Farenheit 9-11. How realistic?

[Ronn_Bman]

It wasn't playing at home on it's opening Friday, so I couldn't see it before I left on vacation Saturday. I was a bit disappointed that it wasn't playing on a single one of the nearly 75 screens in/around Myrtle Beach, SC, so we had to drive to Wilmington, NC to see it.

I had to drive 60 miles last Monday to see this film, but I wasn't disappointed. I must admit, it was everything I expected.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

I picked the center one. I love MM, but after all, Moore is the left's answer to Fox News, is he not? I saw it, enjoyed it, and took it with a grain of salt. Of course he's going to spin it. But again, there's only so much you can spin.

I did have one major problem with Fahrenheit 9/11 : The scene with the woman reading the letter from her now dead son, trying not to break down into wretched sobs. If Fox News or a similar entity tried something like that, leftists would swarm all over it and call it tasteless. I don't think it was right for MM to do that, either.

[Ronn_Bman]

One thing I will agree with Michael Moore on is the fact that this film could have had a PG-13 rating. There were gruesome scenes, but certainly milder than some other things I've seen.

I have to say though, I wouldn't want a teen who has no idea what is going on in the world around them watching this and accepting it all as fact because it has been advertised as a documentary.

[Ronn_Bman]

I'm also curious, how far did you drive to see the film? I bet I drove further than any other Righty here. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Of course, if you were willing to wait a week or two, you could see it at your local theater, but I couldn't wait.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Me? Twenty minutes... The closest theatre wasn't showing it, so we went to the next-closest. I saw it last week, though, so it was more or less local.

And yes, it might have gotten away with a PG-13 rating. Since when do gruesome images warrant an R rating? If there are any Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Theorists, you might want to harp away on this.

[Chewbacca]

I am skeptical about the question posed- "How realistic?" What is meant by this? How realistic are Moore's opinions? How realistic are the various people interveiwed in the film? How realistic are the factual assertions made? How realistic is the actual footage of real events used through out the film?

The film has too many layers to answer the question posed simply.


I'll repost here my initial thoughts of the film from the other M. Moore thread-

Originally posted by Chewbacca: So anyway.... I went to see the film on Sunday. The show was sold-out and the crowd was quite diverse in age and ethnicty. For the first time ever I was at a film with a police officer standing guard inside the theatre the entire time! When the guy in front of me as we entered the theatre ask the cop why he was there, the officer replied 'It's a controversial film'. Well I was glad that the cop was there in case some anti-Moore gunnut decided to show us 'liberals' the meaning of the word assault rifle. *****SPOILERS******** Well I was quite impressed with the film. It was like a rollercoaster ride. Moving from serious to funny to ironic then back to serious and then funny again seamlessly. The music selection is excellent, and really captures the feel of each scene. Like in BFC, my favorite parts were the perspectives offered by people other than Moore. The soldiers, citizens, politicans, and people who were interviewed or filmed. Like it has been recounted in other articles about the film, I found the part near the end about the Mother from Flint who lost her son in Iraq in April 2003 to be the most moving and compelling. I greatly enjoyed the scene where Moore rides in circles in front of the U.S. Capital in an ice cream truck reading the PATRIOT act over the loudspeaker. He does this in response to a representative explaining to him, after saying you better sit down, that the PATRIOT act and other leglislation simply is not read, in part or whole, by lawmakers before being passed in law. My complaints about the film. Well, for one, think Moore spent too much time on the whole Saudi-Bush link. I think Some of that time could have been spent investigating other parts of the Bush presidency that are subject to question and may have hurt the nation rather than help, like his enviromental policies, ect. I guess from the perspectoive of a Bush critic there is just too much wrong with his policies to fit in just one movie.

I'll probably have some follow up thoughts after I see the movie again next week. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Gab]

I've recently seen the film and enjoyed it. It's a messy but entertaining way of attacking Bush (who I think totally deserves it). It had some really good points such it taking the forces two months to get to where bin Laden was originally hiding and that there's only 11,000 troops in Afghanistan compared to the 120,000 in Iraq. One can't help but think that Bush was so obsessed with Saddam, that he focused much more on Iraq than capturing Osama bin Laden.

The only thing that I didn't like about the film is that it kinda portrayed Iraq as a happy kingdom before the U.S. invasion. It hardly mentions Saddam.

I've also choosing the center one in the poll. The film exaggerates and may even lie a bite but Moore is(of course) going to do that to help make his points.

[ 07-06-2004, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: Gab ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Gab: It had some really good points such it taking the forces two months to get to where bin Laden was originally hiding

So was Moore saying no diplomacy should have been used? 8 weeks without attacking, and there is something wrong with that? Wouldn't Moore have complained if they'd moved into Afghanistan the next day? 8 weeks was too long to put the military pieces into place AND build international support? How long before Pakistan agreed to cooperate? Were were the troops going to stage from on September 12th? I don't think it is hard to see through that argument at all.

I saw Moore with Charlie Rose on PBS, his only position is to oppose Bush's position. He complains that we waited too long, but doesn't agree we should have gone earlier. He complains too few troops were set, but doesn't believe moore troops should have been sent. If you complain that Bush waited too long and sent too few, how can you reasonably say you didn't agree with going earlier and sending more? Nearly ever question Rose asked based on the film Moore answered with, no I don't think we should have done that either.

[ 07-06-2004, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[promethius9594]

only 11,000 troops in Afghanistan compared to the 120,000 in Iraq.

this is just moore showing his inaddaquacy (sp?) in military estimation. iraq had one of the top five largest militaries in the world. afghanistan was just so much piss in a bucket (militarily). the point is, 11,000 was all that was needed.

i'll leave out the military discourse on why fighting against an enemy much smaller than your force is actually disadvantagious, and simply note that putting 120,000 troops in afghanistan would have caused more american soldiers deaths.

[Lauren]

Unfortunately I have not seen Farenheit 9-11 yet, most likely because I don't think it's come out in Australia yet.
But I plan on seeing it when it does.

I want to know what happened, I always seem curious about things.
Anyways, I think this movie will be very interesting.