Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) User Reviews

"I'm a War President."

[princesss_buttercup3 · 9/10 · 19 June 2008]

To be fair, I should qualify this review by saying that I'm progressive, a political science professor, anti-war, and a Bush opponent. So I was hardly watching this film with an objective eye.

That being said (and if you can still trust my review), Michael Moore has done American voters a big service by making this film. It's not without it weaknesses, namely the voice-overs where Moore speculates on Bush's thoughts during those endless blank stares. But for once, Moore has made a film that is woven together with a chronological and thematic logic that ultimately asks one critical question: Is it that the Powers that Be don't understand, or that they simply don't believe in, true democratic principles? While George W. Bush is the primary subject of the film's critiques, the Democrats are not left unscathed. In fact, the first 10 minutes are devoted to a skewering of the Democratically-controlled Senate (including, ironically, former V. P., Senate President, and Presidential contender Al Gore.) Moore's commentary here, as with his past films, revolves around the relationship between money and power, and how that connection degrades democracy and in its most insidious form, leads to the loss of innocent lives. While he holds the Bush family and key administration officials most directly accountable, Moore does not let anyone off the hook. This includes not just the usual suspects (Saudi Arabia), but the Democratic leadership, the Supreme Court, the media, and finally, the American voters. Nothing here is new to anyone who has spent any time perusing the alternative or progressive media in the past four years, but the effect is substantial because Moore has finally shown himself to be a true documentarian, and has woven together a coherent picture of the connections between the players and the events from December 2000 to the present. Setting aside the few moments of Moore's own commentary and some silly interjections of old westerns, the message ultimately relies on the presentation of documents, images, and interviews. The facts are so tight that the worst anyone can say about the veracity of the film is that it is biased, a critique that will carry far less weight when compared to the snippets of Fox news propaganda spliced into the movie.

Moore will be called anti-American, unpatriotic, and probably a fascist. This, of course, is the last resort of a regime and its supporters who have no credible challenge to the facts of the film, only to its message. Ultimately, all audiences, regardless of their political proclivities, should be able to see that Moore is anything but anti-American or anti-democratic. The single biggest piece of the film is devoted to following around the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq. She is a patriot and a "true American", by any definition. Her son, and the thousands like him, are honored by Moore. They are portrayed as heroes, but also as victims. They are protectors of American security, but also pawns in a global struggle for power.

By finally asking the right questions (4 years too late??), Moore has shown himself to be not just a solid filmmaker, but a patriot and a defender of the most sacred American liberty- free expression.

Hindsight is 20/20...

[AlsExGal · 8/10 · 4 July 2015]

... and thus so is this review about a film focusing on what were seen as the effects of the second Iraq war. Let's face it. Chances are you either loved or hated this film before you even saw it. Personally, I liked it a great deal. I liked the fact that Michael Moore uses the politicians' own videotaped words to indict them, but I also disliked the insinuation in the film that American soldiers were jar-heads who enjoyed or were callous about the killing and suffering of ordinary Iraqis as a result of the war. His final thought in the film is an important one - after all the lies told about why we went to Iraq, why would anybody ever trust us again? This lack of trust was important in the context of the 2008 Presidential election cycle. It caused an unusually high level of participation of young people and saw voters of all ages largely rejecting potential nominees perceived as Washington insiders, and besides Sarah Palin, helped elect Barak Obama to the presidency. Much of this can be traced back to the level of cynicism Moore displays in this film.

Also, and somewhat off-topic, I have to wonder how it is that Michael Moore was able to see the damage that such quotable quotes from conservative politicians could do, and yet then-presidential candidate John Kerry could not in 2004? If I had been running Mr. Kerry's campaign I would have been constantly rewinding and replaying the moment when President Bush is speaking at a fundraiser talking about "his base - also known as the haves and the have mores". What could have done more damage to the President's faux image as some average Joe who enjoys clearing brush on his ranch in Texas? At any rate, I think that although it is very dated at this point, it is still an important film and is worth viewing as a moment frozen in time. Just realize that this IS Michael Moore we are talking about and that he does like to go over the top quite a bit.

Moore shines a spotlight on Bush administration distortions with humor!

