KissaBoo

This scathing article on Slate about Fahrenheit 911 makes me want to go see if the movie really is as misleading as it's claimed...

Btw, I was just conjecturing about Fahrenheit's availability, but P2Pnet informs us that it is already spreading far and wide.

Also, while stealing is wrong (not that I believe pirating is stealing per se), I wouldn't cry any tears for Mike Moore, man of the people, since he apparently has million dollar plus homes in both Michigan and New York (lost the link). Not that stealing from the rich is any different from stealing from the poor plus I'm sure there were PA's working for nothing on this movie, but just information in the interest of full disclosure.

After much discussion at a lunch conversation today, I decided to help Michael Moore pay off the mortgages on his million dollars homes. This movie raises more questions than some Bush supporters want to admit. But its overuse of circumstantial tidbits as support frustrates all but the most superficial viewers.

Moore best raises questions about Bush's motivation for going to war against Iraq and his callous disregard for the human costs of war. The inconsistencies in the Bush administration's justification for the Iraq war is actually funny. But Moore could have been much more persuasive focusing on this rather than "listing" Bush's faults. (Mike, what do you want us to take away from this movie: Is it the Bush-Bin Laden family connection? Bush's stupidity? The economic motivation behind the wars? Allowing Al Queda to escape from Afghanistan because of Bush's preoccupation with Iraq? The disproportionate human cost of war placed on America's poorest families?)

If this movie is "pure propaganda to influence an election," his effort falls flat. Few people who watch this movie will be convinced to change their vote. The Bush-haters love the Bush bashing, and the Bush-lovers attack Moore as if Moore were satan. Had Moore actually tied the movie's loose ends into a coherent thesis, it might have an affect on swing voters.

But, I still feel this movie will hurt Bush. Many Bush supporters (including my friends here at Kissaboo) focus on Moore instead of the message. This is a classic ad hominem attack strategy. In fact, the vitriol with which the Bush apologists attack Moore makes me believe that Moore may be more persuasive than I give him credit for.

That's my soapbox.

After much discussion at a lunch conversation today, I decided to help Michael Moore pay off the mortgages on his million dollars homes. This movie raises more questions than some Bush supporters want to admit. But its overuse of circumstantial tidbits as support frustrates all but the most superficial viewers.

Moore best raises questions about Bush's motivation for going to war against Iraq and his callous disregard for the human costs of war. The inconsistencies in the Bush administration's justification for the Iraq war is actually funny. But Moore could have been much more persuasive focusing on this rather than "listing" Bush's faults. (Mike, what do you want us to take away from this movie: Is it the Bush-Bin Laden family connection? Bush's stupidity? The economic motivation behind the wars? Allowing Al Queda to escape from Afghanistan because of Bush's preoccupation with Iraq? The disproportionate human cost of war placed on America's poorest families?)

If this movie is "pure propaganda to influence an election," his effort falls flat. Few people who watch this movie will be convinced to change their vote. The Bush-haters love the Bush bashing, and the Bush-lovers attack Moore as if Moore were satan. Had Moore actually tied the movie's loose ends into a coherent thesis, it might have an affect on swing voters.

But, I still feel this movie will hurt Bush. Many Bush supporters (including my friends here at Kissaboo) focus on Moore instead of the message. This is a classic ad hominem attack strategy. In fact, the vitriol with which the Bush apologists attack Moore makes me believe that Moore may be more persuasive than I give him credit for.

That's my soapbox.

It is good to see gimpy posting, even if he has yet to master the fine art of hitting a button only once.

This site actually claims to have a quote that Michael Moore does not mind people downloading this movie - whether this is fabricated I do not know but at least it justifies one not paying to see the film.

The torrent they provide is just one of the many available on suprnova (remember that Bit Torrent provides NO anonymity, but I have yet to hear of a case of someone being prosecuted for downloading a possibly copyrighted work from it - everyone should look into FreeNet). Perhaps tomorrow I will actually download it, but there is another, more important blockbuster I'll be watching first.

Honestly, I have never seen a Michael Moore film or read any of his books (though if Roger & Me fell in my lap I would watch it and I would view Bowling for Columbine in a stupor for its inaccuracies (I have seen better links, but won't go looking for them now), so I cannot comment on his artistry or facts that I have not read about in his numerous interviews or reviews of his materials. However, the evidence shows the man has no respect for the facts nor the representation of them - which is important when one tries to create persuasive arguments. That is not pro or anti Bush, that is just to say that I won't knowingly give Mike Moore a dime for this so-called documentary.

