"Fahrenheit 9/11" to Open June 25th in 1,000 Theaters

But why all the hype for this guy? What's so special? His other documentary type movie was complete BS. He stated things as if they were statistics, but they weren't. I just don't understand why people want to see another one.

Rejecting this film because of some personal opinion about the filmmaker is still prejudice and I'm sure the Moore haters will see the film just to see if they can dissect it and come up with all their pet bitches.

There are many who don't share your opinion and there were only a small flurry of statistics with one particular one aimed at by dissenters because it supposedly skewed the results. However, add the statistic he left out and it doesn't change the results of his opinion re our gun culture.

It's satire. Not many people understand satire.

I just can't muster up respect for someone who lies in order to influence people, or people who lie in an argument, etc.

There are a lot of good, and true, statistics and reasons to support gun banning, OR to promote gun ownership. I think if someone took the time to do actual research, they wouldn't have to make things up to influence others.

Where does he lie? Where does he make things up? It's been debated for the past few years and several amateur sites come up with all sorts of offerings in a moribund analysis which contains its own sets of lies. It's not above the promoters of gun sales and collecting to also ""lie." It's often the sin of ommission more than outright lying (no statistic were changed, just that some are ignored as not relavant although one can argue all day whether they were or not). If one is paranoid that some individuals may not be able to interpret what Moore is doing and come the conclusion that all guns should be banned, that's crazy. Moore does not advocate the banning of all guns. I'm personally in favor of licensing even though the NRA doesn't want that as they believe the populace should be armed to defer governmental tyranny. I'm not convinced that would actually work today like it may have been thought to have worked during the time of the framers of the Constitution.

Got any examples of this?

Yes, kickycan, just watch the movie. I don't feel like watching it again just to point out the false statistics. Once I researched a few statistics... I realized he wasn't honest... and I just forgot all about him. Until now, of course.

L.R.R.Hood wrote:


Okay then...I guess I'll have to write Moore's movies off as BS because you researched some stats once and determined they weren't true. But you don't know which stats they are?

Looks like you're real concerned about this stuff, eh?

I did see the movie, but I don't remember any mistakes or lies. I didn't go out and research it though. I just thought it was a good movie.

I remember the part where he brought the two kids who had been shot with guns and ammo bought from K-Mart to the actual store to face the managers. That was pretty powerful.

I don't feel like watching it again and cite these "false statistics?" Really. And actually prove they are false? That's the epitome of a biased opinion. The truth is, there has been no proof any of the few statistics quoted are false -- Moore may be clever with the way he characterizes those statistics to bolster his viewpoints but to summarily just call him a liar is just as disingenuous as calling Bush or Clinton or anyone else always a liar over one indiscretion. How many times did you lie today?

Plus I liked when he made Charlton Heston look like the complete dick that he is.

Moore gave statistic of deaths due to guns in Canada but supposedly left out deaths due to police action. He supposedly included deaths due to police action in the US statistics. I have watched the film more than once and could not come up with any proof online from credentialed sources that he actually did. Good luck.

He really did sucker Heston and Heston was dumb enough to fall for it. Just shows how many politicos need cognitive therepy.

I am only trying to encourage others to research his statements--but I know that takes more effort than what a lot of people want to put into it, and its why I don't want to go through all the trouble a second time. I have a feeling that since I've expressed my negative feelings toward this man, even if I did offer "proof", you all would just ignore it anyway--or accuse me of lying somehow.

Negative facts are always welcome. It's negative feelings that are unsubstantiated that I don't agree with.

Fact is what, I believe, most of us are looking for here...

So...say it and support it, or don't say it.

My two cents.

Agreed, Jer -- it's so easy to see someone not being cognitive and thinking rationally when there is so much underlying (sic) hatred. I do not hate Charlton Heston, for instance, and appreciate him for his best film performances but I do hate what he stands for and the rhetoric he has spouted out.
Despire the way this might sound but apparantly that "from my cold dead hands" statement has been answered by a higher power perhaps long before it was expected.

SO you want facts, but you like Moore's movies? odd

Now, now, let's not be also paranoid that someone is about to call you a liar, L.R.R. Are we feeling put upon today? Major and highly credentialed psychologists will back up that we all lie several times a day. It's whether we are clever enough to get away with it and that doesn't mean that if we could make a satirically humorous documentary that we would purposefully lie therein.

Have a drink, L.R.R., and relax.

Moore's work has enough facts and humour to keep me focussed. I particularly liked the piece on TVNation about Avon ladies in the Amazon. I learned a lot from what I looked into after watching that piece.