinion.

But I will feel you missed something really *essential* about this movie.
And hey, if you haven't seen it? My feeling is you are protecting yourself from it's power.
That's also your right - but I can't take seriously anyone's comments who state them from a place of not seeing the movie.

If you see the movie and still really hate it - well, hey, at least you made the effort to be open-minded.
-Marigold:sun

[Vicks]

Like him/hate him - the fact is - He is trying to make a difference in the world. He

This is exactly how I feel. As you said:

How many of us can really say the same?

Me, I know I make a difference in this world, by volunteering as a big sister. I am firm beleiver that people need to get out and help people, and do more. If eveyrone had just a little bit more passion and desire to change things and make things better imagine how much could be accomplished.

Vicks

[bellydancer]

I don't understand how this could be considered a mockumentary. I also don't think it's entirely fair for someone to label it as such without seeing it.
A mockumentary is a work of fiction. The characters in "A Mighty Wind," and "Best of Show" were not real people, although they were inspired by people who belong to certain subcultures.
This is not a mockumentary, Moore simply presents the information in a way that at times can be construed as being humorous.
Last I checked, George W. Bush was the real person who sits in the oval office and we were involved in a war in Iraq.
Like I said before, all of what he says has been documented in mainstream publications.

[Catherose]

Marigold, it seems like you have absolute, unwavering faith in everything Michael Moore says.

To those who have not seen it, please go in with a critical eye- understand that film can be manipulated, and that you should question propaganda from both sides. I encourage people to read reviews of the movie as well. I would love to hear how the Bush administration responds to this... if they do respond.

[Vicks]

So far I think the only thing the Bush adminstratin has done is try to prevent advertisments for it from being aired because of campaign finance issues.

I haven't seen the film yet, plan on it htis weekend, I still admire the fact that:

At least he is doing something when so many many people don't do anything

He actually has said that "he has an agenda with this movie, that it is "his take" on things.

The only thing I hope that really comes out of this movie is that:

People take action no matter what their political beleifs that people start becoming more involved in their communities and their country.

vicks

[Marigold]

Catherose,
Thankyou for your review. You had some serious questions about the movie, but still found it useful, if I read your review right.

I, on the other hand, found just about all of this movie very believable.
This does not mean I do not have the ability to think critically.
MM is a hero to me for his guts, intelligence and ability.
No, he's not perfect (who, exactly, is???). I don't feel he has to be perfect, or his movie absolutely perfect.

I did read that he went over the movie again and again, editing it - so that accusations of "untrue" and "exaggeration" could be met and delt with - because, obviously, there are any number of people who hate the message of this movie and would like to discredit it any way they can.

What I find so compelling about this movie is that MM is doing more than just criticizing Bush - he is showing how the paradigm of absolute power corrupts.

This is not a message many want to know. It's very upsetting to think that even the government of such an "advanced" country like the USA could possibly turn on us.
But they can and they have.
I view the "Patriot Act" in this light.

I'm sorry we don't agree - but need we?
I don't, actually, have total, unwavering belief in *Everything* Anybody says, just to set you straight on that.

I do find that some remarks here are definately questioning my ability to view this movie in a fair light.
I guess that's par for the course, since I'm questioning some of you :fishy's in the same way - but at least I've seen the movie.

As I said, getting into a hissy fit or being petty about all this is not my goal.
Fahrenheit Nine/Eleven is too important for that.

I want to thank Vicks and Bellydancer for bringing up some excellent points.

I also thank you, Catherose, for your review.
-Marigold:sun

[battgyrll]

I haven't seen the movie (becuase I live in a small town and it probably won't ever get here. I'm thinking about driving an hour and a half to the nearest movie theater that has it.) But I wanted to express one fear that I have about it.

I'm afraid it will be the next Ralph Nader.

Granted, the last election was scrtewy, no matter how you look at it. But poor Nader has been used as a scapegoat for the way it turned out. Maybe it's deserved, but the thing about it is, we'll never know.

I'm afraid that Bush will lose (okay, well, I'm not afriad of that, I would welcome that:winky) and the Bush supporters will be walking around, blaming this movie.

As a non-Bush supporter, I am glad it came out near the election. in a way. But in another way, I'm not. I would like to see him lose becuase he lost, not becuase people will balme this movie.

Does that make sense? I hope I'm not stepping over any lines or on anyone's toes. I'm not trying to offend anyone, it's just a thought I have.

:bat battgyrll :bat
Sara

[Marigold]

Battgyrll,

Please don't feel afraid of expressing your opinion.

Regarding the movie "defeating" Bush - well, Michael Moore has said that he wants it to do just that. He's not shy about expressing his hopes that his movie will convince fence-sitters to vote against Bush.

If they do - this movie might very well have a part in convincing them - but I believe that will be due to the strength of the movie's message - and the fact that many who see it will be affected by it.

I really think Bush has only himself to blame if this movie does influence voters.
My opinion is: if Bush wasn't so arrogant and foolish, the movie would have alot less to lampoon. As MM said, he wishes Bush could see the movie because, after all, "He has the best lines" in it.
-Marigold:sun

[Catherose]

Marigold, you're right, I found the movie useful but still had some questions. He just goes through all the evidence so quickly and doesn't usually quote the sources (except for the long list during the credits of places where he got footage from). We could be misled- not that we are being misled- but I hope that people consider other possibilites as they watch. I say this becasue I believe that the movie's prime audience will be people who already hate Bush and already support Michael Moore- fans of Bowling for Columbine, Stupid White Men, etc. These people will probably love the movie, agree with everything, and maybe not ask the same questions I am. Kind of like what shortstop said about the audience not being "proactive" enough- if people hear what they want to hear (Bush is a corrupt asshole), they may not bother to investigate the validity of M.M.'s claims. Far too many people just follow the leader, pick a side and stay with it- on both ends of the political spectrum. I think that Michael Moore's filmmaking encourages this because it's so heavily emotional, so interested in portraying Bush not just as a bad president, but as an arrogant, stupid, and EVIL man.

It becomes so black and white. Bush is EVIL, Moore is a working-class hero fighting hard and honestly for the common man.

Maybe it really is that simple. I just encourage people to do more than watch the movie absorb the movie, and go home. See what ther people have to say about it- there are reviews ALL over the web. Maybe some people out there have information that we don't- see what it is.

And Marigold, I don't think you're simple or uncritical. But you have no problem at all challenging how I or others think (as you said), so I felt comfortable doing the same.

-Catherine

[Marigold]

Catherose,

I don't expect not to be challenged by you - or anyone here.

And I know I do my fair share of challenging too.

Time will tell how MM's movie stands up. I do not know for Sure that all he says in the movie is definately, one hundred percent true.

Certainly it's valid to question the movie - but what I see here is alot of people just attacking it outright for it's message.

I do not see a reason to question the movie because he puts emotion into it. I never thought that emotion and intellect need be separate, though.

Also - I do wonder how much people ever think to question their own government - which, it has been shown time and time again, will lie to us for their own gain.

That's true of democrat regimes as well as Republican ones.

The interesting think about Michael Moore is that he has been critical of Clinton during his presidancy too.
Not for foolishness like the "Monica" affair - but for meatier, more valid reasons.

So I don't see him as hating Bush only - I see him as hating policies and practices of certain forms of government.

I'm sure he's a liberal Democrat, but that doesn't make him "bad".

He's an Amercian. And a patriotic one at that.

Seems to me that the Republican party has almost taken over "Patriotism" - like they are the only ones who can be "patriotic" - and if you don't feel/belive as they do, you aren't - so I am thrilled that someone like MM uses his voice to present a different view - albeit no less patriotic.

Yes - he does think the policies of the Bush administration are evil -as for Bush himself, I get the sense, at least through this movie, that he sees Bush as a spoiled, arrogant fool who is also greedy and not at all worried about how his policies affect Americans.

I think he does a good job showing why he feels this way in "Fahrenheit Nine Eleven.

I guess that's really my main point - it's a great movie w/alot to say and I repeat: not just Democrats or Liberals are seeing it.
-Marigold:sun

[Vicks]

Cathrinerose - YOu mentioned how you feel that the movie won't be seen by people who tend to be "for Bush" I had a comment.

You know the movie "The Passion" Well, one would think that the only people who would want to see it were "true beleivers" well you know what "where I work which is Non-Profit Jewish Organization" They organized a trip to go see it. People went after work a few douzen of them, to see it. Their opnion when they left? It wasn't accurate, and it would cause a rise in "Anti-Semitism"

I guess, what I am saying is that "perhaps all of those people who support Bush will go see this movie, just like those who know they don't agree with MM movie might go"

Vicks

[Marigold]

I think this movie will be seen by alot of people who feel disenfranchised by Bush and his power-"elites" - people who struggle to pay their bills. Here's a news article from today's New York Times that explains this more fully:

"Dude, Where's That Elite?
By BARBARA EHRENREICH

Published: July first, two thousand and four

You can call Michael Moore all kinds of things — loudmouthed, obnoxious and self-promoting, for example. The anorexic Ralph Nader, in what must be an all-time low for left-wing invective, has even called him fat. The one thing you cannot call him, though, is a member of the "liberal elite."

Sure, he's made a ton of money from his best sellers and award-winning documentaries. But no one can miss the fact that he's a genuine son of the U.S. working class — of a Flint autoworker, in fact — because it's built right into his "branding," along with flannel shirts and baseball caps.

My point is not to defend Moore, who — with a platoon of bodyguards and a legal team starring Mario Cuomo — hardly needs any muscle from me. I just think it's time to retire the "liberal elite" label, which, for the past twenty five years, has been deployed to denounce anyone to the left of Colin Powell. Thus, last winter, the ultra-elite right-wing Club for Growth dismissed followers of Howard Dean as a "tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show." I've experienced it myself: speak up for the downtrodden, and someone is sure to accuse you of being a member of the class that's doing the trodding.

The notion of a sinister, pseudocompassionate liberal elite has been rebutted, most recently in Thomas Frank's brilliant new book, "What's the Matter With Kansas?," which says the aim is "to cast the Democrats as the party of a wealthy, pampered, arrogant elite that lives as far as it can from real Americans, and to represent Republicanism as the faith of the hard-working common people of the heartland, an expression of their unpretentious, all-American ways, just like country music and Nascar."

Like the notion of social class itself, the idea of a liberal elite originated on the left, among early twentieth-century anarchists and Trotskyites who noted, correctly, that the Soviet Union was spawning a "new class" of power-mad bureaucrats. The Trotskyites brought this theory along with them when they mutated into neocons in the sixties, and it was perhaps their most precious contribution to the emerging American right. Backed up by the concept of a "liberal elite," right-wingers could crony around with their corporate patrons in luxuriously appointed think tanks and boardrooms — all the while purporting to represent the average overworked Joe.

