|Page 1 of 11:||          |
|Index||109 reviews in total|
I have now watched both Fahrenheit 9/11 and Fahrenhype 9/11 and it is
evident that both films, in my opinion contain biases that influence
largely the desired end of the film.
The problem with contrasting the two films is the discussion of who has the burden of proof? Many reviewers state that Fahrenhype 9/11 has no proof to disprove the accusations and conclusions of Fahrenheit 9/11, but Fahrenheit is lacking the clear, solid proof to justify Moore's speculation of the Bush administration's activities. Who has the burden of proof? Is it the producers of Fahrenhype 9/11 who are trying to refute Moore's film or is it Michael Moore who speculates about the various alleged lies of the Bush administration? Neither film clearly proves their opinion, but instead gives usually shaky evidence, although both at times have critically thought out premises of their arguments.
After watching Fahrenheit 9/11, I must admit I felt largely like there was a much more concerted effort on Moore's part to get me to believe what he believes about the Bush administration, perhaps Moore feels some urgency for people to examine the actions of President Bush. With Fahrenhype 9/11, I can't say I felt the same pressure to believe what they are preaching.
Both films are effective in that they both raise discussion about the known facts and what we know about the surrounding events. Neither, however, are give good enough grounds to truly influence one's political doctrine. Both films prey on the viewer's naiveness and they both challenge the viewer to question what is being told to them, whether it is the US Government speaking or it is Michael Moore.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I'll begin by saying I have no party affiliation, I decide on each
issue independently. I've also marked this comment as containing a
spoiler just to be safe. I'm too unsure about IMDb's threshold between
a comment with and without a spoiler but I didn't go into details.
Fahrenhype 9/11 clears the air that Michael Moore got dirty with Fahrenheit 9/11. This movie isn't pro-Democrat, and it's not really anti-Michael Moore because it doesn't attack him personally, it only attacks Michael's views put forth in his movie. This distinction is one of the best features of the movie overall, it has no agenda except to fix inconsistencies between Moore's points in Fahrenheit 9/11 and the truth.
In the movie, Moore presents everything in a very special way to illicit the maximum response and he has admitted that this movie is made to change the viewers mind. Once you realize that, you also realize that this movie ceases to become a documentary and it transforms into the textbook definition of propaganda, a work of art specifically tailored to change the minds of the target audience.
Fahrenhype 9/11 has people that were in Fahrenheit 9/11 expressing outrage about how they were portrayed and taken out of context. People include a mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, a wounded solider from Iraq that lost his arms in an accident and the Oregon State Trooper. They said in Fahrenhype 9/11 that if they knew they'd be in a piece of liberal propaganda, that they never would have agreed to it.
I am glad this movie was made because people spent the time and effort to refute the unsupported claims by Moore with authoritative facts from political documents and individuals and finally set the record straight. Every person that watched Fahrenheit 9/11 should watch this movie too so you hear both sides of the issues.
All who saw Moore's film should see this. It shows the lies, the
twistings, the dishonesty, the other side. There are interviews with
people who were used in Moore's film. There are interviews with people
who know about various claims that Moore makes. It has a response to
most every scene or accusation from Moore's film, and they are not
scraping the barrel to answer them: rather they show how absurd Moore
was in his claims. It brings context to policy that Moore pretends is
Bush acting in self-interest or for oil. But mostly it shows how
distorted Moore was in his presentation of soldiers and America and
also Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
Many of those used in his moves: A) did not know nor give permission to be used in the film B) were used completely out of context so as to turn their words around into opposite meaning C) were mad as hell about it and felt violated and wronged
Their words were used to mean that they were angry at Bush and America when in truth they felt the opposite. If you see these longer interviews with them it shows that the opposite of what Moore insinuates is actually true. Anyone who has seen Michael Moore's film should see this one too.
Let's drop the polarized nonsense and tell the truth about this movie
and it's counterpart. Neither of these are worth consideration of
either a 10 or a 1. All that is is further extension of the partisan
nonsense we continue to find ourselves embroiled in.
Now, as for this flick. Is it entertaining? To a certain degree, it is. Zell Miller's analogy of the copperhead snake under the porch is simply wonderful, and Ron Silver is as witty as they come. However, a movie like this is not meant as entertainment.
Is it well made? For being a low budget documentary, it comes across rather well.
Here's the most important question: Is it effective in getting it's point across. I have to answer emphatically, yes! It has been well documented, not only by this movie but elsewhere (Dave Kopel's 59 Deceits in F9/11 web page is the most comprehensive I've seen), that Micheal Moore uses "truth" and "facts" in such a manner as to present a misleading picture. This movie goes a long way in deconstructing Moore's methods, and supplying the context Moore often leaves out.
Do I think it's the greatest movie ever? Sorry, that place will forever be held in my mind by Star Wars. But I do think that it is an effective little documentary that acts as a counter to Moore's polemic propaganda.
