The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Saw this last night.
Go and watch it. If you can find a cinema near you that's showing it, that is.
Go and watch it. If you can find a cinema near you that's showing it, that is.
Page:
No, its just come out in the cinemas. I've just seen it, thought it was great :D It was very much a case of 'Dude, Where's My Country? - The Film of', but it was still very well put together. There were a few very violent images which i thought were a bit unnecessary and it was of course full of Moore's totally biased one-sided opinions, but the end result was a very powerful film which have a good insight into the whole America-Iraq-Saudi Arabia-Terrorism etc. situation. Id recommend it to anyone whether you're a Michael Moore fan or not.
Do any shops stock this film?
Your Honour wrote:
> loki wrote:
> so many sloppy innacuracies and distortions go unedited?
>
>
> Which sloppy inaccuracies and distortions would that be?
>
> People who try to put the film down by saying Moore only tells one
> side of the story etc, never actually try to tell the other side of
> the story, or say what exactly is inaccurate about his film.
>
> Not having a go specifically at you Loki, because others have done it
> in this very thread. It's just yours is the one I decided to reply
> to. No offense :-)
Okay, he mocked the US led coalition forces as a buch of tin-pot countries and listed them out (complete with charmingly stereotypical footage of each nation) but completely ommited Britain and Spain from the list - as they would have undermined his point.
He ommited any mention of the Iraqi regimes human rights record, instead interspercing footage of Iraqi children flying kites with the bombings of Baghdad. That is simplistic emotional manipulation as much as the ads he showed to mock one-sided corporate ads used during the war. He spent much of the early part of the film making insinuations about Bush's ties with the Bin Laden family - with no actual specific accusations. It seems that the fact that their name was Bin Laden is enough to seem sinister. I don't see how they're more sinister than the other monied families and organisations that distort the democratic process.
He insinuited that Bush had a role to play in allowing Saudi citizens to leave the country after 9/11, though a subsequent enquiry found this not be be the case. Most of the figures on Saudi money supplied to comapnies that Bush and his cronies dealt with were inacurate according to most serious reports.
The entire tone of the piece was hysterical with no sense of balance, frequently resorting to extremely crass emotional manipulation. Which is a shame, because he had enough material for a devastating, rational demolition of Bush. And some staggering footage which the American people deserved to see. He just came across as a man with an agenda, rather than a man with a strong moral point.
> loki wrote:
> so many sloppy innacuracies and distortions go unedited?
>
>
> Which sloppy inaccuracies and distortions would that be?
>
> People who try to put the film down by saying Moore only tells one
> side of the story etc, never actually try to tell the other side of
> the story, or say what exactly is inaccurate about his film.
>
> Not having a go specifically at you Loki, because others have done it
> in this very thread. It's just yours is the one I decided to reply
> to. No offense :-)
Okay, he mocked the US led coalition forces as a buch of tin-pot countries and listed them out (complete with charmingly stereotypical footage of each nation) but completely ommited Britain and Spain from the list - as they would have undermined his point.
He ommited any mention of the Iraqi regimes human rights record, instead interspercing footage of Iraqi children flying kites with the bombings of Baghdad. That is simplistic emotional manipulation as much as the ads he showed to mock one-sided corporate ads used during the war. He spent much of the early part of the film making insinuations about Bush's ties with the Bin Laden family - with no actual specific accusations. It seems that the fact that their name was Bin Laden is enough to seem sinister. I don't see how they're more sinister than the other monied families and organisations that distort the democratic process.
He insinuited that Bush had a role to play in allowing Saudi citizens to leave the country after 9/11, though a subsequent enquiry found this not be be the case. Most of the figures on Saudi money supplied to comapnies that Bush and his cronies dealt with were inacurate according to most serious reports.
The entire tone of the piece was hysterical with no sense of balance, frequently resorting to extremely crass emotional manipulation. Which is a shame, because he had enough material for a devastating, rational demolition of Bush. And some staggering footage which the American people deserved to see. He just came across as a man with an agenda, rather than a man with a strong moral point.
loki wrote:
so many sloppy innacuracies and distortions go unedited?
Which sloppy inaccuracies and distortions would that be?
People who try to put the film down by saying Moore only tells one side of the story etc, never actually try to tell the other side of the story, or say what exactly is inaccurate about his film.
Not having a go specifically at you Loki, because others have done it in this very thread. It's just yours is the one I decided to reply to. No offense :-)
so many sloppy innacuracies and distortions go unedited?
Which sloppy inaccuracies and distortions would that be?
People who try to put the film down by saying Moore only tells one side of the story etc, never actually try to tell the other side of the story, or say what exactly is inaccurate about his film.
Not having a go specifically at you Loki, because others have done it in this very thread. It's just yours is the one I decided to reply to. No offense :-)
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> I'll reserve judgement until I've actally seen Fahrenheit, but I
> imagine I know what I'm letting myself in for. Comparing Moore with
> The Sun is a ridiculous comparison - Moore has absolutely nothing to
> gain from exposing these untruths, and the fact that he's lambasted
> for making such things public saddens me greatly. Don't play the
> money card either, Moore's been making documentaries for years, so
> it's not like he set out to make a quick buck.
I think the Sun comparison is entirely fair. It's not a documentary, it's a piece of occasionally effective propaganda. Moore makes some quite astounding ommissions when it suits his case and presents such a one-sided view that it's almost comical. Also, the early part of the film is full of innuendo and a vague accusational tone without ever really backing up his case.
That's exactly what I'd expect from the Sun on the other side of the political fence.