Beyond that, the idea of a liberal elite nourishes the right's perpetual delusion that it is a tiny band of patriots bravely battling an evil power structure. Note how richly the E-word embellishes the screeds of Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and their co-ideologues, as in books subtitled "Rescuing American from the Media Elite," "How Elites from Hollywood, Politics and the U.N. Are Subverting America," and so on. Republican right-wingers may control the White House, both houses of Congress and a good chunk of the Supreme Court, but they still enjoy portraying themselves as Davids up against a cosmopolitan-swilling, corgi-owning Goliath.

Yes, there are some genuinely rich folks on the left — Barbra Streisand, Arianna Huffington, George Soros — and for all I know, some of them are secret consumers of French chardonnays and loathers of televised wrestling. But the left I encounter on my treks across the nation is heavy on hotel housekeepers, community college students, laid-off steelworkers and underpaid schoolteachers. Even many liberal celebrities — like Jesse Jackson and Gloria Steinem — hail from decidedly modest circumstances. David Cobb, the Green Party's presidential candidate, is another proud product of poverty.

It's true that there are plenty of working-class people — though far from a majority — who will vote for Bush and the white-tie crowd that he has affectionately referred to as his "base." But it would be redundant to speak of a "conservative elite" when the ranks of our corporate rulers are packed tight with the kind of Republicans who routinely avoid the humiliating discomforts of first class for travel by private jet.

So liberals can take comfort from the fact that our most visible spokesman is, despite his considerable girth, an invulnerable target for the customary assault weapon of the right. I meant to comment on his movie, too, but the lines at my local theater are still prohibitively long.

Barbara Ehrenreich will be a guest columnist for the Op-Ed page through July. Thomas L. Friedman is on book leave for three months."

(I changed most of the numbers to spellings of them for easier reading)

Hey, :fishy's - if you haven't seen "Fahrenheit Nine/Eleven yet -
Get Out and See It Today!:yay :yay :yay
-Marigold:sun

[SanFran]

I saw the movie yesterday. Very powerful indeed, even moore so (pun intended! :muhaha) than I thought.

I did not agree with the conspiracy theory re: the bin ladens and bush, but I see no reason not to believe the war footage and sad facts about recruitment. Unfortunately, I already knew much of the truth about the working class being responsible for fighting for us. I was pretty shocked with the music the military was listenting to though! :surprise

I think we all should see this movie...go with an open mind and healthy skepticism....to Moore AND his critics.

[Tashawashere]

I'm not Republican or Democrat, I'm independent. I supported Bush in the last election though I won't be voting for him this time.

The movie is not a mockumentary. I went to see it with a couple of friends from school yesterday. I didn't like it at first cause he wasn't really saying anything new, just bashing Bush and that gets old, but eventualy he got around to the facts and he backed up what he was saying and just showed the real story. I might have walked out at first if I'd been alone because I thought it would just be propaganda with no real substance but once he got rolling, he presented a lot of information that the public SHOULD know, and I had a lot of respect for that and for him. He can be biased which I think is his one drawback but he can be very intelligent too and in this case, his ability to ferret out the truth took precedence over his ability to disseminate propaganda and I think this is a film that is really worth seeing so everyone can make up their own minds.

Peace out.

[Vicks]

So I finally saw this movie, yeah!! What did I think?

First of all I think the cinnematography was great. The way he used music, camera angles, messhing of information, was extremely well done. The way the movie started was unique and passion evoking.

Now to content:

I found that overall it was very informative. There were certain things that I didn't know, like the Taliban leader coming to Texas, for a "tour" in twothousand One. That bothered me, since the Taliban had been abusing women and other people for years at that time.

I also liked the A.B.C. way he explained Halaburtin, because honestly? I haven't followed it all that much, and when I do hear "sound bites" I do not know what they mean, so having it explained was good. I also liked how he "Wasn't" in it a much as he has been in his other films. He used footage more.

I also am glad he did show some of the more "gorry" parts of "War", what the US gets on the news, is often very "Sanitized" compared to what other countries get, so I am glad he didn't shy away from showing thins.

I also think he did portray a slant, as he himself has said, it is "his view", but certain facts are facts. And one of those facts is that ONLY ONE U.S. Congressman has a Child who is in the Milatary.

I do think he covered a lot, and I wonder if he perhaps "covered to much", he really did cover a lot of different topics. That being said tho, I think the topics were covered in a good way.

Ultimately tho, I hope it gets people talking, animated, interested in politics. As I left I heard a woman say "watching this movie makes you want to go out and do something" My thinking was "then go out and do something" With the lack of knowledge bout the political process in the US, being so rampanet, if this movie get energize, then it has done something very remakable.

Vicks

[Marigold]

:stars:fishy's:stars,

Thankyou for these reviews!
I think when people see reviews (not all of them totally positive, but on the whole, balanced and considered) they might be willing to check out this movie.

Of course you can always wait for the DVD - probably he'll have additional stuff on it to offer.

But me, I like to show support for a movie w/balls (pardon my language)!

Re: conspiracy theories - I think people are right, in general, to be skeptical of them and to question them.

But let's not forget they can actually be true! Conspiracies do exist.
I found it very believable, the ties between Bush and the Saudis.

The author of "House of Bush/House of Saud" speaks in this movie of all the connections.

Sounds like a great book (can't remember the author's name) - one that I will be looking into.

