Tuesday, July 06, 2004

So Kerry picked Edwards. Yea!! Edwards is so cute, which is important because this is nothing but a beauty pageant. Kerry made a wise move because if Dems agreed they don't like Bush, but not that they like Kerry. Having Edwards on the ticket helps balance the Democratic ballot. I still need to see Fahrenheit 9/11. Maybe this weekend. I took by 3rd O Chem test today. Maybe I'll break 83 this time.

On : 7/7/2004 9:52:25 AM Will (www) said:

Fahrenheit 9/11 is crap. I enjoy a fresh look at the establishment as much as the next guy, even more so, i am sure. But moore is just as bad as every other sensationalist out there. He appeals to emotions rather than fact. Far to often he uses "libral numbers" such as ... "the gulf war's are the most bloody conflicts in history" Of course he is refering to the Iran/Iraq War, using their body count to make an erroneous point.. Thats a soft issue, based ever so loosely in fact, he goes farther and actually denies evidence many times. In the new movie he interviews several congressmen to ask them why their families are not enlisted ... whoops he found some who were . While he airs the initial "confrontation" he omits the part where the congressmen say that their families are serving in Iraq. And even denies this in the voice over.

The worst moment of motion picture history. Bowling for columbine, When he sinisterizes the ICBMs rolling down the same streets children play on, Rolling down the road as children sleep. While i like his violence is in the system idea, his over the top theatrics really weaken his points and cause him to bend his "facts" too much.

On : 7/7/2004 3:40:39 PM gp (www) said:

my two cents.. probably worth even less with growing inflation:
what's great about moore is that he realizes its sensationalism and exploits it. he makes his films idiot proof (though ive only seen one so i cant say that). for that very reason he plays on emotion, while compounding it with facts (though minimally in most cases). i dont like moore, but i will defend this movie, as i think even a close-minded individual might take a second look at their views, which is probably important. the mass amounts of fan-fare it has received is strange. especially with more factual documentaries (the unseen war, fog of war) on similar subjects which came out in months past.

but really, im sick of hearing left, right and centred views on this movie. it compounds the fact evermore and gives it more media than it deserves. i cant even imagine what kind of publicity it gets or got on tv. oh, and now that you mentioned such a great image, i have to see bowling for columbine..

On : 7/7/2004 6:09:37 PM Maryam (www) said:

It's a movie. It's art. Art is emotion.

Moore has an agenda. He's not presenting a balanced look at the Bush administration and then asking the audience to come to its own conclusions. Before the opening credits roll he has already decided for us which side to be on. He has to use leftist sensationalism in order to further his goal: the removal of President Bush from office in November. Every movie has to have a villian, and Moore casts Bush in that role. Try not to take it too seriously; it's just a movie.

On : 7/7/2004 11:10:28 PM Will (www) said:

its not a movie, its a message. One that people beleive in, by depricating the message he depricates the people who beleive in it. Or even worse, he misleads the people.

On : 7/9/2004 12:51:17 PM gp (www) said:

you do have a point. i wish i knew what his motive was, because it does seem self-serving, but then again hes not the typical middle-upper class liberal. i think he just loves this country and he'd rather change it to meet his demands than leave. whats the best way to do it? better than becoming a politician (or terrorist), is to make movies about his message. more people pay attention to movies than they do politicians. and i think people trust movies more than they do politicians. im beginning to sound like im moore's biggest fan. anyway... like i said before, we're creating more fanfare with this argle bargle. so we should stop and let nature (and the antithesis: journalists) take their course on this film.

No comments: