The movie kicked ass. I don't care what other people say, I think everything in there is absolutely true and that the public should be more aware of the bullshit going on in the White House. And it should help bring Bush down. Kerry/Edwards '04.

No offense, but anyone who says "everything in [it] is absolutely true" about a Michael Moore film needs to stop blindly listening to liberal propaganda without actually researching it for themselves and coming up with their own results, unskewed by personal politics.

The movie did bring up some interesting points, but it does feel like a propaganda film. What happened to the Michael we all knew from "Stupid White Males" and "Bowling For Columbine"?
Oh, yeah; he became an attention-grabbing media whore, just like half the celebs in Hollywood.
He should be above that level.
But oh, well.

hehe, i liked the film

good cinematic editorial

its definitely moore's take on things whether or not his views are perfectly correct

as for moore himself, i view him as the left's version of someone like rush limbaugh

Farenheit 9/11 was a powerful film. I was very very pleased with Moore's preformance.

I cried and cried throughout the movie...Hey, what can I say! The truth hurts. =)

I think Moore was very persuasive. I believe every little word in that movie.

My FAVORiTE PART would have to be..the beginning scene where it shows how Bush cheated into office through Florida. =)

I hope everyone in America will see this movie and realize that the Bush Administration is ruining America and everything it stands for.

..next topic..

yeah, it was a great movie... btw, here's my review...

Review

i just hope that some people won't try to judge the film and say it's bad when they haven't seen all or any of this movie.  It's pretty clear that most of the supporters of bush hate the movie because... well, they support Bush.  So don't get influenced by these foolish people and judge the movie youselves by watching it.

regarding to the post by DrugsMalone, it is not liberal propaganda... it just happens to fall in line with the ani-Bush sentiment. 

I'm sure that Michael Moore is probably a liberal, BUT he does point out facts that Bush did wrong, so it is NOT liberal propaganda; if anything the conservatives seem to be doing much more propaganda to help boost Bush's slipping ratings in the polls.

you know,, i tried to look at this movie fairly.  When you see it,, it seems like a good film. But, as a political science/history nut,, i felt the need to ersearch it.  It really loses it's power when you see some fo the editing and flat out lying that is done in the picture.

But hell,, i think everyone knows if they are going to like it before they see it anyways.

http://www.geocities.com/phillylo/Passion.html  Scroll down to 6/29/04 and 6/30/04, The man's name is Scott I believe he has a very educated take on the whole subject, tell me what you think.

I haven't seen the film yet, but from what I've heard it's pretty much documenting how the Bush administration knew of the plot before hand and let it happen.  This wouldn't surprise me seeing how crooked Bush really is after his robbing the election in Florida (which when all the ballots were counted out, Gore, in fact, did win), his shameless bashing of John McCain in 2000 (and immediately afterwards, Gore).  Bush Jr. and the entire family are a bunch of crooks. 

However, it is important to also note that there are also conspiracy theories surrounding the 1993 bombing of the WTC that relates back to Clinton.  Apperently, FBI officials were notified about the bombing and the men planning it, but were told to allow it to proceed.  It goes to show the obvious corruption on both sides.

Vote Green 2004!!

The movie's purpose, as I see it, was to appeal to as wide a viewer-base as possible. As with most other Hollywood works, this means one thing - appealing to the lowest common denominator. Besides some fudging of the facts and some quotes/facts given out of context, my main problem with the movie was that every point was driven home repeatedly, to the point of redundance.

Point in case being the mother of the boy who died in Iraq. She got way too much screen time, and by her last appearance it began to feel as though she was being exploited by and possibly even coached by Moore. The film would have been better served by shorter clips/interviews with several such mothers.

These complaints notwithstanding, the film did an amazing job of living up to a dual-expectation - stupid people had to get it, and intellectual people had to be stimulated by it. To that end, I think the film was a major success. Although there were parts of the film that were tasteless and definitely propaganda-like in nature, there were some great ideas and wonderful factoids in there that make it worthwhile for everyone to see - even the educated choir that everyone thinks Moore is preaching to.

I was particularly intrigued by the Saudi Arabia facts - I've always thought that Bush was a pussy when it came to Saudi Arabia, that the media paints them as the source of much of the terrorist money/sentiment in the world, as well as in 9/11, but that Bush is scared of them. Now I know why - they make up 7-9% of the US economy!

All-in-all, 4/5 stars!

So much for debate, huh? Well, I'm a conservative lug, and here's the truth... Moore's entitled to his opinion, but his movie is factually inaccurate. He has been confronted with these factual inaccurasies many times, and his response is always that he is simply "telling the other side". Well, it's fine, and indeed good to hear many opinions, many views of what truth can be discerned from given facts, but the basis of this is all factual accuracy. Someone here compared Michael Moore to Rush Limbaugh.

There are some key differences, though. First of all, about 20 million people listen to Rush Limbaugh in a given week, Moore doesn't have nearly that kind of audience, though that by no means makes him correct. Secondly, Rush is very open about his politics, and makes no bones about what his purpose is. He says that he will not stop until everyone in the country agrees with him. Moore says that his purpose is firstly the art of the film, which I have no standing on which to critique. He has also said that his purpose is to "simply get people to see the other side" and again, he seems to do this regardless of whether what he says is factually accurate or not. He does not however admit that his primary objective is political, which anyone can clearly see. Perhaps the most important difference is that Moore tries to persuade by playing on your emotional reactions, because he is smart enough to know that to the average American, an initial emotional reaction will cause greater sway than any body of contrary factual logical evidence afterword. Rush Limbaugh bases his arguments in fact and logic, and rarely plays on emotions.

Oh, and one last note. There are some things in the movie that are have since been proven to be absolutely, completely factually inaccurate, some of which Moore knew about before finishing the movie, and when questioned gave the excuse of "presenting the other side of the argument"- an admission that what was said was inaccurate, but asserting that it is justifiable. Rush Limbaugh on the other hand uses an independent opinion auditing firm to check for his factual accuracy, and has therefore been able to be proven to be 98.4% right.

Let me give an example of where I do not fault Moore- The instance of Bush reading to school children on 9-11-01 and continuing to do so after he knew what had happened. This is factually true, and it is fair game for Moore to editorialize on why he thinks that behavior is bad or not what an American President should do, so on that particular note, though I disagree with Moore, I don't discredit him for that.

Ok, this will be the last point- Moore likes to assert that Bush sent the sons and daughters of fathers and mothers to die in Iraq. We have a volunteer army, and every one of those soldiers, including the 900+ who have died in Iraq made a personal decision to join the armed forces and serve their country. Bush didn't force them into military service, and their parents didn't send them. They made their own choice, and for that they are heroes.

i think that it was completely propaganda filled (though very interesting). before basing decions about the "facts" in the film to be true, you should research it first. indeed the documentary was very interesting.