Thanks again - and anyone else w/a review - Any kind of review:winky - please feel free to post it here.
-Marigold:sun

[MegaVictory]

Movies are fiction, like "The Tail that Wagged the Dog" about Clinton. There have also been videos on the Clinton conspiracies, about Clinton killing his friends. Like Whitewater, where numerous people mysteriously died or disappeared, who ODed, or accidentally shot themselves in back of the head, when having to testify the next day. And oh, let's don't forget, Vince Foster. Who couldn't keep his hands off Hillary, so he accidentally showed up murdered in a park. So, the movie F-Nine Eleven, I wouldn't put too much faith in it being that much true. It sure is fun to have conspiracies, very entertaining, I mean after all, our government killed John Kennedy, yeah right, and there is an area ********, like, haven't you all seen the little green monsters they put in movies everyday? So, let's keep it in perspective. This site is a wonderful site, for people express a lot of opinions. And you know what opinions are like. But just a little bit different take, from some of the other views. And who trusts an outsider's view on US policies (MM is Canadian), done in Hollywood, where anything goes morailty-wise, as it hates conservative views. And afterall, July ****th, represents our independence, which we freely celebrate, if it wasn't for a few good presidents, Republican and Democrat, making choices to defend or to go into war in other countries, we wouldn't be celebrating at all. Let me know if there are anymore of these movies. I love conspiracy movies.

[battgyrll]

Actually, MM is not Canadian, he ws born and raised in America (Michigan, where his dad worked for an auto plant).

And "Wag the Dog" was never actually said to be about Clinton. The names weren't the same or even similar, and that movie was absolutely a work of fiction. "Farenheit nine eleven" uses actual video and newsclips of Bush, etc. I don't really think the two movies are comparable.

:bat battgyrll :bat
Sara

[Vicks]

Ditto Batygrl - the two movies can't be compared at all, not in even in the same catergory.

Vicks

[lexie]

I just saw the movie and I cried...I cried out of anger that this is happening and I cried out of sorrow :mad :cry Even if you took away the biased commentary, so many of the images speak for themselves :touched...INNOCENT people dying on both sides
...and well, Bush blabbling speaks for itself...the man puts his foot in his month so often that you can't help but shake your head
and a quick note...it's funny how Moore's theories are all referred to as "conspiracy" ....even though some of it seemed exagerated, these "conspiracy" theories are reported as legitimate news in other countries...Moore is a smart guy but he is not so original that much of what he said has not been stated before...all you have to do is read a foreign newspaper. :ohboy
:peace out

[Shauna]

I have seen this documentary as well as Bowling for Columbine.

There is one thing that stands out from BFC. According to Mr. Moore, there were one hundred sixty eight deaths related to guns in Canada, and over eleven thousand in the US. What about the population though? According to www.cia.gov there are over two-hundred and ninety-three million people in the US, and just over thirty-two million in Canada. Isn't that a factor in the numbers?

Don't get me wrong, I liked both movies. I tend to believe that Bush is somehow connected to the Bin Laden's. To me, it explains why he went after Hussein and not Osama.

I wasn't impressed with his footage of the war. I left to get a snack at some point and came back to the footage. He skillfully left out most footage from nine/eleven, why include what was going on in the war? Then there was the part of the public beheading I also wasn't prepared for.

I was glad he talked about the terrorist threat and that stupid alert system. Ya know, the one that goes to high numbers during holidays? I've long since thought that completely and utterly stupid. Terrorists would be more likely to attack on a day when the threat is down, when people are going to be caught off guard.

I don't necessarily believe everything that Moore tells us. I wish that I could have some of the movie justified, as I justified the number of gun deaths in the first part. I'm NOT for Bush, but can anyone really say nine/eleven wouldn't have happened if Bush wasn't in office? Moore seems awfully quick to blame Bush for it. I don't, never did, and never will. I had thought the last attack was when Bush Sr. was in office, but according to Moore, it was eight years ago when Clinton was in office. You really do have to go in to the movie with an open mind.

[Marigold]

Thanks again to people's reviews here - it's great that people are actually getting out and seeing the movie.

Michael Moore is one hundred percent American.

He loves his country so much that he's not afraid to show the ugly truth when that is warranted.

He's smart, he's funny and you can tell from Fahrenheit Nine/Eleven, he's also really pissed off about all the shit that's been happening.

Re: war footage and other tough to sit through footage - I was very moved by it all.

He shows this stuff in a balanced way to help the viewer understand why so much people are in such deep pain.

I'm going to see it again to really absorb all the information he presents - and he gives out alot.

The actual footage he shows - stuff the media has suppressed - will blow away the mind of any one who's kept theirs even half-way open.
-Marigold:sun

[Sylphlover]

But I do believe: knowledge is power. It's better to know than to not know. It's better to not dig your head in the sand and keep it there - no matter how much it hurts to look up

Amen Marigold you said it all sista!!!!

I can't wait to see it this weekend. Will comment after seeing it and I have not read to many others comments on it because I want to see it first so I can state my own opinion. I can't wait though!!

[gone]

I have 't seen this yet- and I plan to- but a question for all of you :fishy

What's the difference between a movie and a documentary?

Is a movie a documentary because the author says it is? Or is there some sort of a requirement?

I'm apt to think that all documentaries are movies, in a way, because the footage that someone selects is guided by their ideas and theme they want to address.

Is this documentary really unbiased because Moore says it is?

[Marigold]

Sylphlover - I'm so glad you're going to see it.
If you can put in a review, that will be great too!

