2
   

Organization attempting to ban Moore's flick

 
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 10:20 am
Maybe Ray is right that the Internet is a scam Laughing

My attorney says he has no case whatsoever and added that the new edition of the book is due out in eight weeks. Hmmm....
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 05:00 pm
Lightwizard wrote:
My attorney says he has no case whatsoever and added that the new edition of the book is due out in eight weeks. Hmmm....


The heirs of Shakespeare ("Something Wicked This Way Comes") and Yeats ("Golden Apples of the Sun") might want to think about some legal action of their own.....
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 05:34 pm
A movie review.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 05:41 pm
And expected from Christopher Hitchens -- what would one expect from his sweat laden bias? I'm sure there will be other who are not film critics who will not be able to judge it as a film but as a political statement. He is far off line when he doesn't give credit to the satirical irony of the movie. Everything in the review is his opinion and you'd have to be receptive to all of his diatribes to swallow this one.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 05:43 pm
The Rotten Tomatoes guage puts the film already as over 80% favorable reviews:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/Fahrenheit911-1133649/


and

ROLLING STONES REVIEW
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 06:21 pm
I don't know if three and a half stars is a good movie rating or not, but the Rolling Stone movie reviewer and I really part ways on this point:

Quote:
In one pointedly hilarious scene, Moore rallies members of Congress to get their own children to enlist in the Marines.


Since the military has been voluntary for decades I don't see the humor in this. Moore may be trying to convey that children of the well to do or policy makers don't join up, which is again not humorous or truthful.

I love satire and comedy and I love to laugh but he crosses a line into corny attempts at humor IMO.

Other than the film fueling the fire of the lefty kook MoveOn crowd I don't see much worth in a so called documentary based on Moore's lies and bad satire.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2004 08:03 am
Completely disagree -- that's one of the funniest scenes in the film and very pointed satire. It's also relevant to the consideration of reviving the draft which has surfaced in congress and in the administration. Not that they will ever be able to do it. I'm sure Moore is fully aware of the dissenters who know nothing about filmmaking and could care less if they enjoy his film or not.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2004 08:05 am
Again, conservative (or Republican) sense of humor: an oxymoron.
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2004 08:15 am
Brand X wrote:
Quote:
In one pointedly hilarious scene, Moore rallies members of Congress to get their own children to enlist in the Marines.


Since the military has been voluntary for decades I don't see the humor in this. Moore may be trying to convey that children of the well to do or policy makers don't join up, which is again not humorous or truthful.


Let me help you out on that one. The humor is that, for the most part, the people in government who encourage war arent the ones who have to actually do the killing, and usually don't have to suffer the consequences of it.

And many of them who do have family in the service are able to use their influence to see that their relatives are not among the soldiers who are exposed to that danger (A perfect example is Bush being placed in the National Guard during 'Nam).

Not to say that all of them are like that, but for the most part, thats the way it is, which is why that scene is so funny.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2004 08:38 am
Lightwizard wrote:
Again, conservative (or Republican) sense of humor: an oxymoron.


What?! We laugh at Al Franken all the time!
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2004 08:46 am
That's quite a confession, McGentrix. Are you sure you're sure about your convictions?
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2004 12:41 pm
Quote:
Fahrenheit 9/11 is hot, hot, hot rave critics

June 23 2004 at 07:48PM

New York - American critics gave a warm welcome on Wednesday to Michael Moore's caustic documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, praising the movie's scathing humour while voicing some reservations over the director's methods.

"Informative, provocative, frightening, compelling, funny, manipulative and, most of all, entertaining," read USA Today's gushing review of Moore's polemic against the invasion of Iraq and the administration of President George Bush.

"Fahrenheit 9/11 is the year's must-see film," the national daily said, while questioning whether the unabashed bias of the documentary would actually change minds in an already polarised United States electorate.

While acknowledging that Moore's latest piece of agitprop, which won the Palme D'Or at this year's Cannes film festival, could be "nitpicked and second guessed," The Los Angeles Times labelled the film "a landmark in American filmmaking (that) demands to be seen."

The movie opened in New York on Wednesday and can be seen across the country from Friday. It was initially, and very publicly, denied distribution in the United States by Disney, the parent company of Miramax, which financed it.

"With expertly deployed footage and a take-no-prisoners attitude that echoes that of his conservative betes noir, Moore has made an overwhelming film," the Times said.

"It is propaganda, no doubt about it, but propaganda is most effective when it has elements of truth, and too much here is taken from the record not to have a devastating effect on viewers."

Moore, an iconoclast and polemicist, has made no bones about his motive for making the film. "I would like to see Mr Bush removed from the White House," he told the ABC television network last Sunday.

The New Yorker magazine found the film "incendiary and viciously funny" and "Moore's most powerful movie - the largest in scope, the most resourceful and skillful in means."

But it also questioned the film's objectivity and its method of deluging the audience with allegations that are often difficult to sort out and evaluate.

"Fahrenheit 9/11 offers the thrill of a coherent explanation for everything, but parts of the movie are no better than a wild, lunging grab at a supposed master plan," the magazine said.

New York magazine had similar criticisms, saying Moore's film was compromised by too many cheap jokes and a tendency to preach to the converted.

"More often than not, he goes for the guffaw, and as enjoyable as that can be, it falls short of producing the kind of devastating, in-depth analysis that might really challenge the hearts and minds of all audiences, left and right," it said. - Sapa-AFP
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2004 12:54 pm
Moviefone AOL, one of the top movie theater ticket seller on the Internet, lists "Fahrenheit" as their top seller this morning.
0 Replies
 
roverroad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 07:21 pm
I wouldn't be surprised if Moore ends up in a ditch some place. Played off as some crazed lunatic with a gun, but secretly ordered by Rumsfeld. I'm so suspicious of this administration that I don't feel like a crack pot saying that.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 08:19 pm
I wanted to see F911 tonight. All sold out around here-- even the 12:30 AM show!

We had to pre-order tickets for tomorrow, but I can't want.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 07:17 am
Lightwizard wrote:
My attorney says Bradbury has no case.

Your attorney is correct. Titles of books, movies, plays, etc. cannot be copyrighted. As such, Moore could have called his movie "Fahrenheit 451" and still not have run afoul of the copyright laws.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 07:35 am
I just saw the movie last night (sold out, as is tonight's screening). Love him or hate him, the movie is incredibly thought-provoking, and funny as hell at times. So what if there's an agenda? As a FILM, it's a brilliant piece of work, IMHO.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 08:06 am
joefromchicago wrote:
[
Your attorney is correct. Titles of books, movies, plays, etc. cannot be copyrighted.


If that is the case then what is copyrighted? It would seem to me that Bradbury would have a case if More had titled his movie Fahrenheit 451 as that is central to his reputation as an author.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 08:09 am
Moore being interviewed by Jon Stewart:

Stewart: "Are you fair?"

Moore responded that no, he is partisan and his narration that is opinion might be right or might be wrong. He also congratulated the conservative groups who are trying to ban the film. He's going to send the Christmas cards for boosting the box office.

The film will break all box office records for a documentary (yes, it contains documentary footage
with an op-ed style of narration and a lot of humor...so what??)
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2004 08:12 am
Bradbury is angrier at journalists who can't get the story straight. Regardless, I still believe he may be taking the same clue from Mel Gibson -- start a controversy. The new edition of "Farenheit 451" is due out in a matter of weeks (before the film will be out of the theaters) and the new film next year.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 07:43:59