As you probebly know, Michael Moore (Bowling For Coloumbine), has released the new 'documentry" Fireanhight 9/11 (kill me, its spelled wrong). What do you think of his films?
I don't look at them as documentries. He cuts out a lot of the stuff (like in Bowling for Coloumbine where he tries to prove all Canadians leave there doors unlocked all the time.) He bases his facts on the truth, but he edits it so that it looks like he's right.
What are your views?
Fine Garbage since 2003.
-Paying off a massive amount of debt in college loans.
-Working in television.
He is a moron. Columbine's funnier moments were ok. But Farenheit 9/11 is a piece of tripe. He tries to make things look worse than they are. Like when george Bush is told about the twin towers. There was nothing he could do about it, and if he stopped reading to the children he would have roused suspicion. But Moore just films the clock ticking. If anyone just stops to think about the situation Bush was in they'd see that he was doing the right thing. But Moore just twists it because he is stupid.
Aroused suspicion? I'm sure the kids heard about 9/11 only half an hour after, Bush could haven't done more harm by leaving. And you can't say it's a peice of tripe because it hasn't been released yet except for in the Palme D'or 2004 Cannes, where it won. Moore twists it because it's twistable.
Steve Zissou: Anne-Marie, do all the interns get Glocks?
Teapot: it's interesting how you judge Fahrenheit 9/11 without possibly seeing it (unless you yourself was one of the judges?).
Anyway, Bowling for Columbine was pretty good. It brought up a lot of interesting facts (such as the number of gun murders in America and Canada). That "History of America" cartoon was also hilarious.
you can download the Caenes version of Farenheit 9/11 on overnet.
not that i endorse doing so, of course
edit: i just watched columbine and i thought it was very interesting. i do agree that he tried to twist some things - i certainly didn't buy the canadian nutcases who don't lock their doors. but you can't argue with the brute facts, which i think is what he's trying to say anyway: the yanks kill each other in drastic proportions, and there has to be something to blame. whether he's managed to succesfully place the blame on anything is a matter of personal opinion.