GreenAngel - you can go to www.michaelmoore - to find out what he, the maker of this documentary, really thinks.

Basically, he is not shy about what he hopes his movie will do - upset Bush and get him Out of the Whitehouse.

It's a documentary because he is using actual footage to back his opinions - and real people, not actors.

He's taking a strong side (I don't feel it's one-sided as other :fishy's have argued, but I do see how it can be seen that way) - and then using everything in his power to back up his position.

I found it thrilling - sad - funny - extremely thought-provoking to see.

I hope you will see it and then form an opinion on it based on your actual viewing of it.

Hate it or love it - it will definately make a person think.
-Marigold:sun

[Marigold]

:stars:fishy's:stars,

Since there has been alot of accusation in the media as to the truthfulness of Fahrenheit Nine/Eleven, I wanted to post this from MM's webiste:

"In the next week or so, I will recount my adventures through the media this past month (I will also be posting a full FAQ on my website soon so that you can have all the necessary backup and evidence from the film when you find yourself in heated debate with your conservative brother-in-law!). For now, please know the following: Every single fact I state in "Fahrenheit ****/********" is the absolute and irrefutable truth. This movie is perhaps the most thoroughly researched and vetted documentary of our time. No fewer than a dozen people, including three teams of lawyers and the venerable one-time fact-checkers from The New Yorker went through this movie with a fine-tooth comb so that we can make this guarantee to you. Do not let anyone say this or that isn't true. If they say that, they are lying. Let them know that the OPINIONS in the film are mine, and anyone certainly has a right to disagree with them. And the questions I pose in the movie, based on these irrefutable facts, are also mine. And I have a right to ask them. And I will continue to ask them until they are answered."

I think, in his own words, he sums up this movie's stance. He's honest, up-front and, from what I've read, going to sue anyone in the public eye who defames him.

Also: much talk is being generated in the media about how this movie is, supposedly, only something "left-wingers" would support.

Facts dispute that claim. Many, many Military families across the nation are loving this film. They are glad someone finally has the nerve and verve to say it like it is.
They don't want to fight a war for nothing.
-Marigold:sun

[Mountainbreeze]

I have not seen Bowling for Columbine or Fahrenheit Nine/Eleven, so at this time, can offer no opinion.

It seems to me that Michael Moore is either legit (right on target) or just the opposite. I think IF what he is portraying is not factual, then he's presenting very damaging propaganda to the public. In that case, I think both his intention and influence should not be underestimated. IF what he portrays is factual, then what our current administration has set in motion is beyond frightening.

A friend of mine sent me this link. Would be interested in any opinions.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Breeze

[Marigold]

Mountainbreeze,

Thanks for your imput.

I feel: agree/disagree w/Moore's *opinions* about the *facts* that he uncovers -

either way, he's bringing to light things most people in high places want suppressed - or at least overlooked.

Moore gives an interview in this weeks "Entertainment Weekly" in which he speaks on how virtually no lawsuits have been brought against him - one that was, he won.

He's *extremely* careful about this as he knows very well many would just Love to invalidate him - and try very hard to -

Hence all the websites, such as the link you have provided, and all the books that try to do this.

The fact that "Fahrenheit Nine/Eleven speaks to *so many* people - across the board - liberal And conservative -

well, to me, this indicates that people, in general, are tired of being lied to - and they don't think Moore is the one doing the lying.

He's passionate about America.
He wants America to actually live up to the ideals of our founding fathers.

I strongly feel: He's a true American. I think all the thousands who love this movie and are very moved by it agree.

Also: It's important to realize that a dissenting voice such as his will always make those who do wrong in high places very nervous and angry. The media, which is supposedly so "liberal" just plays right along.

To discredit such a voice - well, unfortunately, that's as American as apple pie these days which such a conservative atmoshere in the country.
We don't want to believe our truth tellers - until it's too late.

I think alot of people, though, are seeing things in a whole new way after seeing "Fahrenheit Nine/Eleven".

Mountainbreeze, I urge you to see Nine/Eleven - and think about this in your Own way After seeing the movie.

Otherwise, you won't Really know what you think and feel about it. Everything you *think* you know about it will just be second-hand opinions.
-Marigold:sun

[Mountainbreeze]

Mountainbreeze, I urge you to see Nine/Eleven - and think about this in your Own way After seeing the movie. Otherwise, you won't Really know what you think and feel about it. Everything you *think* you know about it will just be second-hand opinions.


Marigold, thank you for such an interesting post. It has encouraged me to see the film. I agree with you - Without seeing it, one can form no valid opinion.


sflathinker said, "Here's why I have a problem. Ultimately, he is doing exactly what the media is doing...promoting his beliefs and using his voice to sway the pubic. Unfortunately, too many people can't think for themselves and will side with whatever the popular belief of the moment happens to be. Not all, mind you, but I wish people would form their own opinions without feeling the need to sway everyone to their side. Or feel the need to be quiet in fear that no one will agree with them. I am all for opening the public's eyes to every side of the coin, but is he doing that? Or is this his way of ousting Bush?"

I ask too, Is Michael Moore opening the public's eyes to all sides of the coin? You may argue, that to speak his mind and illuminate the public, he does not have to. In theory, I would agree, but isn't there danger in swaying the public without presenting both sides?

Is this a reason to not go see the movie? Of course not.

Is it a reason to go in with a closed mind that MM is full of hoo-ey and has nothing valid to offer? Not at all.

Is it a reason to go in with a questioning mind, prepared to deeply question what is being presented "as fact?" YOU BET!! In the same way, (and I draw no comparison to Michael Moore being a politician) that I would question what any politician says.... in the same way I question what's been presented by the Bush administration as fact.

There is always criticism from those who don't agree and are ready to use whatever means they can find (ligit and unlegit) to discredit someone. However, I question the way Michael Moore puts together his films.

Bear in mind... I am not a Bush supporter and haven't seen nine/eleven.

When I see this film (feel safer terming it this way instead of a movie, documentary, or mockumentary :winky), I will do my best to go in with an open mind, but I will tell you, it will be a questioning one.

Marigold, in case you're wondering why I haven't seen Fahrenheit, the answer is twofold. I'm feeling effects of working very long hours and with what's currently pressing in my life, I'm seeking diversion -not at this time to plunge into the sadness I'm sure this film offers. That doesn't mean I will stick my head in the sand and not see it at a future time.

Shauna said, "Then there was the part of the public beheading I also wasn't prepared for"

I have spoken to several people who have seen the film. No one has described such footage. Does this film contain footage of a beheading?

I hope people who read this post come away with the following -

fish of hope said, "I think we all should see this movie...go with an open mind and healthy skepticism....to Moore AND his critics."

Catherose said, "To those who have not seen it, please go in with a critical eye- understand that film can be manipulated, and that you should question propaganda from both sides. I encourage people to read reviews of the movie as well."

Breeze

[Marigold]

Hey:starsMountainBreeze:stars,

I respect and admire the fact that even though you have reservations, you still want to see Fahrenheit Nine/Eleven.

Moore has said that he presents "facts" - but that his conclusions made from those facts can be argued with if one desires. I find his conclusions reasonable.

I always feel about the "truth" that no one totally holds the Complete version of it - I really feel this.

But I see MM as someone who wants to uncover what, normally, we would never see or know about.

It's certainly clear that he is not a Bush supporter! But he makes no bones about that and says, through his movie, Why he feels/thinks as he does.

It does contain some heavy footage. The beheading is a brief film clip shown at a great distance (I felt) - not right up close.

There is footage of bombings that is very painful to sit through. And people's deep sadness and anger.
Not easy stuff.
But worth it, in my estimation.

There are also many funny moments.
He is a talented filmmaker.
Perhaps you might want to see the film, though, when it's on video.

In any case, I loved the movie - I am clear about that and why.
But I respect that many who see it are less enthused. But most everyone who sees it comes away from it moved in some way.

By the way - I feel that No one could present the Total Truth from Every Angle - I think we put a great burden on this movie if we expect that - and we are not putting a similar burden or expectation on the news we see and read, for the most part.

Anyway, good hearing from you Breeze.
-Marigold:sun

[Sylphlover]

Well, Michael Moore's politics are pretty obvious, but he really brings up some thought-provoking information in Farenheit ****/******** - I knew the Bush's were involved heavily in oil, but I didn't know the extent to which they were in bed w/ the Saudis. I also thought Moore really showed the human cost of the war in Iraq, both to the Iraqi people caught in the cross-fire and to the American soldiers who are serving over there. It was also pretty disconcerting to see the tack the Marine recruiters used in focusing on the lower to lower-middle classes of kids to fill shoes. I admit tho, that I was anti-Bush before I even stepped into the theater.

[Marigold]

Good points Sylph.

The interesting thing w/this movie is that it's not only anti-Bush, pro-Dems who are responding to it.

Even in conservative states, and in conservative areas people are giving it standing ovations.

I really think, despite Moore's personal politics, that it is a Human Interest movie that cuts across party lines and so forth.

After all, Nobody wants to see young people sent to war to die - for nothing. War should always be the Last resort whenever possible.
This film explores why this war did not have to be.
-Marigold:sun

[sunshynehip]

Saw it

Loved it

It really disturbed me when I saw the scene with the soldiers listening to "The roof is on fire" while blowing up Baghdad..Yikes - So sad - innocent soldiers being killed - innocent people being killed - bottom line - I HATE WAR

[Marigold]

Thanks for "adding your voice and review" to this thread, :starsSunny:stars!

That Was disturbing w/the soldiers listening to that music - but - I feel that they do this for a reason - to "psych" themselves up to kill - which, even in the armed forces is probably still very scary - to kill and especially Be killed! - so I guess they want to feel as invulnerable and untouched by the humanity of their enemy as they can. Intense music probably helps them "zone out".

-------------------------------------------------

For anyone who still doubts the accuracy of Moore's film - there is a segment on his website (www.michaelmoore.com) that shows how the conclusions of the Nine/Eleven commission and the facts in his film duplicate each other.

Anybody w/any more reviews - post them if you want to.
And please see this film, everybody!:yay
-Marigold:sun

[savagesoprano]

The person who posted before me mentioned that if any one doubted the accuracy of what MM had to portray in the movie, they should go to his website. That, to me, doesn't make any sense. If someone doubts the accuracy of his movie, why would they get his opinion on its accuracy? He is an anti-Bush, ultra-liberal with the agenda of kicking Bush out of office. I don't believe anyone with that agenda can portray the situation objectively and accurately. Why does he hate Bush? Because Bush is a conservative. Put it this way, if Clinton had done the same, there would have been a movie promoting what he did. Well, or it would be covered up. In ninety-three al-Quaeda(spelling?) put a truck bomb in one of the twin towers with the objective of bringing it down. And what did the Clinton administration do? They obviously didn't protect America, because it happened again!

[Marigold]

Savagesoprano -

Moore has also been critical of Clinton. If Kerry gets in - I daresay Moore will be critical of him.

Are you sure that you are seeing things clearly yourself? After all, you are a self-described conservative - and it's been my experience that people such as yourself often will not even see his film - so w/o doing that - or even visiting the website - how it is you think you can critique his movie fairly - or his views.

You say that it is pointless to listen to Moore - he is a liberal. Could I not make the same case about you- only reverse it to say: she is a "conservative" - therefore it is pointless to listen to her as she is biased?
-Marigold:sun

[savagesoprano]

I'm not saying it's "pointless" to listen to a liberal, I just think that a liberal making a movie bashing a president who is really hated by liberals can't possibly be objective.

[Marigold]

Why is "objective" so important?

Michael Moore is angry w/President Bush and his failures, mistakes and outright injustices (in Moore's view) - and he's made a film that shows why - and is honest about where he is coming from (he's clearly stated that he doesn't want Bush to be re-elected) -

If people who are conservative see this movie - and still feel Moore is inaccurate and crazy - then at least their opinion is an *informed* one.

In fact, many conservatives have seen the movie - and love it.

Truth is, Bush is beginning to upset alot of people - across the political spectrum.

Aside from that - if you haven't seen the movie - and it's clear you have not - I do not think you are in the best position to evaulate and/or judge it.

What, in this world, is ever purely "objective" anyway?
Certainly not the news we read and see on tv - though it makes us think it often is.

Besides - "objective" often means not having an opinion if it is likely to anger the power elite - something Michael Moore is not afraid to do - because he has integrity.

He wants a better world and a better president. His film shows why.

If you haven't seen it - you simply will not be able to form a coherent opinion about it.

If you did see it - and still hated it - or parts of it or most of it - I think that would be a position I could respect more.

But to bash it, sight unseen is unfair to me.
Having said that - whether or not you see it will not affect me, personally.
I just think it's a greally good film.
And I'm more willing to listen to someone who hated it - but at least saw it.
-Marigold:sun

[savagesoprano]

You are right...I should see the movie before I make any judgements..rather than basing my observations on what I've heard. I will see the movie..and I hope there's no hard feelings:peace

[Anonymous_Member009]

Micheal Moore needs to be nominated for another Emmy: best unsupporting actor. He's definitly good.

i have no intention on seeing this movie. and i think i can have an opinion of him and his propaganda without seeing it. i developed my opinion of him the first time i saw him on television. as an artist who understands the system of royalties, i refuse to add one dime to his income by seeing his movie.

to insist that people must see his movie - and thus pay money in support of him whether they think they are doing that or not - is not fair.

i refuse to pad his pockets.....just like their are art shows i refuse to see because i do not support them. its ridiculous to think a person can not have an opinion without seeing the movie.
the only thing seeing the movie does is pay royalty to a system that i absolutely do not agree with.

kinda like milking the wrong end of the cow, doesn't it seem?

[savagesoprano]

I completely agree with you, and I applaud you for voicing an opinion that isn't heard very much. I know i said in my last post that I would see the movie, and I still would like to do that when it comes out on video.

[Marigold]

Well, all I can say is that if a person sees the film, at least they will know what they are really talking about regarding it.

Picasso - it seems to me like you have an axe to grind - so I don't think we will find any common ground over any of this.

Your calling Moore an actor is attempting to undermine his credibility - and I don't think that's necessary, as one can still disagree w/his politics yet find him to be sincere. Just because he's media savy (and why shouldn't he be? - like the republicans aren't)???? does not negate his powerful message.

You seem really closed-minded to me about all this.

Savagesoprano - of course no hard feelings:peace - I know that there are people who are more liberal, lots who are more conservative - and everything in between.

I do, admire your intention to see the film - even if you wait for video. That's fine. You may still hate him and his movie - but you will be able to offer an *informed opinion* of the movie. And who knows? You might like the movie too - or parts of it. I feel you shouldn't let anyone close your mind - make your own mind up after seeing it.

I'm just being honest here when I sat that I can't take anyone's views seriously on this movie who refuses to see it (or read his books) - because, to me, that's like digging your head in the sand regarding the movie - and Michael Moore.

Especially since a *wide variety* of audiences are backing this movie - including military families and previous Bush supporters.

Alot of people in high places have tried to suppress not only this movie - but his last book too: "Dude Where's my Country" - so I have to think Moore has some serious (and heartfelt) things to say.

I think alot of people just don't want to hear his message - because it's a difficult one to digest - that our government would lie to us - in very serious ways - and risk young men and women in a pointless war (mass weapons of destruction, anyone? Where are they?)

Alot of people are angry at Bush - and they have good reason to be.
-Marigold:sun

[Anonymous_Member009]

i did not bring up anything about republicans or democrats. i said that i do not agree that a person must see the movie in order to have their own intelligent opinion. my response, and opinion of Micheal Moore, is because i AM a supporter of the war. in my opinion, we stopped a Hitler and i could care less if there weren't any WMD's. The rest of the world, including Americans, turned blindly away. WWII was a decent war that countries stood up for human rights. why not for Iraqi's? why not for African nations?

