Fahrenheit 911 review by Roger Ebert

[shuan24]

Is it me or does it seem like Moore is playing our (the people of this country) emotions and trying to make big bucks out of it? It may be a documentary, but hes the only guy producing big Hollywood movies about our country's tragedies and making big bucks out of it too. Whats next? This reminds me of when 9/11 first happened and people were selling American flags, T-shirts, and even life insurance.... Sure its a free country, and its not illegal, but doesnt seem very moral to me.

So until next time, hes going to be hiding in his million dollar mansion waiting for our country's next tragedy, then getting his f@t @ss up and scram to make the next movie, so he can make more big bucks. Thats just wrong in my opinion. But hey, that's the American dream right?

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: shuan24
Is it me or does it seem like Moore is playing our (the people of this country) emotions and trying to make big bucks out of it? It may be a documentary, but hes the only guy producing big Hollywood movies about our country's tragedies and making big bucks out of it too. Whats next? This reminds me of when 9/11 first happened and people were selling American flags, T-shirts, and even life insurance.... Sure its a free country, and its not illegal, but doesnt seem very moral to me.

So until next time, hes going to be hiding in his million dollar mansion waiting for our country's next tragedy, then getting his f@t @ss up and scram to make the next movie, so he can make more big bucks. Thats just wrong in my opinion. But hey, that's the American dream right?

He's stated that this film is an attempt to affect the election in November and help get Bush out of office.

Obviously he's making money, but I don't think he's hurting for cash or anything at this point, so I'll believe him that this was first and foremost to get rid of Bush.

 

[MrCodeDude]

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

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: 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.

REALLY?

"The oddest of all the smears thrown at "Bowling for Columbine" is this one:

"The film depicts NRA president Charlton Heston giving a speech near Columbine; he actually gave it a year later and 900 miles away. The speech he did give is edited to make conciliatory statements sound like rudeness."
Um, yeah, that's right! I made it up! Heston never went there! He never said those things!

Or....

The Truth: Heston took his NRA show to Denver and did and said exactly what we recounted. From the end of my narration setting up Heston's speech in Denver, with my words, "a big pro-gun rally," every word out of Charlton Heston's mouth was uttered right there in Denver, just 10 days after the Columbine tragedy. But don't take my word ? read the transcript of his whole speech. Heston devotes the entire speech to challenging the Denver mayor and mocking the mayor's pleas that the NRA "don't come here." Far from deliberately editing the film to make Heston look worse, I chose to leave most of this out and not make Heston look as evil as he actually was. "




wacko attacko



Heston's full Denver speech is as follows:

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: MrCodeDude

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

Wow, did you just read someone else post that? Good job!

Here's his real review; *everyone* should know that they're less subjective on the TV show:

""Bring It On" shows every evidence of beginning life as a potentially funny, hard-edged, R-rated comedy. There's raunchy language, a half-nude locker room scene, jokes about sex and those startling cheerleader songs. I smiled at the songs; I might have enjoyed the movie if it had developed along the lines of "Animal House" or "American Pie." Instead we get a strange mutant beast, half Nickelodeon movie, half R-rated comedy. It's like kids with potty-mouth playing grownup."

Conclusion: "...it's not as appalling as "Coyote Ugly..."
http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2000/08/082501.html

2 STARS

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: EXman

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

It is not a Movie it is Misinformation plain and simple aka Propaganda. This is a work of FICTION he is not a journalist he is a movie making traitor that rather see America fall just because of the current administration than see America do well.

If you believe the same then you need to move to FRANCE or Spain.

this "movie" takes artistic license to a new level:roll:

If you have not seen the movie, how can you talk out of your ass like this? That's like saying that a Pepperoni pizza tastes like sh!t w/o even having a slice.

 

[unclebud]

"Ebert is the guy who gives any film remotely dealing with AFRICAN-AMERICAN people a free thumbs up because his wife is AFRICAN-AMERICAN. I like the guy but he can be a tad biased."
as opposed to an anonymous right-winger posting on a bbs? shame on mr. ebert for sharing his opinion like everyone else... especially since he actually gets paid to do it...