[davidklar · 9/10 · 17 May 2005]

Moore's film strips away the pseudo patriotic facade of the Bush administration with humor and tragedy to create a very compelling but flawed message: Bush used false pretenses to go to war while enriching his friends and letting the common people suffer the fallout. The film moves between powerfully tragic scenes( like the sound of planes flying into the Towers as the screen is blacked out to interviewing a dead soldier's mom) to parody( Bush and Cheney dressed like cowboys in a scene with Bonanza music in the background. Moore raises several provocative questions such as why did Bush sit for seven minutes in an elementary classroom without reacting? Moore suggests answers which imply Bush didn't know what to do. Moore raises questions and suggests answers which right wing critics find abhorrent. His film techniques of showing a triumphant, strutting Bush proclaiming major military operations are over and quickly cutting to a roadside bomb in Iraq exploding, showing Bush as either ignorant, stupid, or mendacious were very powerful. Moore's weakness was in trying to give his audience too many messages in a single film but he comes very close to succeeding. His success was apparent to many right wing radio hosts, who immediately declared him both a liar and antiamerican(or America hating).

If this is news to you, wake up!

[sbudach · 10/10 · 28 June 2004]

Yes, Michael Moore has an agenda. However, every documentary does. Believe it or not folks, but a documentary does not just show reality, it also interprets it. Remember the experts that Ken Burns shows in all of his documentaries? He used them to interpret the facts of the Civil War, Jazz, and Baseball, among others. The Ken Burn's agenda just wasn't as controversial as Michael Moore's.

The point of a documentary is for those who see it to start making their own judgments. If you don't agree with Michael Moore's interpretation of the why's of the Iraq war, what is the right interpretation? Can you use the facts or find more facts to come up with a different interpretation? I would call that highly unlikely, but I would like to see the interpretation.

This documentary set out to answer the question "Why is the US in Iraq?" I can tell you I have asked that question a lot and I found no good reason. Michael Moore has done the same thing, just to a larger audience. While you might disagree with his assessment that it was strictly for money, it is hard to support a different view after seeing this movie. You would be hard pressed to find any evidence linking Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Why? Because it doesn't exist. No matter how much Bush railed for a link, even he had to admit it wasn't there.

I guess I would like to see a Republican version of events. I just can't imagine what it would use as evidence. How can you refute the 7 minutes of inactivity of Mr. Bush in the Florida classroom on 9/11? How can you refute the fact that planes were loaded up with Bin Laden relatives on 9/13? How can you call the "coalition of the willing" a coalition if it includes countries that send no troops? These are the facts folks. Michael Moore interpreted them to slam the Bush administration. I was saying the same thing before this movie. However, I reach a small audience since I don't make movies. Thanks to Michael Moore for making this film. Maybe some of the clueless, like Britney Spears, will wake up and start questioning what is going on out there. Because, Ms. Spears, in America, we are allowed to question the president. He isn't God, he is a human being.

So, pro-Iraq war people, give me your interpretation. Why? Why are we there? Why don't we have Osama Bin Laden? Why?

More Speculative Than Fact-Based But Highly Entertaining Nonetheless

[CinemaClown · 12 March 2019]

Winner of the Palme d'Or at 2004 Cannes Film Festival and also the recipient of one of the longest standing ovations at the festival's history, the highest grossing documentary of all time generated no less amount of controversies at its time of release but there is no denying that it's a highly entertaining film that sure knows how to stir up the viewers' emotions.

Fahrenheit 9/11 offers a biting take on the presidency of George W. Bush & War on Terror and digs into the fear, paranoia, uncertainty & patriotism that was on display in the wake of September 11 attacks and which the Bush administration took advantage of to push forward their own agenda for unjust war in Iraq, and created a mess that's still ongoing in the Middle-East.

Written, directed & narrated by Michael Moore, the film takes a highly one-sided approach and is more speculative than fact-based but it also highlights rampant corruption within the United States government by showing how George Bush's administration abused the 9/11 tragedy to advance their own self-interests and wasted the public fund on a war that was totally uncalled for.

However, there are times when Moore goes overboard in presenting his critique, such as blaming Bush for continuing to read to children despite being informed about the terror attack. His voiceover narration doesn't do any good either. But there are moments when his arguments not only seem valid but also worthy of debate. It's not all gloomy though for Moore utilises humour well to simmer the emotions before flaring them up again.

The ones who benefit most from wars are the ruling party, the media & weapons manufacturers, and Moore contends that it's them who are solely responsible for the loss of so many American troops who died believing that they are doing their nation a service when in actuality their death was totally unnecessary and was all for nothing. Already amongst the most controversial documentaries in existence, Fahrenheit 9/11 is enlightening, infuriating & all things in between.

