A story that questions the shaming of the US through revisionist history, lies and omissions by educational institutions, political organizations, Alinsky, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other progressives to destroy America.
An investigation into how the Clintons have amassed millions in personal wealth through foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation, a supposed charity, in exchange for political favors... See full summary »
A documentary that takes a close look at who Hillary Clinton really is. The many mini-interviews, news articles, and investigative reports give the viewer an in depth look into what makes Mrs. Clinton tick.
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.
America is asking if Fahrenheit 9/11 is a healthy dose of dissent, or shameful cowardice. If Moore really believes what he says, or if it's all about the money. Fahrenhype 9/11 plunges a big needle deep into Moore's methods and answers these questions, drawing both blood and bile. See how America has been lied to about the cause of 9/11. Lied to about the truth of Islamic fascism. Lied to about how best to make America safe.Written by
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.
54 of 81 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this