Michael Moore's view on what happened to the United States after September 11; and how the Bush Administration allegedly used the tragic event to push forward its agenda for unjust wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Award-winning director Yoav Shamir (Defamation, Checkpoint) sets out on an entertaining and insightful international quest, exploring the notion of heroism through a multi-faceted lens. ... See full summary »
Following up on 'Bowling for Columbine', film-maker Michael Moore provides deep and though-provoking insights on the American security system, the level of paranoia, fear, uncertainty, false values and patriotism, which all combined together to set a stage for George W. Bush to launch a war on Iraq instead of focusing on getting the real culprit(s) behind the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This documentary also focuses on how some Saudis were safely and secretly flown out of America while planes were ostensibly grounded after the attacks. Archived film footage, candid interviews with politicians, and an overall waste of public funds for a war that was initiated on false pretension to wit: a weapon of mass distraction - to take the focus away from the real enemy and get Americans glued to their TV sets to watch innocent Iraqis and Afghans getting killed. And a war that would eventually alienate the U.S.A. and it's citizens from almost every country on Earth. Written by
Was it all just a dream?
God bless you, Florida! Thank you!
Did the last four years not really happen? Look, there's Ben Affleck. He's often in my dreams. And the Taxi Driver guy. He was there too. And little Stevie Wonder, he seemed so happy... like, like a miracle had taken place. Was it a dream? Or was it real?
See more »
All credited actors, including Michael Moore, are identified by the narrator or a graphic. See more »
Michael Moore's films can be entertaining. He likes to use stock footage and silly music to make his points, and he's a funny guy. You can't help but laugh at what he has to say sometimes. But I wouldn't trust any of his "fact based" films any farther than I could throw his orca-sized frame. You can't take a word he says at face value; you have to analyze his films, not watch them, to see where the fiction begins (usually in the first frame) and the fact ends. It's difficult reconciling Moore condescending tone with his claims to be the voice of the common man. Fahrenheit 911 begins with a sardonic diatribe that Moore makes sound as if every American is naive about his government, and he puts in details without, well, details. For instance, a big point in his Bush-has-ties-to-the-Bin-Laden-family rant is that "a half brother" of Osama had some contact with a colleague of Bush's a number of years ago. Half-brother, wow -- pretty close, huh? Well, it might be... only Moore forgets to mention that there are FIFTY FOUR Bin Laden brothers and sisters. (This is a SAUDI family, not the Cleavers.) That's more siblings than the total relatives in MY family, most of whom I barely know. I can hardly imagine that, if one of them committed a murder, MY relationships would instantly become suspect. Most of the connections that Moore portrays as the essence of obvious corruption are, to a well-informed viewer like me (I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 and won't in 2004), completely unpersuasive. Moore then portrays Marine recruiters are somehow evil in their use of (effective) recruiting techniques. ("You wanna be am athlete? David Robinson was in the service before the NBA... Did you know Shaggy got his start playing in the Marine Corps band?") Are we supposed to blame the GOP for the service trying to get people to sign up? Isn't that their job? If this weren't wartime, would Moore have any problem with it? Moore correctly points out that the Bush Administration did not allow flag-draped coffins to be photographed (a horrible decision), then self-aggrandizingly says that the media have completely ignored the stories of the wounded and killed soldiers. (I listen to NPR every day, and they are ALWAYS telling the human-interest profiles of fallen soldiers.) How is it that, somehow, the White House flaks getting their make-up applied before going on-air is portrayed as vain and shallow (is Moore saying that none of his sympathetic interviewees primped a little before going on camera)? I have a feeling that, if a Republican were to use images from 9/11 in a movie which celebrated Bush's leadership skills, Moore would be the first to call it exploitation. How does his bald use of such things equate to "noble" propaganda? The movie is so deeply flawed (not in its politics so much as its structure) that any educated person with access to Google could debunk virtually every claim made, or at least point out Moore's grave omissions and mischaracterizations. As entertainment, maybe this is a B; as a "documentary," probably a D.
6 of 8 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?