Posted on 06/24/2004 8:01:40 AM PDT by Borges
What an idiot.
WTF is so eerie about that? Jeez, what the hell is wrong with people. I bet fatso roger ebert never checked to see how his appearance on tv looks. He just wings it. Only psycho republican presidents would actually practice a speech to get the right body language. Sheesh.
Gee, I wish I had a dollar for every effusive adjective describing Ebert's affection for Moore. Peas in a pod.
Inexplicable? It may not be the correct explanation but I have always thought that, perhaps, President Bush didn't want to freak out a bunch of schoolchildren.
And there were protocol in place that we simply don't know about...not every you, Moore/Ebert.
No mention, as usual, of the fact that SA was strongly opposed to America invading Iraq.
where is the review? the piece reads like a promo or cliff notes not a review. no mention of the facts or the lack there of... is there not one fair liberal that has access to the media? its like some freakin cult..reall scary but mostly pathetic that they cant think for themselves they need propogandists like michael moore to tell them what and how they should think and feel...and who they should direct their hate towards...it disgusts me!
" If the film is not quite as electrifying as Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," that may be because Moore has toned down his usual exuberance and was sobered by attacks on the factual accuracy of elements of "Columbine"; playing with larger stakes, he is more cautious here, and we get an op-ed piece, not a stand-up routine."
Simply the most ridiculous statement in a review chock full of them.
Just noting it was Richard Clarke, on his own authority, getting the bin Laden family members out of the country undermines this comment. We can all cite dozens of other "errors" in Moore's film...but why?
Nobody but the far leftwingnuts are making plans to spend a Friday night at the movies on this.
'9/11': Just the facts?
June 18, 2004
BY ROGER EBERT FILM CRITIC
A reader writes:
"In your articles discussing Michael Moore's film 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' you call it a documentary. I always thought of documentaries as presenting facts objectively without editorializing. While I have enjoyed many of Mr. Moore's films, I don't think they fit the definition of a documentary."
That's where you're wrong. Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.
Michael Moore is a liberal activist. He is the first to say so. He is alarmed by the prospect of a second term for George W. Bush, and made "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the purpose of persuading people to vote against him.
That is all perfectly clear, and yet in the days before the film opens June 25, there'll be bountiful reports by commentators who are shocked! shocked! that Moore's film is partisan. "He doesn't tell both sides," we'll hear, especially on Fox News, which is so famous for telling both sides.
The wise French director Godard once said, "The way to criticize a film is to make another film." That there is not a pro-Bush documentary available right now I am powerless to explain. Surely, however, the Republican National Convention will open with such a documentary, which will position Bush comfortably between Ronald Reagan and God. The Democratic convention will have a wondrous film about John Kerry. Anyone who thinks one of these documentaries is "presenting facts objectively without editorializing" should look at the other one.
The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his "facts" were wrong, false or fudged.
In some cases, he was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair, and in still others (such as the wording on the plaque under the bomber at the Air Force Academy) he was just plain wrong, as anyone can see by going to look at the plaque.
Because I agree with Moore's politics, his inaccuracies pained me, and I wrote about them in my Answer Man column. Moore wrote me that he didn't expect such attacks "from you, of all people." But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker. In hurting his cause, he wounds mine.
Now comes "Fahrenheit 9/11," floating on an enormous wave of advance publicity. It inspired a battle of the titans between Disney's Michael Eisner and Miramax's Harvey Weinstein. It won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. It has been rated R by the MPAA, and former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo has signed up as Moore's lawyer, to challenge the rating. The conservative group Move America Forward, which successfully bounced the mildly critical biopic "The Reagans" off CBS and onto cable, has launched a campaign to discourage theaters from showing "Fahrenheit 9/11."
The campaign will amount to nothing and disgraces Move America Forward by showing it trying to suppress disagreement instead of engaging it. The R rating may stand; there is a real beheading in the film, and only fictional beheadings get the PG-13. Disney and Miramax will survive.
Moore's real test will come on the issue of accuracy. He can say whatever he likes about Bush, as long as his facts are straight. Having seen the film twice, I saw nothing that raised a flag for me, and I haven't heard of any major inaccuracies. When Moore was questioned about his claim that Bush unwisely lingered for six or seven minutes in that Florida classroom after learning of the World Trade Center attacks, Moore was able to reply with a video of Bush doing exactly that.
I agree with Moore that the presidency of George W. Bush has been a disaster for America. In writing that, I expect to get the usual complaints that movie critics should keep their political opinions to themselves. But opinions are my stock in trade, and is it not more honest to declare my politics than to conceal them? I agree with Moore, and because I do, I hope "Fahrenheit 9/11" proves to be as accurate as it seems.
Shallow analysis of a shallow film. Moore has little to work with and his propaganda piece denotes desperation by the radical left. Ebert puts aside critical analysis to promote his leftist politics. Everyone knows this is a propaganda piece including the left.
The scene Ebert mentions where Bush continues to read to children after being informed about 9/11 amazes me. Bush did exactly the right thing. Had he broke away abruptly the left would have criticized how he scared the children. The left is indeed desperate.
Two Jabba idiots.
They like to disparage the character of Pres. Bush, and they don't even have enough self countrol to stop eating.
How's that stomach stapling workin' for ya Roger?
“Official,” mind you.
I hope Roger doesn't commit suicide when the DEMO(N)cRATS fail to stuff enough ballot boxes next November.
Michael Moore would not recognize competency if it came up behind him and kicked him in his very ample butt so hard his nose started bleeding. He is a very cunning person who has wormed his way into trash film making, by finding some wealthy donors, making very exaggerated caricatures of scenes from everyday America, and weaving them into semi-fictional works about a world that never was, and logically, could not exist. These film productions are cartoons, showing imaginary people doing improbable things, and real people behaving in ways wholly inconsistent with all the history of what they have ever done or been. The visual image is vastly more powerful than the spoken or written word, and has the potential to supplant reality. Sure, there is "freedom of speech", but apparently this freedom is being seriously abused here, by the detachment of historical and verifiable fact from the discussion and replacing it with complete flights of fancy.
I'm sure that if Moore could have gotten hold of it, he would have shown video of Bush picking his nose and pooping. What it sounds like he shows is people being human, normal. We all would come off looking weak and foolish if our lives were edited to show the bad times, the night we drank too much or the looking in the mirror in the morning and pulling in the tummy or putting on makeup. It's all cheap shots and could be done to anyone with the same effect.
Two fat, ugly men.
By the way, the loony-tunes left is trading in theories that Bush's apparent lack of concern, reading to school children for seven minutes, shows he knew in advance that the attack was going to happen. Conspiracy theorists debate whether it's "LIHOP" or "MIHOP" -- Let It Happen On Purpose or Made It Happen On Purpose.
Now give us your opinion of what America would be like under the presidency of Al Gore.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.