And aside from the money, Moore clearly has a massive ego, so that's one incentive. I have had a lot of time for Moore in the past, but I think he deserves to be lambasted for this piece. His cause is right and most of his arguments are powerful - so why did he have to undermine his own case (and that of the left generally) by letting so many sloppy innacuracies and distortions go unedited?
> I'll reserve judgement until I've actally seen Fahrenheit, but I
> imagine I know what I'm letting myself in for. Comparing Moore with
> The Sun is a ridiculous comparison - Moore has absolutely nothing to
> gain from exposing these untruths, and the fact that he's lambasted
> for making such things public saddens me greatly. Don't play the
> money card either, Moore's been making documentaries for years, so
> it's not like he set out to make a quick buck.
I think the Sun comparison is entirely fair. It's not a documentary, it's a piece of occasionally effective propaganda. Moore makes some quite astounding ommissions when it suits his case and presents such a one-sided view that it's almost comical. Also, the early part of the film is full of innuendo and a vague accusational tone without ever really backing up his case.
That's exactly what I'd expect from the Sun on the other side of the political fence.
And aside from the money, Moore clearly has a massive ego, so that's one incentive. I have had a lot of time for Moore in the past, but I think he deserves to be lambasted for this piece. His cause is right and most of his arguments are powerful - so why did he have to undermine his own case (and that of the left generally) by letting so many sloppy innacuracies and distortions go unedited?
One thing that has struck me about people's opinion on the controversy that surrounds Moore's films is the fact that many believe this film will "change their view on things" and create a 'Moore shrine.
It won't.
All it is, is Micheal Moore trying to put his message across, and how he perceives why we went to Iraq. He's just voicing his opinion, he doesn't care if people come out un-amused, because he knows that they've just watched a few hours worth of his opinion, whether they like it or not.
Micheal Moore in my opinion is a fantastic guy, And I look forward to viewing Farenheit 9/11 with an open mind.
It won't.
All it is, is Micheal Moore trying to put his message across, and how he perceives why we went to Iraq. He's just voicing his opinion, he doesn't care if people come out un-amused, because he knows that they've just watched a few hours worth of his opinion, whether they like it or not.
Micheal Moore in my opinion is a fantastic guy, And I look forward to viewing Farenheit 9/11 with an open mind.
Your Honour wrote:
> I don't want to sound like a complete stuck up ponce here, but I
> don't think Farenheit is the kind of film an average Joe will
> go to see. Particularly as it's not supported amazingly well over
> here. Our 10 Screen Cineworld aren't showing it, I had to go to an
> Odeon in larger town nearby to see it.
>
> I made the effort to go and see it, but I suspect most won't, they'd
> end up seeing Spiderman 2 instead....
Most people wouldnt see it because (unfortunately) most people here haven't even heard of Michael Moore, and all the newspapers etc. are giving the film really bad ratings. This is obviously not because of what's in the film, its all politics i tell thee!
> I don't want to sound like a complete stuck up ponce here, but I
> don't think Farenheit is the kind of film an average Joe will
> go to see. Particularly as it's not supported amazingly well over
> here. Our 10 Screen Cineworld aren't showing it, I had to go to an
> Odeon in larger town nearby to see it.
>
> I made the effort to go and see it, but I suspect most won't, they'd
> end up seeing Spiderman 2 instead....
Most people wouldnt see it because (unfortunately) most people here haven't even heard of Michael Moore, and all the newspapers etc. are giving the film really bad ratings. This is obviously not because of what's in the film, its all politics i tell thee!
Light wrote:
Doesn't mean to say that they agree with him though
Very true. But she's only going because you want to see it.
I don't want to sound like a complete stuck up ponce here, but I don't think Farenheit is the kind of film an average Joe will go to see. Particularly as it's not supported amazingly well over here. Our 10 Screen Cineworld aren't showing it, I had to go to an Odeon in larger town nearby to see it.
I made the effort to go and see it, but I suspect most won't, they'd end up seeing Spiderman 2 instead....
Doesn't mean to say that they agree with him though
Very true. But she's only going because you want to see it.
I don't want to sound like a complete stuck up ponce here, but I don't think Farenheit is the kind of film an average Joe will go to see. Particularly as it's not supported amazingly well over here. Our 10 Screen Cineworld aren't showing it, I had to go to an Odeon in larger town nearby to see it.
I made the effort to go and see it, but I suspect most won't, they'd end up seeing Spiderman 2 instead....
Your Honour wrote:
>
> Ah, but will they? Surely people who'll go and see this will be ones
> who have a rough idea what Moore is about already.
Doesn't mean to say that they agree with him though; Mrs Light believes the WMD was a good enough justification and that the war started for pure motives (yes, we have some interesting discussions about that one...). I'm taking her to see Farenheit 9/11, so she WILL be in for a rude awakening (and not just the usual kind when my old chap is pushing into the small of her back).
>
> Ah, but will they? Surely people who'll go and see this will be ones
> who have a rough idea what Moore is about already.
Doesn't mean to say that they agree with him though; Mrs Light believes the WMD was a good enough justification and that the war started for pure motives (yes, we have some interesting discussions about that one...). I'm taking her to see Farenheit 9/11, so she WILL be in for a rude awakening (and not just the usual kind when my old chap is pushing into the small of her back).
Mr Snuggly wrote:
And you can bet that there'll be people going to see this who only know what they've read in The Sun and are about to get a rude awakening.
Ah, but will they? Surely people who'll go and see this will be ones who have a rough idea what Moore is about already.
And you can bet that there'll be people going to see this who only know what they've read in The Sun and are about to get a rude awakening.
Ah, but will they? Surely people who'll go and see this will be ones who have a rough idea what Moore is about already.
Page: