Fahrenheit 911 review by Roger Ebert

[TheShiz]

I for one have had enough of the simplistic Moore bashing on this board, so here is a review of his new movie from Roger Ebert:

Fahrenheit 911 review

 

[pyonir]

I put as much weight in a review from Ebert (or any "movie critic") as i do anyone here.

 

[new2AMD]

politics and news?

 

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: pyonir
I put as much weight in a review from Ebert (or any "movie critic") as i do anyone here.

well i for one would rather read a well thought review by someone who has viewed countless movies over the past few decades over 2 sentence drivel from that comes from a lot of the people here. I'm not saying there aren't any good posts, they are just fairly rare. If nothing else, ebert can give you a good idea how good of a movie the film is, not just how much he agrees/disagrees with the content.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Ebert gave 'Bring it On' a thumbs up! HE KNOWS HIS MOVIES!

 

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: new2AMD
politics and news?

I would figure movie discussion should be in off topic.

 

[TitanDiddly]

Ok, so you like bias on the other side. There is no neutral party.

 

[TheAudit]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Ebert gave 'Bring it On' a thumbs up! HE KNOWS HIS MOVIES!

LOL

 

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Ebert gave 'Bring it On' a thumbs up! HE KNOWS HIS MOVIES!

the print reviews are better than the ones on the show since he can only give it a thumbs up or down on the show. the print reviews have a star rating.

 

[new2AMD]

Originally posted by: TheShiz

Originally posted by: new2AMD
politics and news?

I would figure movie discussion should be in off topic.

you expect me to believe this is an actual movie discussion?

 

[StageLeft]

Although Moore's narration ranges from outrage to sarcasm, the most devastating passage in the film speaks for itself. That's when Bush, who was reading My Pet Goat to a classroom of Florida children, is notified of the second attack on the World Trade Center, and yet lingers with the kids for almost seven minutes before finally leaving the room. His inexplicable paralysis wasn't underlined in news reports at the time, and only Moore thought to contact the teacher in that schoolroom -- who, as it turned out, had made her own video of the visit. The expression on Bush's face as he sits there is odd indeed.

Interesting...

 

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: PhasmatisNox
Ok, so you like bias on the other side. There is no neutral party.

notice the only other review thread about this movie is a blatent bash of the film. I would argue that Ebert's review is much more neutral, notice how at the bottom he talks about Bowling for Columbine and some of the problems that film had.

 

[Turkish]

Originally posted by: new2AMD
politics and news?

no deepsh!t, no politics and news. its about a movie review.

 

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Although Moore's narration ranges from outrage to sarcasm, the most devastating passage in the film speaks for itself. That's when Bush, who was reading My Pet Goat to a classroom of Florida children, is notified of the second attack on the World Trade Center, and yet lingers with the kids for almost seven minutes before finally leaving the room. His inexplicable paralysis wasn't underlined in news reports at the time, and only Moore thought to contact the teacher in that schoolroom -- who, as it turned out, had made her own video of the visit. The expression on Bush's face as he sits there is odd indeed.

Interesting...

yeah, i want to see this:

"And he makes good use of candid footage, including an eerie video showing Bush practicing facial expressions before going live with his address to the nation about 9/11." -from the Ebert review

 

[GasX]

Ebert gets more cheese on the back end than any critic in history. To think his views are insightful is laughable. He is a well packaged marketing whore.

 

[TitanDiddly]

Originally posted by: TheShiz

Originally posted by: PhasmatisNox
Ok, so you like bias on the other side. There is no neutral party.

notice the only other review thread about this movie is a blatent bash of the film. I would argue that Ebert's review is much more neutral, notice how at the bottom he talks about Bowling for Columbine and some of the problems that film had.

And the movie(and the review) is a far more blatant bash of Bush.

 

[T2T III]

Ebert's fat neck has choked the oxygen going to his brain. 'Nuff said.

 

[TitanDiddly]

Originally posted by: PhasmatisNox

Originally posted by: TheShiz

Originally posted by: PhasmatisNox
Ok, so you like bias on the other side. There is no neutral party.

notice the only other review thread about this movie is a blatent bash of the film. I would argue that Ebert's review is much more neutral, notice how at the bottom he talks about Bowling for Columbine and some of the problems that film had.

And the movie(and the review) is a far more blatant bash of Bush.

Originally posted by: Mwilding
Ebert gets more cheese on the back end than any critic in history. To think his views are insightful is laughable. He is a well packaged marketing whore.

Owned.

 

[new2AMD]

Originally posted by: Xiety

Originally posted by: new2AMD
politics and news?

no deepsh!t, no politics and news. its about a movie review.

again, tell me how this is going to end up being a discussion on cinematography and soundtrack usage? Moron

 

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: Mwilding
Ebert gets more cheese on the back end than any critic in history. To think his views are insightful is laughable. He is a well packaged marketing whore.

at least he gives plausable examples of his assertions, which is more than can be said about yourself.

 

[broon]

Moore and Ebert are hacks.

 

[unclebud]

i liked his review of akira and the blues brothers though

 

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: PhasmatisNox

Originally posted by: TheShiz

Originally posted by: PhasmatisNox
Ok, so you like bias on the other side. There is no neutral party.

notice the only other review thread about this movie is a blatent bash of the film. I would argue that Ebert's review is much more neutral, notice how at the bottom he talks about Bowling for Columbine and some of the problems that film had.

And the movie(and the review) is a far more blatant bash of Bush.

oh, so you've seen it?

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: TheShiz

Originally posted by: Mwilding
Ebert gets more cheese on the back end than any critic in history. To think his views are insightful is laughable. He is a well packaged marketing whore.

at least he gives plausable examples of his assertions, which is more than can be said about yourself.

It's not plausable that Ebert is an industry whore?

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: TheShiz

Originally posted by: Mwilding
Ebert gets more cheese on the back end than any critic in history. To think his views are insightful is laughable. He is a well packaged marketing whore.

at least he gives plausable examples of his assertions, which is more than can be said about yourself.

It's not plausable that Ebert is an industry whore?

his integrity is not in question when based on evidence.

its not plausible your a martian?