Moore is at it again (lying as usual)

[chequita guevara]

Oh no, LoA is using facts which defend Michael Moore!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Agathon
The New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a notorious Australian press baron, whose newspapers have deliberately falsified reports and harassed ordinary people in order to further Murdoch's right wing agenda. Editorial independence does not exist in these papers: not one of Murdoch's hundreds of papers opposed the war.

I thought I said that in a more concise fashion

And that Murdoch fellow, doesn't he also own the Telegraph in UK, which printed a whole bunch of stories about having secret documents proving Saddam have had BCN weapons?

[Tingkai]

Globe and Mail review, one of the better ones that I have read.


... So amid the flames of controversy already fanned by Fahrenheit 9/11, this much at least is clear: The jury was fibbing. When the film won the Palme d'or at Cannes last month, the festival jurors (headed by Quentin Tarantino) insisted they awarded the prize for purely aesthetic and not political reasons. Nonsense. Aesthetically, this isn't a great documentary, although, during the first half, there are great moments in it. But the latter part is scattered and frenzied, rather like an excited dog tearing off after too many rabbits at once — a thematic hunt that's all chase and scant context.

Still, the Cannes jury may have made the right decision for the wrong reasons, because Moore is surely on a polemical mission here. He's always been admirably keen to do more than preach to the converted; however, this movie is a political act (any artistry is just a means to an end) addressed to the sizable portion of the U.S. electorate whose political understanding has been forged exclusively by White House rhetoric and the compliant media. The rest of us will find little new in these frames, but we aren't his intended audience. Whether that audience will be reached and their hearts and minds changed — that is, whether a political act will have a political result — is how the film demands to be judged. On that question, decided by voters not by critics, the jury remains out.

...
At about the midway stage, we're led back to the beginning, to all that preening before the TV cameras, and discover that Bush is preparing for his March 19, 2003, announcement of the Iraq invasion. As he delivers it, Moore splices in shots of the Baghdad streets, where the city folk smile and innocent children frolic in a neighbourhood playground. No mention is made of Saddam's repressive regime, and Moore's implied argument is evident: Whatever the relative mindset of Iraqis on the 19th, they were a hell of a lot happier than on the 20th. Cut to the bombs bursting, and to an appalling sight — weeping civilians loading a child's tiny body atop the other corpses in the gruesome bed of a pickup truck. Then back to the TV cameras, and to another made-up face — Donald Rumsfeld — waxing lyrical about "the care, the humanity, that goes into our conduct of this war." The juxtaposition is gripping, and we hear his smug words for what they are — obscenities.

Nothing else matches that intensity. Instead, for the remaining hour, the focus gets blurred...

Over all, we're left with a strange irony. As an exercise in filmmaking, this picture bears a curious resemblance to the very debacle under review — ultimately, it too is a mess of well-documented wrongs in search of a graceful exit strategy. Aesthetically, the movie is a bit of a quagmire. However, since Moore has apparently graduated from mere satirist to citizen politician, artsy deficiencies are no longer his concern. The box office may still be his consolation, but the ballot box is now his crucible. And that awaits him. June sees the opening of Fahrenheit 9/11, but only November can take its true temperature.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040624.wmoore0624/BNStory/Entertainment/

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

I thought I said that in a more concise fashion

Undoubtedly true.

And that Murdoch fellow, doesn't he also own the Telegraph in UK, which printed a whole bunch of stories about having secret documents proving Saddam have had BCN weapons?

No, that was owned by Conrad Black, a Canadian who is almost as odious as Murdoch. It's now owned by the Barclay brothers as of a couple of days ago.

[General Ludd]

Isn't Conrad Black the coolest name ever, though?

Actually, Murdoch is pretty cool too in that arch-villian sort of way.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Now seriously, what do you guys think of Moore? A ****** or jesus?

Hypocritical fatso (=lacks disclipine) knee-jerk liberal with a crusade against G.W. Armed with the intelligence of a standard American. I don't take him or the folks who appreciate with him/constantly agree with his viewpoints very seriously.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Oh no, LoA is using facts which defend Michael Moore!

Even worse, they're straight from the horse's mouth, and Moore is clearly biased in favour of himself.

[Ted Striker]

Moore is an idiot.

He just makes things up out of nowhere.

[Dis]

don't republicans do that as well?

[Dis]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Isn't Conrad Black the coolest name ever, though?

Actually, Murdoch is pretty cool too in that arch-villian sort of way.

nothing beats Wolf Blitzer.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Moore is an idiot.

He just makes things up out of nowhere.

You mean like you?

[DinoDoc]

Good God people! It's just a movie! It's not as if Moore out did the propaganda films of a certain regime that shall not be named for fear of invoking Godwin.

[chequita guevara]

Madison Avenue long ago made the Nazis look like chumps. I dare you to watch Triumph of the Will and not laugh at their crude attempts at propganda.

Sure, seventy years ago it was good stuff. I grew up with tv.

DD, this movie is really, really powerful.

[DinoDoc]

It's certainly got enough people pissed off to justify that claim. However, I when I can spot a lie in the trailer it kills any possible belief I might have had in the films veracity.

[chequita guevara]

What lie?