 

[Aharami]

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

never know till u give kerry a chance. for all u know kerry might turn out to be a good president. i'm basing my vote on what i know. I know bush isnt a good president cuz he already proved himself to be an incompetent one. i dont know that Kerry will be a bad one either, but I'm willing to give him a chance over Bush

 

[tennisflip]

Originally posted by: Baltazar325

Originally posted by: tennisflip

Originally posted by: gururu

anyway with regards to fahrenheit, such strong comments from people who haven't even seen it yet...

Well, unless he has drastically changed his style than this movie will be the same as his others. Directors rarely change. I hate John Woo films. They are all the same so when the next Woo film is released I wont go see it because I know that it will be the same as his others. This is the same thing as Moore. While entertaining, his movies are not documentaries. I just wish he wouldnt call them that.

I understand where you're coming from. But you never know until you see it. I had an unadulterated hate for Jim Carrey movies until I saw Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. I haven't been converted into a fan but I respect the movie. Sometimes people can step outside of their normal roles.

 

[NFS4]

And another thing...sorta off topic. But I went to church with my girlfriend, her brother (my best friend) and their parents a couple of Sundays ago (Pentecostal I think; I'm Baptist). Well, the pastor started going off on his bashing rage. He bashed homosexuals and condemned them to hell. He based adulterers (ok, fine by me) and then...the started on praising President Bush.

**At that moment, I knew I was in trouble**

He started going off on how great a man President Bush is and how much we should support him in this time of war (ok, I can understand supporting our president in a time of war, that's fine). He does some more Bush knob slobbin' THEN he goes overboard. He starts bashing Liberals and saying how evil they are. He talks about how people should be conservatives, then he goes on to say that we won't have to worry about Liberals in the afterlife b/c "They're all going to hell."

**At this point, Elizabeth's father looks over to me and gave me an "I'm sorry about that" look**

He knows that I'm not a big fan of Bush and that I'm pretty liberal on some issues since we're always talking politics. But I was like, WTF!!!! And he kept going on and on...:disgust:

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: EXman

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

It is not a Movie it is Misinformation plain and simple aka Propaganda. This is a work of FICTION he is not a journalist he is a movie making traitor that rather see America fall just because of the current administration than see America do well.

If you believe the same then you need to move to FRANCE or Spain.

this "movie" takes artistic license to a new level:roll:

If you have not seen the movie, how can you talk out of your ass like this? That's like saying that a Pepperoni pizza tastes like sh!t w/o even having a slice.

How do you always talk about cars if you have never driven or owned them?

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: NFS4
And another thing...sorta off topic. But I went to church with my girlfriend, her brother (my best friend) and their parents a couple of Sundays ago (Pentecostal I think; I'm Baptist). Well, the pastor started going off on his bashing rage. He bashed homosexuals and condemned them to hell. He based adulterers (ok, fine by me) and then...the started on praising President Bush.

**At that moment, I knew I was in trouble**

He started going off on how great a man President Bush is and how much we should support him in this time of war (ok, I can understand supporting our president in a time of war, that's fine). He does some more Bush knob slobbin' THEN he goes overboard. He starts bashing Liberals and saying how evil they are. He talks about how people should be conservatives, then he goes on to say that we won't have to worry about Liberals in the afterlife b/c "They're all going to hell."

**At this point, Elizabeth's father looks over to me and gave me an "I'm sorry about that" look**

He knows that I'm not a big fan of Bush and that I'm pretty liberal on some issues since we're always talking politics. But I was like, WTF!!!! And he kept going on and on...:disgust:

My g/f started at a church that seemed pretty normal for a couple months, then the pastor started doing the same thing, going on about how it was their religious duty to vote for Bush, etc..etc...

She stopped going then.

 

[toy4x4]

Originally posted by: broon
Moore and Ebert are hacks.

As is Bush.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: EXman

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

It is not a Movie it is Misinformation plain and simple aka Propaganda. This is a work of FICTION he is not a journalist he is a movie making traitor that rather see America fall just because of the current administration than see America do well.

If you believe the same then you need to move to FRANCE or Spain.

this "movie" takes artistic license to a new level:roll:

If you have not seen the movie, how can you talk out of your ass like this? That's like saying that a Pepperoni pizza tastes like sh!t w/o even having a slice.

How do you always talk about cars if you have never driven or owned them?

Most of the cars I talk about (Hondas, Toyotas, Nissans, Chevys, Fords, BMW's, etc) I've driven or had personal experience with. I had a roommate that worked for CarMax so I had a chance to sample cars from a vast variety of manufacturers over the years.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: MrCodeDude

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

Wow, did you just read someone else post that? Good job!

Here's his real review; *everyone* should know that they're less subjective on the TV show:

""Bring It On" shows every evidence of beginning life as a potentially funny, hard-edged, R-rated comedy. There's raunchy language, a half-nude locker room scene, jokes about sex and those startling cheerleader songs. I smiled at the songs; I might have enjoyed the movie if it had developed along the lines of "Animal House" or "American Pie." Instead we get a strange mutant beast, half Nickelodeon movie, half R-rated comedy. It's like kids with potty-mouth playing grownup."

Conclusion: "...it's not as appalling as "Coyote Ugly..."
http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2000/08/082501.html

2 STARS

I was just at Blockbuster and looked at the case. Go look at it for yourself.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: 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.

REALLY?

"The oddest of all the smears thrown at "Bowling for Columbine" is this one:

"The film depicts NRA president Charlton Heston giving a speech near Columbine; he actually gave it a year later and 900 miles away. The speech he did give is edited to make conciliatory statements sound like rudeness."
Um, yeah, that's right! I made it up! Heston never went there! He never said those things!

Or....

The Truth: Heston took his NRA show to Denver and did and said exactly what we recounted. From the end of my narration setting up Heston's speech in Denver, with my words, "a big pro-gun rally," every word out of Charlton Heston's mouth was uttered right there in Denver, just 10 days after the Columbine tragedy. But don't take my word ? read the transcript of his whole speech. Heston devotes the entire speech to challenging the Denver mayor and mocking the mayor's pleas that the NRA "don't come here." Far from deliberately editing the film to make Heston look worse, I chose to leave most of this out and not make Heston look as evil as he actually was. "




wacko attacko



Heston's full Denver speech is as follows:

You have your sources and I have mine. Just keep in mind that your source is Michael Moore defending himself.

Bowling For Truth

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: EXman

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

It is not a Movie it is Misinformation plain and simple aka Propaganda. This is a work of FICTION he is not a journalist he is a movie making traitor that rather see America fall just because of the current administration than see America do well.

If you believe the same then you need to move to FRANCE or Spain.

this "movie" takes artistic license to a new level:roll:

If you have not seen the movie, how can you talk out of your ass like this? That's like saying that a Pepperoni pizza tastes like sh!t w/o even having a slice.

How do you always talk about cars if you have never driven or owned them?

Most of the cars I talk about (Hondas, Toyotas, Nissans, Chevys, Fords, BMW's, etc) I've driven or had personal experience with. I had a roommate that worked for CarMax so I had a chance to sample cars from a vast variety of manufacturers over the years.

But not all right? My point is -- I've seen Moore's prior films, and I know the techniques he uses. He's shady and obviously has a foregone conclusion before he starts taping. He may say he doesn't but if you watch his prior work you will see he does. That means he is in fact biased, and it does impeach the veracity of what he is doing. Charleton Heston, the Congressman in 9/11, Terry Nichol's brother, etc. They've all complained how Moore edited things to fit his agenda, and not actually show what they MEANT. To me that is not the mark of a good documentary maker at all. Possibly if Moore did reality tv that would be ok, but when it comes to marketing a movie as truth... I haven't seen 9/11 yet, just as you have driven certain cars before. However, you can make statements based on your past experience, reviews, and the character of the person/automaker you are dealing with.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Baltazar325

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: EXman

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

It is not a Movie it is Misinformation plain and simple aka Propaganda. This is a work of FICTION he is not a journalist he is a movie making traitor that rather see America fall just because of the current administration than see America do well.

If you believe the same then you need to move to FRANCE or Spain.

this "movie" takes artistic license to a new level:roll:

Hahaha. Yep, there's the Neocon's America everyone! Disagree with the Government; well then move!

Revolution's over in November man. Sorry.