I'll give this film credit for two things: 1) being fairly focused on
only refuting elements of Fahrenheit 911 , and 2) having Zell Miller in
the film. This guy is like a legend in Georgia, and comes across as
Besides those things the film has its share of problems. The one point they have on Michael Moore (if this is true, which it seems to be) is that he took an opinion article and changed it to make it look like a newspaper headline. I agree, that was wrong, but to tell you the truth i never notice it when i watch the film.
Politically I belong to neither party(i voted for Ralph), so it's easy for me to spot the bs on both sides, and I feel that many other viewers can too(i could be wrong). For example, i'm sure kids weren't laughing and flying kites in Iraq just before we bombed it, but I also don't necessarily believe someone in a film like this saying something about what Michael Moore said firsthand to them, like "You're making too much out of these 911 deaths". Proof, please? Anyone who's ever seen F911 will know that Moore would never say or think such a thing. Maybe he gave off a certainly vibe they didn't like or they think he's anti-American.Here's a thought for the director: keep opinions *out* of documentaries, at least as many of them as you can, and just focus on the FACTS. not just something Ann Coulter says about betting someone anything that "a liberal will never mention the Kurds." That is just faulty and mindless rambling imo. The narrator or Ann COULD have made that into a constructive argument, like how many Kurds were killed, or SOME FACT instead of some funny jab at the lefties. It's not offensive, just annoying.
Maybe Moore did his math wrong and OK, maybe $860 billion *isn't* 7-8% of our economy, however i doubt a fan of F911 would ever spout that percentage as it's obvious in Ft911 that he just guessed the percentage while he was on the side of the road talking to an officer. Again, pointless.
This film goes on further to attack the film over minute points from the fact that "not ALL recruiters are pushy, LOOK! Here's a real good-looking non-menacing one...BINGO!" Come on. They also say stupid things about why Moore's statements are false. Example, "we didn't go to Iraq for oil, because otherwise why would the gas prices be so high?!" Oh, and even more brilliant, "we don't go into Iran for oil", (so what?) and Israel is our friend and **they** don't have oil. (No sh** sherlock, they're not making a point, just proving the opposite, that if Israel did have oil America wouldn't have the same buddy-relationship.)I understand that some Bush supporters get offended by little bites and quips such as those recruiters and those soldiers at war that seemed cold-hearted in F911, but trying to whine over the most superficial points ain't gonna get you anywhere.
Another thing~ noticed I use the term "Bush supporters" and not conservatives or Republicans. One of this film's biggest weaknesses is to portray Democrats/liberals as "the other side". That's what upsets me, because it's something Moore never does. For example, this film tries to defend Bush and the Carlyle group by naming the Democrats who got rich off of it as well. OK, does that make it any less corrupt? Or the banquet to raise $ for Catholic schools wasn't elitist, because Al Gore attended. Oh, yeah... a Democrat! I just think these arguments are childish and the film sort of looks too desperate and too sensitive on parts of Moore's film that weren't even the real issues.
No one talked about, for example: -Why out of all other countries, including Saudi Arabia, was Iraq more of a target than the others. -James R.Bath, and why the Bush team blacked his name out of his military records if they weren't afraid of being linked to Osama bin Laden's family. -Why we gave Osama a 3month head start before looking for him. -Why the Patriot Act (and others) don't get read by most of Congress before getting passed. Instead they talk about only why the PAct is so great. -Dick Cheney's involvement at Halliburton and how lucrative the war is for him.
All in all, this film is too loaded with opinion and perspective, though I liked Zel Miller's story about the copperhead snakes:)and what's worse is it accuses MM of profiting off others' misery but it's as if this film tried to do that even more, with crying families saying that Moore is shaming the soldiers that dies for the freedom of our nation and that many liberals are misguided (there they go again with grouping one side against the other.
Bottom line: this film confirmed what i thought about F911 in the first place: that Bush is a man with a lot of ties to various interests and is indebted and obliged to the Saudi family, in many ways because of his father. THIS CAN't BE GOOD FOR US. I'm not questioning Bush's resolve, determination, patriotism, contribution to troops, sense of humour, and prise for America, and Moore never questioned any of it either. The only thing he (and I)questions are his motives and friendly attitude toward the Saudis.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
If you've just read xstatic180's write up, don't be discouraged. This is not a politically charged movie as was Michael Moore's. Simply put it informs you and I of the real truth about 9-11. To say that it is a Michael Moore-bashing movie is true. For one, Moore presents 59 inaccuracies in his movie Fahrenheit 9/11. The purpose of this movie was to discard the falsities that so many American's cheered at in Moore's movie. As well as presenting authoritative and credible evidence to clarify the shortcomings of Moore's film, this movie presents a bipartisan point of view with the thesis being that American's have been deceived by Fahrenheit 9/11 and we have the right to rebut. To xstatic180, I say to you that your views of this movie are political and I would put you in the category of Alan Colmes and the rest of the democrats that are to bullheaded to even listen to what republicans or even democrats that oppose them have to say. This movie features democrats like Dick Morris, Zell Miller, and Edward I. Koch who speak to the inaccuracy of Moore's film and the many lies he created. If your own party telling you that this is an outright lie is not good enough, then I don't know what is.