Thus leading to my personal dilemma (which I'm sure others also face) of how to learn more about this film so that people who claim I am attacking the man to defend Bush won't have a leg to stand on - since really what I find most appalling is Michael Moore's lack of consideration for other human beings who are in no way involved in the fights he picks.

Speaking of that other blockbuster, I went to see it on Wednesday... not quite the greatest movie of all time as some of the reviews would have you believe, but definitely better than the first.

Of course, I might be biased since I like Army of Darkness... Sam Raimi reuses an entire scene from that movie in Spider-man 2...

If Coach K leaves Duke, I'm going to blame Shuan Livingston and make a documentary called Fahrenheit XXX. "XXX" refers to the fahrenheit it is when I make my documentary connecting and blaming Livingston to Coach K's departure.

It will also be followed up with another documentary called "Shaun Livingston Me," where a regular person seeks to maliciously destroy top-ranked programs for 30 days and we see the results.

Then, there will be a showing of Canadian Bacon--easily one of the worst movies ever.

Finally, there is "Bowling for Shaun Livingston," where someone takes a gun...

Well, of course the president of Lions Gate doesn't want you to download the film, but that doesn't exactly address Mike's egomanical feelings on the situation.

A close source has told me that the cam version is "watchable" and being a documentary the visual isn't the most important thing in the world. The person whose quoted as saying it took him all night to get 11% is an idiot. Right now, using broadband and a correctly configured client, it takes less than 2 hours to get one of the gig versions on Suprnova. Plus bit torrent does not require "a series of complex steps" to setup. If anyone needs free simple notes, let me know. The only slightly "complicated" think is configuring your firewall and I imagine these people don't know what a firewall is (nor have they tried to learn).

Btw, why is the evil girl from Dumb and Dumber Mike's spokesperson? Was Martha Quinn not available?

*Spoiler Alert*

I just got back from Spiderman 2, awesome as expected, but I can't figure out what scene lurp's referring to as being from Army of Darkness. Admittedly, my memory of A of D is a little vague, but there is definitely no well scene or boomsticks in S-Mart. The Joan of Arcadia girl bringing Peter some cake sort of reminds me of the wench bringing Ash some food, but not so much. Oh well, still a super movie. I can't wait to see how they get Kirsten Dunst wet in the next one.

I was referring to the scene near the beginning where the doctor tries to use a chainsaw on one of Doc Ock's tentacles... the camera shots are pretty much the same as when Ash cuts his hand off with the chainsaw at the beginning of Army of Darkness.

And the cake scene was incredibly pointless in the movie... it would have been better if Peter spit the cake out and said, "blow!"

Discussing this last night with someone before seeing your response we decided it was the operation scene - though I couldn't remember if that was Evil Dead 2 or Army of Darkness so that is how big a fan I am. I also thought perhaps the people's intervention at the end of the elevated subway scene might be referencing something specific, though probably it was just playing with a general convention.

Getting back to Moore, now Slashdot has a story about Moore "not minding" cam downloading. Honestly, if you like a movie after seeing a cam version, you're going to the theater or buying the DVD the next time you see the film.

I just watched the Moore/Weinstein-certified camcorder version of the film... and wow, it is Canadian Bacon quality. Gimpy's point about circumstantial tidbits is well taken... here were a few of my favorite bits:

• Moore insinuates Fox News cost Gore Florida in the 2000 election


• Moore talks about Bush spending too much time on vacation while showing a picture of him talking with Tony Blair at Camp David


• A Texas based company tried to build a pipeline in Afghanistan. Apparently both Bush and I are involved somehow.

And Moore's "shocking" conclusions are weak too:

• The vaunted W - Bin Laden link? One of Bush's friends from the National Guard invested in one of his companies back in the day. This friend also made investments for a member of the Bin Laden family. Yes, that's the link.


• Bush Sr. works for a company that the Saudis invest heavily in. Apparently W is therefore in the Saudi's pocket, though the only example Moore gives is that the Saudi ambassador met with him on 9/13. As Moore says, "what could they have been talking about?" I wonder.


• Poor people enlist in the Military. If he would have gone a step further and mentioned that rich people become officers and order poor people around, I think F911 could have won the Oscar.


• Civilians and soliders die in war. War is bad, I agree.

The worst sin, really, is that the movie is internally inconsistent. The first part of the movie is about how Bush did nothing about terrorism in the first part of his term, even though there was a serious threat. The second half of the movie is about how Bush just scares people about terrorism when there really is no threat. Which is it?