Well, I dont give a rats ass what his views are. He hates the Bush administration. Ok. I dont really care. I just hate that he presents his movies as news or documentary, when they are far from that.

OK WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!
that pretty much sums it up. Why would I pay $8 to see propoganda? See the movie and pay for Moore's next POS movie NO WAY!
Baltazar325 you hang around here for awhile!

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Ynog

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: Baltazar325
Well, I dont give a rats ass what his views are. He hates the Bush administration. Ok. I dont really care. I just hate that he presents his movies as news or documentary, when they are far from that.

From what I was given to understand he came out and said this was an opinion piece. Technically still a documentary, but an opinion piece documentary all the same.

Actually I'm not sure the academy considers the definition of documentary,
but the definition of a documentary according to Merriam-Webster is

Documentary - of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE

Now the key words are broadly : Factual, Objective.
Calling his movies that is simply a stretch.

Thats my only issue with Moore is that he tries to pass his obviously SUBJECTIVE movies off as OBJECTIVE.

Question to those who believe this movies is the cold hard truth. Do you take political attack ads at face value?

Wow another good post!

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: MrCodeDude

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

Wow, did you just read someone else post that? Good job!

Here's his real review; *everyone* should know that they're less subjective on the TV show:

""Bring It On" shows every evidence of beginning life as a potentially funny, hard-edged, R-rated comedy. There's raunchy language, a half-nude locker room scene, jokes about sex and those startling cheerleader songs. I smiled at the songs; I might have enjoyed the movie if it had developed along the lines of "Animal House" or "American Pie." Instead we get a strange mutant beast, half Nickelodeon movie, half R-rated comedy. It's like kids with potty-mouth playing grownup."

Conclusion: "...it's not as appalling as "Coyote Ugly..."
http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2000/08/082501.html

2 STARS

I was just at Blockbuster and looked at the case. Go look at it for yourself.

Are you saying the full review of "Bring it On" isn't real? Isn't the review from this OP in reference to his real review of "9/11"? As I said the TV reviews are far simpler, dumbed down if you will, for mass consumption. His actual reviews are mostly articulate and highly detailed. Negating his full reviews off the binary rating he gives on his TV show on a handful of movies you deem poor (and even he does), is kind of lame.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: 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.

REALLY?

"The oddest of all the smears thrown at "Bowling for Columbine" is this one:

"The film depicts NRA president Charlton Heston giving a speech near Columbine; he actually gave it a year later and 900 miles away. The speech he did give is edited to make conciliatory statements sound like rudeness."
Um, yeah, that's right! I made it up! Heston never went there! He never said those things!

Or....

The Truth: Heston took his NRA show to Denver and did and said exactly what we recounted. From the end of my narration setting up Heston's speech in Denver, with my words, "a big pro-gun rally," every word out of Charlton Heston's mouth was uttered right there in Denver, just 10 days after the Columbine tragedy. But don't take my word ? read the transcript of his whole speech. Heston devotes the entire speech to challenging the Denver mayor and mocking the mayor's pleas that the NRA "don't come here." Far from deliberately editing the film to make Heston look worse, I chose to leave most of this out and not make Heston look as evil as he actually was. "




wacko attacko



Heston's full Denver speech is as follows:

You have your sources and I have mine. Just keep in mind that your source is Michael Moore defending himself.

Bowling For Truth

Yea but he backed his up with the speech.

I guess being republican means proof is not proof unless it says what you want it to.
:roll:

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: MrCodeDude

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

Wow, did you just read someone else post that? Good job!

Here's his real review; *everyone* should know that they're less subjective on the TV show:

""Bring It On" shows every evidence of beginning life as a potentially funny, hard-edged, R-rated comedy. There's raunchy language, a half-nude locker room scene, jokes about sex and those startling cheerleader songs. I smiled at the songs; I might have enjoyed the movie if it had developed along the lines of "Animal House" or "American Pie." Instead we get a strange mutant beast, half Nickelodeon movie, half R-rated comedy. It's like kids with potty-mouth playing grownup."

Conclusion: "...it's not as appalling as "Coyote Ugly..."
http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2000/08/082501.html

2 STARS

I was just at Blockbuster and looked at the case. Go look at it for yourself.