For a long while, i was undecided. I liked bush, didn't like bush,
yadda yadda yadda.
I saw Fahrenheight 9/11 and thought "hmm. wow. thats... really bad." and i KNEW that this couldn't be true.
About a month ago i saw Fahrenhype 9/11 and my suspicions were true.
Rearraging articles, cutting video, and bringing images together in a way not showing the real truth is what Michael Moore did throughout the entire movie. Its funny how in "Bowling For Columbine" he never blamed Republicans on gun control ONCE! he explained how the media is mostly responsible.
Then, a market becomes available for people who walk around wearing "FUCK BUSH!" pins. oh joy! So thats all he did. Michael more used horrible manners to deceive the public in showing Fahrenhight 9/11. He capatilized off the growing "hate" for Bush and made a movie. The mass media is liberal, and he just used that as an advantage. Its funny how he was criticizing the same media in his last movie. All he wanted is money.
I knew I was in for a real treat when i found Fahrenhype 9/11, and every suspicion and doubt came true. Michael Moore is childish, foolish, and uses corruption and other horrible means to get a point across to the public - a completely false point - so he can make some money.
Great movie, highly recommend for democrats/republicans/independent/whatever.
At first when I started watching this movie (after having seen
Fahrenheit), I thought it was quite boring and offered absolutely no
proof for its claims.
Then the pace picked up and became more convincing. The climax came when interviewees from Fahrenheit talked about how the things they said in Fahrenheit were taken out of context, and about how they never even suspected they were going to be in an anti-Bush film.
A documentary can show archived footage, documents, etc. to prove its point (like Fahrenheit did), but in the end, all of it isn't so difficult to manipulate and it's possible to make a convincing documentary where 90% of the information is a big lie (i.e. Jenin Jenin). However, when you see people from the actual movie saying they meant completely different things, this is solid proof that cannot be faked or manipulated.
Therefore, if I were to watch just the first half of each film, Fahrenheit would be so much better. With the second half though, this movie, Fahrenhype 9/11, convinced me much better.
A must-see for everyone who has seen (and enjoyed) Fahrenheit 9/11 - so you aren't left with just a one-sided argument.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I just recently saw this for the first time. It's now well after the
election, and about a month before the fourth anniversary of 9/11.
Then, just before writing this review, I took a look at a few of the negative comments here. It's interesting to see how few of them actually paid attention to what was being said and done in this film -- of those I saw (and I didn't look at all of them), only one wrote as though he'd really paid attention.
Criticisms on this movie not being a point-by-point rebuttal of Moore's film are understandable, but while Silver's film is intended as a general rebuttal of Moore's, it also needs to stand on its own. I haven't yet seen Moore's film, and I won't comment on it directly until I have; I can say that Silver's does stand on its own.
Interviews include people who were used in Moore's film -- and, judging from the palpable anger and sense of violation in their voice, "used" is a well-chosen word here -- along with New York and other government officials, writers who have rebutted Moore's work, and a group of US military recruiters fresh from seeing "Farenheit 9/11" (the marquee is clearly visible behind them). Several of Moore's more outrageous and widespread assertions -- such as weapons of mass destruction being the sole reason and justification for the Iraqi invasion, President Bush sitting fully inactive for seven minutes after being told about the attack (out of the five minutes he was in the room), and Federal funding to the Oregon State Police leaving the Oregon Coast undefended, and more -- are completely blown out of the water.
Granted, the film could have been better. Some of the direct criticisms of Moore and his behavior were over the top, most of the name-calling was uncalled for, some of the rebuttal could have been better organized, and a more thorough analysis of why Moore manipulates the truth (as is shown in this film) would have been welcome. But overall it's a very strong counter-portrayal of America as a land of proud, generous people, as opposed to Moore's apparent view of us all as greedy, bloodthirsty cretins.
OK...I admit it, this film was not as polished as a Michael Moore
documentary. However, anyone who rates Fahrenheit as high and rates
Fahrenhype as low, is not being fair. They're probably the same people
who rail against Bush as a liar, but when Michael does it, it's no big
When I watched Fahrenheit I was upset to learn of "secret" ties between the Bush's and the Bin Laden's of Saudi Arabia. I was upset to learn of the pipeline through Afghanistan, but I was more upset (when watching Fahrenhype) to learn that Michael got his facts wrong.
Fahrenhype uncovers blatant falsehoods on a "somewhat" point by point comparison to Fahrenheit. I appreciate investigative journalism...our free press is a wonderful thing. However, Michael Moore's is not investigative journalism...it is a nothing more than political propaganda. Fahrenhype is, at the very least, a competent rebuttal to his film.
Obviously there is a convervative slant to Fahrenhype. Obviously there are statements made that liberals will not agree with, but if you want to balance Michael's viewpoint, you should definitely watch this film.
|Page 1 of 11:||          |
|Plot summary||Ratings||Newsgroup reviews|
|External reviews||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|