Finally caught Big Fish and thought it stank. It's like a collection of snippets from all of burton's other filmas mismashed with an overdose of sentimentality.

Also saw Shrek2 and was disappointed, no where near the same level as the first (which was pretty good), some good laughs though. 

I have also seen the other Moore movies Roger & Me, and Bowling for Columbine. Too much of his work is dependent on distortion of fact (in Roger & Me, he literally turned the time line of events backwards to achieve his narative logic). In Farenheit 9/11 he spends the first thirty minutes or so making the argument that the Bush family is in cohoots with the Saudi's and that the reason we went to war is due to these vaguely defined powers-that-be and their commercial interest. However to achieve this logic Moore ignores the fact that the Saudis opposed the war!
Moore's agenda would be worse for this Nation than what the Democrats or the current Republicans have to offer. I have read his blogs and know his opinions pretty well. He is a creature of the hard Left. Whatever peace he advocates on the foreign policy scene would be more than made up for by the coercion he advocates in matters of domestic policy.

My biasis certainly are not pro Bush. I voted for him in 2000, but like RPG I am not at all happy with the results. 

One would think Moore would be the guy to open people's eyes with all sorts of truths, but now that people evidently hate him, and no one likes Bush, I wonder who the fuck to trust? No one, I guess. 

How do we know Moore is lying? 

How do we know Moore is true ?? There certainly in Moore, like in Bush a part of truth, and a part of lie.. more or less.. Just a question, after 9/11, the target was Bin Laden, in Afghanistan..I'm sure Afhganistan war was justified, but Iraq was was not for sure.. oil was the only target, like if Bush was frustrated not to catch Bin Laden... Do you really think Irak was friendly with AlQaida ?? Anyway, oil is there for sure ... do you really think Saddam have massive destruction weapons ?? And so where are these weapons ?? Anyway, oil is here for sure ... The target has just moved..
And I agree Moore exagerate deliberatly in his film and he is clearly not impartial...
And like Phait said, Moore would be the guy to open people's eyes with all sorts of truths ... and sure truth will be very hard to find.. even if we are hardly looking for it... 

that gets off the subject of the movie. But ask your self this, the claim that it is 'about oil', what does it answer? Does Exon need war to get rich off of oil? No. Do the Saudis need war to get rich off of oil? Or even as a precursor to jack the price up? No (the supply peaks are doing a good job of that). Does even the milatary-industrial-complex need the war to get rich? Not even them. Their stock shot up and their contracts were signed in the days fallowing 9/11.

The war was ideologically drive, and its perpertrators and their interests are easy to identify by their own writings. 

No film ever made is "true" -- it's been edited and even before the edit phase shots were taken while others weren't. For it to be "true" it would have to conisder all angles and dimensions of every given argument, and -- short of turning it into a Charles Ives-esque assault with multiple screens and soundtracks -- this simply isn't possible.

Additionally, if anyone's viewpoints are so weak that any documentary -- no matter how badly made, edited or planned -- could radically change them, the said viewpoints were either unfounded or the person is a complete schizophrenic.

BTW, I want to see Fahrenheit 9/11. 

'-- short of turning it into a Charles Ives-esque assault with multiple screens and soundtracks -- this simply isn't possible. '

That is a pretty fucking awesome idea. Imagine a documentary on the drug war using cinematography like that, interlaced with psychedlic effects and music. 

I'm sure it's been done, but yeah -- it is a neat idea =D 

His lips are moving.

I'll be here all week. Remember to tip your waitress. 

If Moore was to present "factual lies" about Bush, he would get sued into oblivion. He hasn�t been sued, thefore he is not lying. 

3. Oh yeah, I knew there was another reason I don't like Michael Moore: he didn't have enough respect for Bradbury to ask him if he could name the movie after Bradbury's story.

Fahrenheit 451

http://www.raybradbury.com/books/fahrenheit451.html 

I didn't mean that Bradbury's book title was "Fahrenheit 9/11." Obviously that wouldn't have made sense when the book was published in 1953. But Moore's movie is clearly named after the book, and as I said, Moore didn't care enough to ask Bradbury if he could name his movie after Bradbury's story.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/21/bradbury.fahrenheit.ap/ 

I'm not saying everything Moore says is a lie, I just couldn't resist.