Are you saying the full review of "Bring it On" isn't real? Isn't the review from this OP in reference to his real review of "9/11"? As I said the TV reviews are far simpler, dumbed down if you will, for mass consumption. His actual reviews are mostly articulate and highly detailed. Negating his full reviews off the binary rating he gives on his TV show on a handful of movies you deem poor (and even he does), is kind of lame.

Give me a break. WTF is the thing everyone thinks of when they think of Ebert? They think of 'Two Thumbs Up'. Do you think that the average person gives a damn about his STAR ratings? No. If he says Thumbs Up that's good enough for people.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: 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.

REALLY?

"The oddest of all the smears thrown at "Bowling for Columbine" is this one:

"The film depicts NRA president Charlton Heston giving a speech near Columbine; he actually gave it a year later and 900 miles away. The speech he did give is edited to make conciliatory statements sound like rudeness."
Um, yeah, that's right! I made it up! Heston never went there! He never said those things!

Or....

The Truth: Heston took his NRA show to Denver and did and said exactly what we recounted. From the end of my narration setting up Heston's speech in Denver, with my words, "a big pro-gun rally," every word out of Charlton Heston's mouth was uttered right there in Denver, just 10 days after the Columbine tragedy. But don't take my word ? read the transcript of his whole speech. Heston devotes the entire speech to challenging the Denver mayor and mocking the mayor's pleas that the NRA "don't come here." Far from deliberately editing the film to make Heston look worse, I chose to leave most of this out and not make Heston look as evil as he actually was. "




wacko attacko



Heston's full Denver speech is as follows:

You have your sources and I have mine. Just keep in mind that your source is Michael Moore defending himself.

Bowling For Truth

Yea but he backed his up with the speech.

I guess being republican means proof is not proof unless it says what you want it to.
:roll:

You Moore fans with your assumptions never cease to amaze me. You think that because I dislike his views and the method in which he force feeds them means that I'm a Republican. Did you even bother to read over all of the information on the website I linked for you? Or did you take the normal road of the liberal and take up the cry of your fearless leaders? I've read wacko attacko but that's because I like to see every relevant angle to any issue of interest.

Oh, btw, I'm actually registered as a Democrat but land more towards the moderate conservative side.

 

[Toasthead]

Originally posted by: TheShiz

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?

well, he is rather harsh on a ton of movies. white chicks 1 and a half stars. i've seen him give no stars to some movies like Freedy Got Fingered and the Life of David Gale.

Yeah..that will teach those movies not to pay up...

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: DanJ
Here's his real review; *everyone* should know that they're less subjective on the TV show:

""Bring It On" shows every evidence of beginning life as a potentially funny, hard-edged, R-rated comedy. There's raunchy language, a half-nude locker room scene, jokes about sex and those startling cheerleader songs. I smiled at the songs; I might have enjoyed the movie if it had developed along the lines of "Animal House" or "American Pie." Instead we get a strange mutant beast, half Nickelodeon movie, half R-rated comedy. It's like kids with potty-mouth playing grownup."

Conclusion: "...it's not as appalling as "Coyote Ugly..."
http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2000/08/082501.html

2 STARS

I was just at Blockbuster and looked at the case. Go look at it for yourself.

Are you saying the full review of "Bring it On" isn't real? Isn't the review from this OP in reference to his real review of "9/11"? As I said the TV reviews are far simpler, dumbed down if you will, for mass consumption. His actual reviews are mostly articulate and highly detailed. Negating his full reviews off the binary rating he gives on his TV show on a handful of movies you deem poor (and even he does), is kind of lame.

Give me a break. WTF is the thing everyone thinks of when they think of Ebert? They think of 'Two Thumbs Up'. Do you think that the average person gives a damn about his STAR ratings? No. If he says Thumbs Up that's good enough for people.

So what? He was allowed to articulate his thoughts in his full review. Just as he does here in his 9/11 review. Implying he doesn't know anything about good filmmaking due to the simplicity of his TV show is laziness.

Not that it really matters though. Ebert is a powerful critic who is paid for his opinion. Therefore he must be a corporate whore who knows nothing about filmmaking. Right?