Fahrenheit 911 review by Roger Ebert

[Banana]

I'd bet $2 that there'll be shouting matches in the movie audience.

 

[yukichigai]

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

As long as he gave a thumbs down to "You Got Served" and "Gigli" he's still better than most.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: yukichigai

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

As long as he gave a thumbs down to "You Got Served" and "Gigli" he's still better than most.

I'm not sure about those but he also gave thumbs up to 'Josie and the Pussycats' if that matters to you.

 

[Electric Amish]

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

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

Amen Brotha!

Hmm...I'd tend to think otherwise, as I've learned that many people haven't even seen the films they commentate on. At least reviewers do.

I comment about films I haven't seen all the time. I have neither the time nor the money to waste on crappy movies. Some are just obviously not worth the expense, e.g. anything associated with Michael Moore.

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: Goth

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

Don't forget his thumb's up review for Gigli

Oh dear Lord, nevermind, he has no integrity anymore.

Let's just hope Leonard Maltin doesn't give the sequel to "You Got Served" a thumbs up. (or in this case, "Hot" vs. "Not") Then there really will be no decent movie reviewers out there.

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: rh71
This is just a documentary ?

Don't be naive...

I don't care about politics either. I want some good old fashion entertainment at the theatre.

 

[sillymofo]

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

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

Amen Brotha!

Hmm...I'd tend to think otherwise, as I've learned that many people haven't even seen the films they commentate on. At least reviewers do.

I comment about films I haven't seen all the time. I have neither the time nor the money to waste on crappy movies. Some are just obviously not worth the expense, e.g. anything associated with Michael Moore.

So it's your habit to comment on things that you know absolutely nothing about?

 

[Electric Amish]

So it's your habit to comment on things that you know absolutely nothing about?

I never comment on things I know nothing about. I know lots about this movie.

1) it's about Bush and the war in Iraq
2) it's totally one-sided
3) Michael Moore is a total douche-bag dumbass.
4) etc.

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo
So it's your habit to comment on things that you know absolutely nothing about?

It's a well documented fact that he manipulates the truth to push his political agenda. If you are against his views, not going to his movies is an enlightened position.

 

[sillymofo]

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo
So it's your habit to comment on things that you know absolutely nothing about?

It's a well documented fact that he manipulates the truth to push his political agenda. If you are against his views, not going to his movies is an enlightened position.

How do you know that some one else didn't manipulate the perceived truth, and all he did was changing it back?

 

Ebert is the guy who gives any film remotely dealing with black people a free thumbs up because his wife is black. I like the guy but he can be a tad biased.

EDIT: Whoah! He did can White Chicks, so there may be hope for him after all!

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Aharami

i dont understand how anyone can love bush. i mean, if not anything else, the man cant speak! i think being able to speak properly and eloquently is one quality any leader should have.

he might be a nice guy, might be a caring husband and father...but he's simply not a good president

still a much better alternative to pansy boy kerry though

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo
So it's your habit to comment on things that you know absolutely nothing about?

It's a well documented fact that he manipulates the truth to push his political agenda. If you are against his views, not going to his movies is an enlightened position.

Like Bush & Co.? And every political commentater ever?

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo
So it's your habit to comment on things that you know absolutely nothing about?

It's a well documented fact that he manipulates the truth to push his political agenda. If you are against his views, not going to his movies is an enlightened position.

How do you know that some one else didn't manipulate the perceived truth, and all he did was changing it back?

Oh, you mean like editing speeches in a manner that tricks the viewer into thinking it is all one speech?

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: 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

I'm going to see the movie before I make a judgement, but his previous movie included a lot of "facts" that were nothing more than things taken out of context or edited to make a false situation. How can I not expect more of this in the new movie?

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Aharami
i dont understand how anyone can love bush. i mean, if not anything else, the man cant speak! i think being able to speak properly and eloquently is one quality any leader should have.

he might be a nice guy, might be a caring husband and father...but he's simply not a good president

still a much better alternative to pansy boy kerry though

Yea, who was actually in Vietnam. Must be a total pansy. :roll:

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo
So it's your habit to comment on things that you know absolutely nothing about?

It's a well documented fact that he manipulates the truth to push his political agenda. If you are against his views, not going to his movies is an enlightened position.

How do you know that some one else didn't manipulate the perceived truth, and all he did was changing it back?

you need a reboot and an OS upgrade

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: TheShiz
I'm sure they do, i'd like to see Clinton's too!

Clintons would just be him lightly biting his lower lip and making groaning noises. Cmon hes shown that face plenty of times.

Don't forget the upright fist with the thumb slightly sticking out

 

[sillymofo]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo
So it's your habit to comment on things that you know absolutely nothing about?

It's a well documented fact that he manipulates the truth to push his political agenda. If you are against his views, not going to his movies is an enlightened position.

How do you know that some one else didn't manipulate the perceived truth, and all he did was changing it back?

Oh, you mean like editing speeches in a manner that tricks the viewer into thinking it is all one speech?

OK, now I'm , who are we talking about?

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo
So it's your habit to comment on things that you know absolutely nothing about?

It's a well documented fact that he manipulates the truth to push his political agenda. If you are against his views, not going to his movies is an enlightened position.

How do you know that some one else didn't manipulate the perceived truth, and all he did was changing it back?

Oh, you mean like editing speeches in a manner that tricks the viewer into thinking it is all one speech?

OK, now I'm , who are we talking about?

Wow, you watched Bowling for Columbine and didn't know? This is why I hate Michael Moore movies...

 

[sillymofo]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo
So it's your habit to comment on things that you know absolutely nothing about?

It's a well documented fact that he manipulates the truth to push his political agenda. If you are against his views, not going to his movies is an enlightened position.

How do you know that some one else didn't manipulate the perceived truth, and all he did was changing it back?

Oh, you mean like editing speeches in a manner that tricks the viewer into thinking it is all one speech?

OK, now I'm , who are we talking about?

Wow, you watched Bowling for Columbine and didn't know? This is why I hate Michael Moore movies...

Yeah, but I thought that's the editing style of the movie, isn't it like that through out the whole movie?

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo
So it's your habit to comment on things that you know absolutely nothing about?

It's a well documented fact that he manipulates the truth to push his political agenda. If you are against his views, not going to his movies is an enlightened position.

How do you know that some one else didn't manipulate the perceived truth, and all he did was changing it back?

Oh, you mean like editing speeches in a manner that tricks the viewer into thinking it is all one speech?

OK, now I'm , who are we talking about?

Wow, you watched Bowling for Columbine and didn't know? This is why I hate Michael Moore movies...

Yeah, but I thought that's the editing style of the movie, isn't it like that through out the whole movie?

There's an entire Heston speech that is actually multiple speeches put together. Hell, he did such a good job editing that I didn't even notice, yet it leads the viewer to believe that the entire speech is being given right after the Columbine incident.

 

[jjones]

Ebert has always been 50/50 to me on his reviews; about half of his reviews I agree with, and about half I don't. In any case, I hadn't planned on seeing this movie anyway as there's no way in hell I'm putting any of my money in that hypocritical fat fsck Michael Moore's pocket.

 

[Ilmater]

I respect Ebert like no other film critic, and I think his views are very frequently unbiased, and I've found that literally EVERY movie he has given a thumbs up to I enjoyed. However, I have not seen "Gring It On," so I can't say I've seen every movie he's given a thumbs up to.

Rotten Tomatoes agrees:

Text

 

[chrisms]

How can you bash a movie that hasn't come out yet? Ignorance. You watch the damn film and afterwards if you can prove something wrong about it, then good for you. But if you can't, then shut the hell up and realize that Bush is a moron and a puppet.