Libel suits aren't so easily thrown around. This is a pretty good summary:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102725/

You don't need to tell lies to propagandize though. A careful choice of what facts you want to present can be even more powerful (see Leni Riefenstahl), and there's no question that Moore is being selective. I saw an article listing a bunch of examples but can't find it now. That wouldn't bother me except somehow his film got labeled a documentary. 

R.P.G. I just read that article. Thanks for the link! If the article is accurate then Ray Bradbury is a real dick.

Bradbury, who is a registered political independent, said he would rather avoid litigation and is "hoping to settle this as two gentlemen, if he'll shake hands with me and give me back my book and title."

Ray...get over it, you hack. 

Here is a fairly balanced article on the Farenheit 9/11. He makes some of the same points that I made earlier but obviously he can afford to go into greater legnth.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2891

BTW, go see the movie. Whatever you think of Micheal Moore, and I am not what you may call a fan, just seeing Ashcroft being his nutball self is worth the ticket price.

Better yet, rent Waco: Rules of Engagement, a documentary with better research standards and presentation. If you are looking to get pissed off at your government, that is a mighty good place to start. 

I just finished watching this and I'm kind of dissappointed. The acting was top notch though and I thought it was worthy of the accolades it recieved.

I thought the pace was too plodding and ultimately while the story was entertaining, I thought it didn't pack enough punch in terms of being deep enough or conveying some kind of message. I don't know whether this is Eastwood's fault or Lehane's. (I've never read the book)

The last 10 minutes seemed out of place and the ending as a whole was generally unsatisfying. 

I hope Moore's viewpoint is slanted as hell, it makes for better entertainment. It's just no fun when everyone is being "politically correct". 

Mystic River's weak point was the script, but the directing and acting were on the mark. 

If non politically correct film will be banned out cinemas, it will remains only films.... without violence, sex, fights, blood, monsters, etc.. etc.. just Disney's films for children... A shame... sights.... 

I really enjoyed it. I did feel like it was trying to milk every bit of emotion out of it that it could, but I also realized that each time it tried it managed to impact me emotionally. A bit much? Yeah. A powerful movie? Sure. 

Which in fact I saw yesterday i.e. the day after two days ago although one day before that it would have been the day after tomorrow but I didn't know I was going to see it yet.


I quite enjoyed it. A great spectacle, a frightening concept and a fair romp. Obviously it was an utterly shallow cheese-fest of embarrassing proportions and would been significantly better if any part that contained people had been cut out....apart from the dog begging for the sausage and the British chopper pilot shouting at his failing machine which were the only 3.5 seconds of convincing acting in the whole thing.

Clearly a truly great film could have been made out of the idea (i.e. if they'd actually bothered to try) and this wasn't it.

There were two aspects that interested me further though...

1. The initial tornado destruction in LA reminded me a bit of the 11/9 footage, and made me think that actually there has been a comparatively shocking city-based disaster recently....with a strong public/government reaction which a GOOD film would have learnt from to provide a much more convincing reaction on screen.

2. The instant freeze effect....I was watching this happen to the choppers and thinking "I know this from somewhere!". If anyone has read "The Chronoliths" by Robert Charles Wilson (a good, intelligent sci-fi book, so you should have), the book describes an instant freezing effect caused by the appearance of an object from the future....and the effect in TDAT is exactly how the book describes it. Which is nice and marginally improved the experience. 

I didn't wanna go to that because outside a few choice scenes (in the trailer, at least) it looked like a finely polished turd. Now I like the old-skool Irwin Allen disaster flicks, but that's only because you get invited to this weird quasi-reality where Chuck Heston rubs shoulders with Richard Roundtree and Victoria Principal (va-VOOM!). Otherwise, it's usually preposterous, bombastic filmmaking that doesn't even make for popcorn science-fiction. 

 

Oh my!

Somebody finally got it right, this is how a comic book movie should be. Cool bad guy, cool fight scenes, nice pacing, tobey maguire born to play this character etc etc

Go watch it, way better than the first (which wasnt bad but the bad guy was piss poor).