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). 

I gotta gree -- normally Defoe kicks ass in my book, but he just didn't cut it as the Goblin. I'm much happier about having Doc Ock in the second one, for sure -- next up should be Patrick Stewart as The Vulture =D 

from Appleton here where I live. His father was my Gramma's doctor. 

there's hints that three will be Lizard and/or Hobgoblin.

As for Dafoe, I didnt find him that bad, it was just the horrible Power Rangers Costume and bad writing for his part. 

Oh, yes. Probably the best comic-based movie. Period. I was amazed at how effortlessly it swings from drama to camp, to complete schtick (Peter's back injury, for example), and back to high drama again. I was moved by the aftermath of the train, and by Aunt May's "hero speech". And McGuire, Dunst and Molina were all amazing, and spot-on the whole show. And don't get me started with John's Dykstra's effects. DAYUM. Make the Matrix movies look poor, IMO.

All in all, I'll get this one on DVD when it comes out -- and prolly the first one too. 

Yeah, pretty sure it'll be either Hobgoblin or Green Goblin 2 (ehh), next flick =D 

Watched it because I had nothing else to do. Predictable at times, but then it swings around. Mila Kunis stars. I haven't seen the first AP, but if that was a more serious film - this certainly was, definitely intentional comical vibe going on here.

The Shat is in it too.

And I will probably be seeing Spiderman 2 soon. 

American Psycho 2 basically sucked. 

yeah but they make go two villains so Lizard may make it since Kurt COnnors was introduced. 

I haven't had the nerve to actually watch this yet, but i guess i should. I got the impression it's basically a brainless teen slasher movie banking on the name of the original. 

that would be very good assumption.