Bush, Kerry, Moore, Clinton, Gore, ....they all can go in for the same nomination. i don't consider politicians that far off from Hollywood's field either. i consider EVERY politician as potentially corrupted. i don't know whose lies to believe more.

but i do know for a fact that when i pay to see something, then i am financially supporting something. i haven't paid a dime to Bush/Cheney, and i won't be paying Moore either.

but i do participate in causes for women and children who live in poverty or repressed situations. I'm just being honest here when I sat that I can't take anyone's views seriously on this movie who refuses to see it (or read his books) - because, to me, that's like digging your head in the sand regarding the movie - and Michael Moore.
i may live in Florida, but i haven't been to the beach all summer.
and you're right....my opinion is pretty strong, but i don't think its fair to then classify me as close-minded.

[Marigold]

Picasso said:

"i may live in Florida, but i haven't been to the beach all summer."

Oh. Okay. Well, if you had been on the beach all summer long, I'd probably be envying you. I love the beach, actually.

I also don't care one way or the other if you haven't paid a dime to "support" MM's movie - (he's doing quite well even so!:muhaha) - and I wonder why you keep on posting on this thread - if you are so against him?

What's your point, really? That Moore is insincere?
I've already said I cannot agree with that.

Of course you can have your opinion - but for me it is an *uninformed opinion* - at least as regards Michael Moore's film.
You haven't seen it.
You don't know what you are really saying as concerns it.

So - for me, no matter what you say about this movie, I cannot help but see it as your opinion based on your beliefs about the movie - but not your actual experience of it.

Well fine. That's okay. You have the right to think and feel that way.

However, what, exactly, does WWII have to do w/any of this?
Actually, you don't have to answer that. You've made your postion clear - you support this war and you hate and condem Moore and his movie - so -

I think I get it.
I live in New Jersey and -

I haven't been on the turnpike all summer...you know.:ohboy
I comprehend that you hate Moore and hate his movie - and would Never see it.

But -

Enough have. So I'm perfectly fine w/you never seeing this movie.
It is your right, after all.
-Marigold:sun

[Anonymous_Member009]

i erroneously thought that this board was trying to allow opinions from all sides of the issue and that all were welcome to contribute.

[Catherose]

Picasso said: i erroneously thought that this board was trying to allow opinions from all sides of the issue and that all were welcome to contribute.

I agree! Let's try being a little bit more respectful. I enjoy hearing other people's opinions, and I don't want any negative attitudes here to discourage people from participating.

[MegaVictory]

I agree, and let's keep the focus. Afterall, these aren't personal issues we are defending, but current events, for heaven's sake!!! It's supposed to be a friendly board, here, where we SUPPORT each other, not argue.

[ribbon]

I haven't seen anything disrespectful on here. If I am deciding whether or not to go to a movie, I'm going to ask someone who has actually seen the movie, not just someone that may have read the reviews.
I also haven't seen the movie yet, though I can't wait to see it when it comes out on DVD, so I can't comment on the movie. I don't think that means I can't comment on Michael Moore, who I love to pieces. I love him because he speaks his mind and he is a man of action, not just complaints. I like that he doesn't mince words and doesn't feel like he has to talk up or down to anyone. I think he's funny as hell.
However, if Michael Moore espoused views which I didn't agree with, I probably wouldn't find him amusing at all :ohboy. I'd also probably want to state my opinions about my ideas about the appropriateness of the movie during an election year. I would also expect that people who disagreed with me would have a lot to say.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that we're talking about people's opinions and agreeing or disagreeing with them, not about the person herself. People can disagree about a topic and that doesn't mean they are being unsupportive of a person as a whole.
:hugonmarigold:hugoff

[savagesoprano]

I agree with ribbon in her last sentence about events relating to the topics, not ourselves. I don't know about the rest of you, but I am ultra-sensitive and take things personally, and because there aren't many ppl on the site that have the same political viewpoints as me, subconsiously I feel it is a personal attack, which is really absurd when I think about it. i think this is a sensitive area because we all are building ourselves and want to feel in the right. However, I do think that people should be able to have an opinion without having to have (in this case) seen the movie. I mean, MM has certain beliefs about our country that he supports in his productions. I mean, what you see is what you get. He's belongs to a certain political leaning that, in his movie, he's going to support.

[Marigold]

I never said people can't express their opinions here....

Also, respect should work *Both ways* in a thread too, I feel.

If someone disses his movie - and refuses to see it - that says alot to me.

-Marigold:sun

[Anonymous_Member009]

Marigold,
did i disrespect you? show me where??
i didn't diss YOU....but you attacked me. would you like me to point out where???
can i NOT have an intellectual opinion without seeing the movie....or is there only one way to arrive at it? it s not fair what you've done.

but regardless...you've done an effective job of chasing me out of here. apparently and probably your intention. i dissed his movie because i have a completely different opinion and i KNOW beyond a fact htat his movie did not go in and show my side. but according to you, because i'm not willing to see the movie, my opinion is completely irrelevant and invalid.

that hurt. it hurt enough for me to realize that you are not the type of person to exchange with. my opinion is just as valid as yours. but not welcome at all by you.

i apologize that you read what you read from me and that it made you lash out at me. i didn't deserve it.....at all.

i did not say anywhere that i HATE Micheal Moore. i disagree strongly with his opinion. do not attribute things to me that i did not say. lashing out here is not allowed. namecalling is not allowed.

my head is not in the sand.
i am an intelligent person who CAN arrive at informed decisions in different paths than you have.
my opinion is valid....whether i've seen the damn movie or not.
and yes i'm angry now. i'm hurt. and that quickly turned to anger.

[MrFishy]

I am closing this post.

We will be addressing this and this forum specifically soon.