Heads up for UK & Irish people, Fahrenheit 911 is on Channel 4 @ 9:00pm on Thursday 27 Jan 2005. I haven't yet seen this movie. Looking forward to it as I couldn't join all the BB pro and anti Michael Moore debates! I'll let you know next Friday whether he's a big fat liar or an honourable seeker of the truth

Yeah I caught a glimpse of that on next weeks telly paper, I should be watching it. Teeth gritted I may add. I was surprised to find out he was 50, I figured late 30's. Plus heavy people usually look older.

Do you guys mean, it is showing for the first time there? Did it go directly to tv, and not show at the theaters??


TIS

It showed at the cinemas but now it's getting a terrestrial tv veiwing which actually surprised me. Usually it takes a few years to reach terrestrial tv and about 6-12 months to reach pay per view tv. It's skipped PPV.

Either channel 4 paid a lot to get it or sky digital (satellite) channels were not interested in it.

FAHRENHEIT 9/11 was a pretty good documentary.

Anyway, remember those two(or more) documentaries that came one after another that were made to counter the supposedly "one-sided" take that F 9/11 took?

So ya the "truthful" docs like FAHRENHYPE 9/11 and MICHAEL MOORE HATES AMERICA......they are as one-sided as a friggin Hanna-Barbera cartoon, man!

Wait, I need to copy and trademark that expression...

NOTE: Before some of you soft-feeling neo-cons get pissy, I think those two docs are "technically" as one-sided as FAHRENHEIT 9/11. Now put away the stones.

that is the 2nd or 3rd time I've seen you write neo-cons, of the "conservatives" that routinely post in the political threads, not a single one is a neo-con.

Ronnie,

The fact of the matter is that Michael Moore, of course being one sided, came out with a movie that exploited 9/11 and the events following that day. There were many misleading hslf truths in the movie, as Moore obviously took quite a few quotes and events totally out of context. Then of course when Farenhype 9/11 came out, it obviously was made to reveal the misleading half truths that Moore showed in his movie. So of course Farenhype 9/11 is going to look one sided also. Tell me something though, what is your take on the meaning of a neo-con? I am interested to know.


Don Cardi

Turi and Senza Mama--I advise you to see Bowling For Columbine. It's much better. -Pat

Pat, I'm interested in seeing that also. But I'm not going to pay to see it. If it's on telly like F9/11 is then sure I'll watch it.

I always hear the word "NEO-CON" what does it mean??? Iam a conservative person and supported Bush in the last 2 elections {IAM not trying to get political } I always hear the word, I want to know if my views make me a NEO-CON? Somebody help me please...

"The fact of the matter is that Michael Moore, of course being one sided, came out with a movie that exploited 9/11 and the events following that day."

Then again, didn't FAHRENHYPE 9/11 *technically* exploit the same events as well?

In fact, could we argue that Spielberg exploitated the Holocaust with SCHINDLER'S LIST or Michael Bay took advantage of the situation with PEARL HARBOR(wait, we kick his ass for that friggin awful movie!) but Don Cardi, can't we also slam some politicians for using 9/11 for political purposes? What about them?

Anyway, I call many here Neo-Cons(whom I call exactly who here at BB.NET I won't reveal out of respect and just so I won't be an as*hole) that because those same who really get pissy when Moore's name gets mentioned.

I mean really I think Moore in private is a dick. However, I've heard such negative comments about many filmmakers. In fact, some of them are such that personally, they are easily despicable. However, I believe that the artist and the art that is made shouldn't be intertwined with each other in final judgment.

An example is Roman Polanski, who's a great director for many decades behind movies like CHINATOWN, ROSEMARY'S BABY, PIANOIST, etc. However, his legacy is absolutely shadowed by his infamous rape charge in the U.S. and which he fled the country to France so he could avoid criminal litigation. Still, hes a great Oscar-winning director.

Really, here is my question to some of you conservatives. Do you hate Moore's documentaries or do you just hate the man himself? Really, hating movies done by a filmmaker because of personal hatred at a filmmaker is really juvenile. Films/documentaries should be judged on the merit of their thyself.

Now back to the whole Neo-Con thing thats apparently hurt some of you emotionally, since I didn't know many of you are so soft like a Frank Lopez.

Many people, not all, but many that call themselves "conservative" are not the honorable conservatives that used to exist. I know because I was of such a kind long ago. However, the new conservatives are such that are more angry and ignorance where they confuse patriotism with nationalism, which in all of its forms has wrecked much more havoc than it should have upon mankind.

Some of you "conservatives" here at BB.NET are good people that don't ignore the truth for the sake of your political position. Those that do are "neo-conservatives". In other words, its a derogative.

P.S. - Hey neo-cons, look up Nationalism in the dictionary sometime.

P.S.S. - Anyway, enough of my pathetic pissy complaining about matters that I can't control in this world. Now back to my movies...

Ronnie--It's impossible for them to hate the movies he makes because they don't see the movies! They just criticize them! That's just the way they are. They claim to criticize Moore's movies because they're 'full of lies and that it has nothing to do with him being liberal.' Why don't they criticize some of Ann Coulter's books then? You know, since it has nothing to do with her political status. -Pat

A film to admire and see at least once, even if you do think Moore is a fat bastard who challenges what you "believe" in (and let's face it, people, that's the only reason you don't wanna watch it).

Anyway, I love this film. I admire it for its ambitions, the balls it carries with it, Moore's ferociously witty voice-over (which was what made Bowling For Columbine as ironically funny as it was) and the editing technique. Really, the way the editing of images are juxtaposed together in this is phenomenal, even if you don't agree with the film (but if you don't, you have no intention of seeing it anyway). Walking contradictions...

I'm recording it. Bowling For Columbine (2002) was shown on Channel 4 over 2003's Christmas period. That too, is a film to admire for technical audacity.

Mick