A whirlwind tour of corruption and diplomatic deceit

[0rganism · 10/10 · 29 June 2004]

"Fahrenheit 9/11" is an important film, dealing in detail with the great issues of current American society, with a degree of skepticism that our newsmedia has proven entirely incapable of exhibiting in the last decade. Lone gadfly Michael Moore cannot singlehandedly reverse the effects of a servile corporate media, but he can -- and does -- fling it right back in their faces. Is it any wonder televised interviews with Moore have been less-than-cordial of late?

It doesn't matter. For a film like this, any publicity is beneficial, and Michael Moore has gone out of his way to thank his conservative detractors for their support.

As a movie, it's a whirlwind tour of corruption and diplomatic deceit at the highest levels of the industrial-political machine, mixed with direct examination of the lives of the "ordinary" people affected by the decisions of the aristocratic few. Much like a roller-coaster ride, it pulls you up the first steep incline with images of the 2000 presidential election followed by the major players in the bush administration getting ready for their performances, and then comes the first plunge: a stomach-wrenching drop into the black screen, with only the sounds of that awful day in September when "everything changed". Fade back in on the people of New York, confused, hurting, seeking their loved ones in the rubble.

From here on, there is no stopping for breath. We observe the flight of Saudi aristocrats who, but for their political connections, might have been held as material witnesses. Moore depicts vividly the links between the Bush family and their Saudi friends, one of whom (Prince Bandar) "earns" the Bush surname. On it goes, fact after fact after irrefutable and disgusting fact. Many of us entered the theatre thinking we knew the score, but seldom has an overview of each tree led to such a complete vision of the forest.

Along the way, we'll see behavior from members of the bush administration that cannot be described as flattering -- but once again, this isn't up for debate. It's the facts, it's what they themselves said. You can argue context, but the footage speaks for itself. And more than anything else, this is where Michael Moore proves he's grown as a director. No longer are his films chock-full of his narrative, he lets the evildoers hoist themselves on their own petards without as much overdubbed commentary. His statement rests in the overall structure of the film, rather than his usual assortment of shame-defying pecadillos and exposes.

Which is not to say that fans of his spirited antics won't have something to watch, as he drives around the capital building in an ice cream truck reading the Patriot act to the representatives who never bothered to read the legislation they passed, or chases after congressmen trying to get them interested in enlisting their children for a tour of duty in Iraq.

Aaah, Iraq. The second half of the film deals with the buildup to and execution of our current adventure in nation building. Iraq is shown with a brief clip from before and a whole lot of after -- with its people confused, hurting, seeking their loved ones in the rubble. Our soldiers are also given plenty of time on-screen, time to describe what it's like, time to proclaim the thrills, dangers, and ennui of life as an occupying army. Far from being unsupportive as claimed by its detractors, this film makes every effort to give the front-liners their say. Wounded soldiers are treated with no less compassion than the other victims in this film. And unlike the corporate newsmedia, Moore's cameras dare to follow the injured to the Walter Reed medical center and into their underfunded rehabilitation.

And it follows the heart of a patriotic woman from Moore's hometown of Flint whose soldier son makes the ultimate sacrifice for Bush's folly.

This is, above all, a sympathetic, patriotic and humanistic movie. Even its main star, George W. Bush, is given a measure of understanding. We understand that he is out of his league, unable to push for the appropriate diplomatic solutions with Saudi Arabia, forever beholden to the corporate interests that purchased his throne, barely capable of coherent thought, and not at all comfortable with the responsibilities of the presidency. He would far rather be golfing, or "lookin' for bugs", or hanging at fundraisers with "the haves and the have-mores"; the presidency is a burden he clearly cannot bear. He almost begs to be removed from office.

This movie has a lot more to say than any reviewer's encapsulation can convey. Ignore the naysayers who, in all likelihood, haven't even seen the film. Understand that the facts are the facts, the presentation is Mr. Moore's, and your opinion is your own.

My opinion: 10/10 -- If there's a documentary/editorial piece that could touch this one, I haven't seen it yet.

Less and less and less with every film

[Markmainwaring · 6/10 · 18 February 2006]

With every single Michael Moore film you feel you get less and less.

Now I am a big fan of Roger and Me and I thought Bowling for Columbine was flawed but brilliant.

Due possibly too internet fan comments Moore is seen less than usual in this film but it still feels like a massive ego trip. As usual Moore uses specially selected footage to make someone look stupid. This time its President Bush, which is not hard.

About half way threw the film you begin to wonder what Moores point is as he side tracks of subject. Okay so some of it makes sense but then Moore will then show Iraq as a nice happy place, before America and Britian invaded.

When I saw the film in Manchester people walked out, now I have to wonder whether this was out of disagreement or boredom.

A great opening and ending and some good and funny moments along the way, but all in all too boring and with no point what so ever.

Excellent, important, and moving film

[alex-306 · 10/10 · 4 July 2004]

I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 at Phipps Mall in the affluent Buckhead neighborhood of Atlanta, GA, and I will say for the record:

1. Fahrenheit 9/11 attracted the most racially integrated audience I've ever seen at an Atlanta movie theater, as well as the most age-diverse audience.

2. The audience was completely in tune with what Michael Moore was trying to do. When he wanted you to be mad, people were mad. When he wanted you to be upset, people were upset, and when he wanted you laugh, people laughed. And boy, did they laugh.

3. The audience cheered (loudly) upon the film's conclusion.

Truly a satisfying moment, to feel part of a community of people, if only for two hours, who recognized that the emperor indeed has no clothes.

Is Michael Moore manipulative? Of course- he's an editorial documentarian. Does he sometimes assume too much from too little information? Of course- he's a human being. That's what human beings do. Now, you may say, yes, it may be human nature to infer too much from too little information, but as a responsible artist, Michael Moore should get his ducks firmly in a row before trying to manipulate his audience. That being said, we have libel in slander laws in this country. If Michael Moore is so far off base, where are the lawsuits and defamation of character charges? Why won't Bush or his camp respond to any of the specific allegations of Fahrenheit 9/11? Why is that, in fact, they state an unwillingness even to see the film, and yet feel qualified to have a valid opinion of it? Now who's inferring too much from too little?

What is absolutely undeniable is that a) war is horrible, b) the United States of America went to war with Iraq for spurious reasons, c) we have been conspicuously unsuccessful in capturing Osama bin Laden, in part because bin Laden has no relationship whatsoever with Iraq, d) there have been many people who have benefited financially from the war, and those people have a long and in many cases sordid relationship with the Bush family, and e) Bush has used the 9/11 attacks as a way to advance an agenda that is completely unrelated to the attacks themselves, and to infringe on our civil rights. Any attempt to dissect Michael Moore's arguments fall flat when these basic facts are irrefutable.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is ultimately a highly entertaining and justifiably scathing review of the Presidency of George W. Bush, embarrassment to himself, our great nation, and, for that matter, to the entire human race. Please help vote this buffoon out of office before he can discredit our country further.

Overhyped, and ultimately dissapointing (spoiler warning)

[wilyum · 6/10 · 30 June 2004]

As an outsider, I have to say that Fahrenheit 9/11 was a big dissapointment, maybe people in general don't read the papers or try to get a balanced view on world events, but as probably more has been written about 9/11 than anything else, there was nothing in this film that was new, or even more damning and dissapointing, that was answered.

I'm afraid that like "The Passion of the Christ" this film will be reviewed, as hard as some may try, based on in this case, one's political leanings, rather than any of it's other merits.

It did start off well, the titles rolling up 12 minutes into the film's opening conspiracy theories were amazing, and somehow the fact that it took 4 odd minutes to display a few names was irrelevant as before us the promise of seeing behind the "show" was laid.

Ultimately what was the outcome? That the war in Iraq wasn't neccessary? I was hoping maybe for some insight into why THEY duped us (money?), or whether, THEY

were duped themselves, but the film hardly bothered to tell us that WMD haven't been found etc, instead concentrating unfairly in my opinion on the terrible grief of one women after the oh-to-recent loss of her Son in Iraq, and that (horror of horrors) the army is mostly made up of people from the poorer parts of society, which I'm sure you'll find it true of most civil servant jobs all over the world.

Where's the controversy in that?

And I found it quite ironic that when the army first came into it, they were shown as mindless thugs, listening to music, as they killed innocent people etc, yet in the end the director used their meaningless deaths as the main collateral (closing point) in his argument.

In the end I ended up paying to watch one person's biased political message and I'm no particular fan of "Dubya" myself

More disciplined, less bombastic than "Columbine", but very sharp!

[opioi · 9/10 · 23 June 2004]

8/10

I watched "Fahrenheit 9/11" at the New York public premiere late last night in the early hours of Wednesday, June 23rd, the first opportunity for anyone not connected with Hollywood or the media to see this film. I say this so that you take prior reviews (particularly those dismissing the film outright) with a hefty dose of skepticism. I am also a Marine Corps veteran of Operation Desert Storm, and thus am acutely aware of the realities of war and its intended use only as a last resort when all alternate options are exhausted.

I've seen all three of Michael Moore's films; "Roger & Me", "Bowling for Columbine", and now 'Fahrenheit.' Of the three, this current film has a far more disciplined approach. There is generally far less music, grandstanding, and general joking-around. While perhaps disappointing to his long-time audience of liberal partisans (myself among them), this more even-handed approach is truly welcome, because it instills the documentary with a sense of reason and perspective that will appeal to independents and perhaps even conservatives. Moore's audience here is not his long-time left-wing choir; it is the millions of Americans who trusted a President to be one thing and who has turned out to be quite another indeed.

The major newspaper reviewers justifiably point to the first 20 minutes and the last 20 minutes, about Bush's Saudi links and the carnage in Iraq, as the strongest segments. Indeed, the sequence where a series of minority representatives are gaveled to silence in the Congress is shocking in the extreme. Yet the film is fascinating throughout; it is sometimes inchoate and contradictory, but it constantly encourages and demands critical thinking. This is perhaps the real target of Moore's fury; the unaccepting, unthinking acceptance of authority figures and 'leaders' who have not earned that respect. He uses Britney Spears to make this point with devastating finality and grim hilarity. He asks, indirectly, which side are you on-that of unquestioning obedience to a betrayer of the nation's best interests, or the side of truth, criticism, and transparency. It will be hard for Bush supporters to muster the energy to defend their addled puppet after Moore's calmly launched but devastating salvos. Furthermore, it asks the American public to take responsibility for sending its children (mostly middle- and working-class) into harm's way for less than convincing reasons. The deaths of our servicemembers are the price we pay for this president's leadership, and Moore demands that the viewer analyze this war with a eye to its true costs and motives.

I am sad that there are so many in this country who will refuse to see this film for head- in-the-sand political reasons. Moore lets Bush and his cabal do most of the talking, and as such lets them indict themselves far more effectively than Al Franken or Howard Dean ever could. The film makes an absolute mockery of this president, and it is *richly* deserved. It is likely that this effort will finally 'screw to the sticking place' the courage of a national media that has shamefully aided and abetted this belligerent and bumbling national disgrace.

All this being said, this is not a depressing film, at least not for me. Many of the images and themes are certainly profoundly discomfiting, yet the very existence of this film (in nationwide release) is a testament to the endurance and beauty of the American system. This country has tolerated and then dismissed other scoundrels and crooks, and soon enough this current pack of liars and cranks will be added to the dustbin of history. You can thank Moore for his courage and true understanding of our freedoms, rights, and responsibilities that you have the opportunity to see this film and form your own judgment. Do that. Its high time for all Americans to become responsibly informed, and to consider anew the true ideals of American democracy and freedom which have lately become so distorted.

Election day is November 2nd. That's the most important review of all.

Not as intriguing as "Bowling for Columbine"

[imadomesticgoddess · 6/10 · 4 March 2005]

Hmm, just viewed this movie, I expected something (I don't know) more....It all seemed a little like Axe grinding to me. I was hoping for something more thought provoking. However, There are many moving images to this film and some excellent points are made.

I was sympathetic for the grieving mother of the American Soldier, but my heart ached for the distraught Iraqi woman who lost everything, she reminded me of my Italian Grandmother. I learned something from "Bowling for Columbine" and was hoping to learn more from this film, but basically I walked away with: ** War is awful ** Terrorism is worse ** Iraq was not responsible for 9/11 ** Our Government wants us to be fearful ** George W. is rich, (VERY RICH) ** He doesn't want you to know it ** He got that way with help from the Saudis ** Poor Black Men in Housing Projects are "prime candidates" for recruitment, while rich Congressmen/women sons and daughters are not

the problem is...I KNEW ALL OF THIS BEFORE WATCHING the people that don't know this or choose not to know this won't rent it anyway.

A MUST SEE movie!

[qtpi0072 · 10/10 · 3 July 2004]

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a very powerful and emotionally moving film. My partner and I went with four friends on opening weekend, ages 19 to 56, and we all had tearful moments in between the many laughs and guffaws. One of our friends, who has never voted in the 6 years since he turned 18, has now been moved to become more involved in the political process. This film is not just about "Bush is Bad" but really looks at how the tendrils of big business can, and do, shape the direction our government takes, and where the current administration has gone off track. Be prepared for a few grisly war scenes, but remember, it's nothing compared to what our men and women there have to deal with. Whether you like Micheal Moore or not, you should give this film the opportunity to move you!

...not so hot...

[imahottieandahalf · 6/10 · 26 February 2005]

Farhenheit 9/11 is a good film for those of you who dislike George W. Bush. Personally, i'm not a huge fan of his accomplishments, but Michael Moore is one of the worst documentary directors. He's excellent at persuading, by leaving out the other side, but as for his credibility? He has none. Michael Moore makes some very valid points in this film, but he says NOTHING to support the other spectrum, nor does he even acknowledge it. The only TRUE evidence that Michael Moore gave to you is a grieving mother, longing for her dead son. It's worth watching/renting. In my opinion, the war wasn't justified, but before you make a final verdict on whether to scorn or praise George Bush...see another movie.

Disappointingly unconvincing

[kylopod · 5/10 · 11 October 2005]

The problem with this film is that Moore's style is built on visceral reactions rather than carefully crafted argument. The resulting disorganized rant may be enjoyable for those who already share his views, but it is unlikely to impress anyone else. Even those who agree with him on many issues (I, for one, do) may find some of his assertions hard to swallow. The most bizarre claims he has made, though, are thankfully absent from the film. For instance, anyone who reads his 2003 book "Dude, Where's My Country?" will discover that he has actually questioned whether Osama Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks:

"Who attacked the United States on September 11--a guy on dialysis from a cave in Afghanistan, or your friends, Saudi Arabia? .... How could a guy sitting in a cave in Afghanistan, hooked up to dialysis, have directed and overseen the actions of nineteen terrorists for two years in the United States and then plotted so perfectly the hijacking of four planes and then guaranteed that three of them would end up precisely on their targets? .... How did he organize, communicate, control and supervise this kind of massive attack? With two cans and a string?" (pp. 15-6)

For those who are wondering, this is not the only time that Moore has tried to pass off a ridiculous statement with a "How could it be otherwise?" tone. But any doubts he may still harbor on this matter are not presented in the film. All he does is briefly mention that "Bin Laden was a Saudi" to back up his claim that our real enemy is Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.

Moore does deserve credit for calling attention to the now-famous clip showing the President remaining in a kindergarten classroom for seven minutes after having been informed that the country was under attack. It would have made sense for Bush to cut the session short, especially since we now know that the Pentagon had not yet been struck and a fourth hijacked plane was on the loose. The footage gives the impression that Bush wasn't sure how to act on his own, without the guidance of his advisers.

Unfortunately, Moore's portrayal of other events is not quite so defensible. In his depiction of the 2000 post-election controversy, for example, he shows Jeffrey Toobin asserting that a statewide recount in Florida would have shown Gore to be the winner "under every scenario." But extensive studies by newspapers across the country showed that Bush would have won under certain criteria, a fact that Toobin himself has acknowledged. (See Toobin's book "Too Close to Call," pp. 278-9.) This highlights why some have called the film one-sided. It's one thing to express a viewpoint, it's quite another to ignore contrary evidence.

The problem thus may be more in what the film doesn't show than in what it shows. Take the famous scene where Moore confronts Congressmen and encourages them to enlist their sons and daughters. We see some getting flustered by the proposal, others refusing even to speak with Moore, who then assures us that not a single Congressman took up his offer. What we do not see is one who answers Moore eloquently, but it is entirely possible that at least one of them did. That's the problem: every single shot of the film is designed to make his targets look as ridiculous as possible, and he doesn't include footage that fails to serve that purpose. The film has just too much calculation to be believed.

This becomes particularly important when he shows a woman whose son died in Iraq, and who stopped supporting Bush because of it. We watch her become indignant, and then hysterical, after a passerby asserts that her grief is staged. The trouble is that the sequence does feel staged, not because the story was faked (I'll assume Moore wouldn't go that far), but because Moore probably looked into many personal accounts before he found exactly what he needed to make his point. I'm sure that not everyone who has lost a loved one in this war has blamed the President.

We are also treated to graphic images of soldiers with debilitating wounds, of civilian casualties in Iraq, of Iraqi women cursing America for the destruction brought upon their families. But Moore could just as well have chosen to show the victims of Saddam Hussein, who has caused far more death and devastation than Bush has. The film omits this fact, and an uninformed viewer might even get the impression that Hussein was a benign dictator. Instead of building a real case against the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Moore resorts to generic antiwar propaganda that could be applied to any war the U.S. has ever fought. It's amazing to me that in the entire film he mentions WMDs only once, as though they're a side issue rather than the crux of the matter.

If the film's purpose is to overthrow the Bush presidency, as Moore has stated, then this implies a narrow focus. The film's endurance depended to some extent on the outcome of the 2004 election. Had Kerry won, people might have given this film credit for helping that to occur, and it may have come to be seen as a historical marker. But a documentary that does little more than lampoon contemporary political figures is not likely to become a classic; its current popularity is mostly a byproduct of the public's strong feelings about the election, which are sure to dissipate.

Too Much Bias?

[micahconkling · 12 July 2004]

Let's admit it, it's nearly impossible to find someone or something today without a bias towards one thing or another. Fahrenheit 9/11 is clearly not an exception. I saw this film very recently and was stunned. Shocked. Michael Moore's work was thorough, concise, and extraordinary. I was truly impressed. However, there are things that the public needs to consider after seeing this movie. One- this is not the whole story.

Unfortunately, I don't know the whole story. Go figure. And two- in order to migrate further from possibly getting tunnel vision, we need to look at and seriously consider the other side. Don't get me wrong, I was enraged by the facts in Fahrenheit 9/11. If all of them are valid, I see no justification for the lies and corruption. But again, this perspective is not the only one and therefor other views should be considered and digested. Am I wrong?

A Must-See!

[bigbloated · 10/10 · 28 June 2004]

Moore does what numerous others in pages of books and hours of interviews have been unable to do. He takes a complicated web of deceit and puts it together in a way that people can understand. He cuts through the lies, shows the hypocrisy, and levels the political playing field. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are spared in this film, which looks at the nation in crisis, brought on by its own heads of state. Kudos to Michael Moore!

In addition, I am especially impressed with Moore's refusal to make this movie into a Kerry-campaign message. In fact, the Democrats take the heat, too. We citizens were misled and forced into this war; I remember as the war drums were beating last year, not feeling like I could say anything critical of it. I have never felt oppressed in this country until that moment, and I am glad that Howard Dean broke the ice, that Michael Moore has kept the dialogue going. I just hope that this whole thing turns into a real discourse in which all leaders are criticized, including the Democratic candidate. Our government is in a stranglehold by the monied elite, and it is time to take it back. Thanks, Michael!

An amazing film

[ejf-3 · 10/10 · 28 June 2004]

Even if you strip away the politics, this is still an amazing film. Moore has finally grown up. There is little of the smug, snottiness of his previous films here. He lets his images tell the story -- and a powerful story it is.

There are moments of real humor -- even Moore poking fun at himself. There are moments of revelation: Lila Lipscombe's journey of understanding is nothing less than stunning. There are images that are so hard to look at I had to close my eyes.

I don't ever remember seeing a movie, documentary or otherwise, where the audience stood up and applauded at the end. They did in the showing I went to.

Before I saw it, I believed it won the Palme d'Or at Cannes because the French hate George Bush. Now that I've seen it, I know it was a fairly won award.

Michael Moore vs. George W. Bush. A very one sided war.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 6/10 · 8 November 2005]

Some more objectivity wouldn't had been a bad thing. This documentary is extremely one sided and is nothing more than an 2 hour Bush-bashing. I'm not a Bush fan, not at all and I dislike his politics and personality but it doesn't seem fair that they only showed one side of this story in this documentary. A documentary should in my opinion be always objective towards its subject, or else it loses its power and credibility.

I liked "Bowling for Columbine" very much, so I also expected some great things from this documentary. Although the end result wasn't that bad, it still disappointed me.

The documentary does provide some new good insightful information but the documentary was really like Oliver Stone's "JFK" at times, it features lots of conspiracy theories that all don't sound really implausible but at the same time also are quite far fetched.

The documentary is not always told in the right way. It tries to put too much information in it and handles a bit too many subjects. The documentary begins with how Bush 'stole the elections' and ends with the Iraq war. Not everything in the documentary feels really connected. Also ending the documentary with a mother's grief just didn't feel right and it was cheap that Michael Moore used this to proof his point.

Michael Moore obviously has something personal against Bush and he is extremely biased with this documentary. I like his style of documentary making but he didn't handled the subject of this documentary very well. I'm still interested in seeing his next projects but at the same time I'm hoping for some more objectivity next time.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Conservative and Liberals alike must see this film and make up their own minds.

[gns131 · 10/10 · 30 June 2004]

Whether you hate him or like him, every true American must see Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. If nothing else this film will get you thinking about our country good or bad, loving it or hating it. Isn't that what the arts are designed to do? The goal of every artist is to move the viewer and listener. Greek playwrights did that first and they did it well. See this film, discuss it, then make up your own mind, don't listen to someone else's opinions, beliefs, or ideas. Too many Americans today do not think for themselves instead that will follow someone else. We have become a nation of followers. Where have all the Independents gone? Think for yourself, if you dare.

The man smells "down there"

[veinyloaf · 6/10 · 28 May 2007]

Michael Moore, being a large fellow is almost certainly prone to having an odor problem "down there". Due to his morbid obesity, he sweats more than the average person. The more obese the person, the more skin they have, and if they have more skin then they are certain to have more sweat glands, no? You see where I'm going with this. The obese body also has many flabby crevasses in which bacteria can proliferate. Bacteria reproduces most rapidly when enjoying a warm, dark, and humid environment with limited oxygen. Starting to sound familiar? This ideal environment for bacterial reproduction can easily be found. Well... "Down there". The bottom line is: Don't take political advice from a man who in unable to govern his own hygiene.

Michael Moore is a sell-out

[jlm538 · 10/10 · 12 July 2004]

Having seen Michael Moore's profoundly ANTI-war documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, I was greatly surprised and disappointed to hear his comments on talkshows recently repudiating Ralph Nader and his candidacy. This is all the more surprising since Moore was a strong supporter of Nader's in his past two runs for president (although, Moore now says he supported Nader only under certain conditions, namely that he wouldn't have a real chance of actually being elected).

Moore now supports the PRO-war John Kerry. Kerry, of course, not only voted yes on the war as a member of the senate, but he also favors the continued occupation of Iraq by US soldiers. Perhaps, Moore is now choosing to go the lesser-of-two-evils route. However, if his anti-war stance was as serious as Fahrenheit 9/11 would seem to indicate, he should be behind Ralph Nader - the only ANTI-war candidate of the three - instead of making the lesser-of-two-evils compromise and supporting the PRO-war John Kerry.

Works better if you have seen "Bowling For Columbine"

[rodriguez-habdia · 6/10 · 11 July 2010]

First of all, this is my first review, and I don't speak English very well, so...

Well, I like most of what Moore has done, and I think that this is not the better of him, and it doesn't deserve to won the Palme D'Or at all. But I still think that this one deserves to be watched. Moore is using here most of what he did explain (greatly) on "Bowling for Columbine". There he explain how assimilated is violence in the nowadays unitedstatian (I will not say American since America is a continent and not a country) society. Fahrenheit 9/11 works a lot with this, and how normal is for the unitedstatians to invade a country in the name of the freedom values, democracy values, and so on, which are actually the economic interests of a small private group that has no ethic and just want to take profits, like it happen on Vietnam, Chile, Afghanistan, Iraq, and many many others. I disagree with Moore in this movie, 'cause he's attributing most of this to the ineptitude of Bush, and this is not like that. A man as intelligent as Moore is, should have realized that the 9/11 attacks were done deliberately, or at least allowed, by Bush Government, in order to be able to invade countries and to steal their resources, just like the us always have done. So, Moore is putting first his political disagreement with Bush's party, instead of truth. I don't like that. If Moore were had been right about this, Obama's government would be a lot better, and it's actually worst than Bush's administration. Despite that, i liked this documentary, and there's a very funny scene of the movie, that pictures a retired old man, and how he is denounced by his partners for not being agree with the government, that, my friends, reflects how us citizens are living in a fascist regime, not barely close to a democratic nation.

a effective movie because it sparks discussion

[ApocalypseLater · 10/10 · 2 July 2004]

Whether you agree with Michael Moore or not, he's certainly created conversations. Everywhere I go, I hear people talking about Farenheit 9/11, and it's undeniably a good thing that people are discussing these issues. There are elements of Moore's film that I agree with and there are other sections that go a little overboard.

At his best, Moore is a brilliant activist. The scene where he reads the Patriot Act to members of Congress from an ice cream truck is hilarious and raises an excellent point about the ignorance of our elected officials. Moore has always had a knack for using humor to get serious points across, and Farenheit is no exception. There the clip of the Bush team as the cast of bonanza, an info-graphic about our coalition of the willing, and those priceless Bush video clips ("I call upon all nations...now watch me hit this drive."). In another clip, Moore uses a single guitar riff from Eric Clapton's song Cocaine behind a graphic of Bush's censored National Guard record. About half the people in the theater I was in caught the reference.

At his worst, Moore is a liberal equivalent to Rush Limbuagh, egotistical and obnoxious. Many of his ideas are far-fetched and poorly supported, like the section on the Afghani natural gas pipeline. Fuel is certainly not the only reason that America has gone to war twice in the last three years, though it is more of a factor than the right would have us believe. It's hard to imagine Bush and his cronies caring about Iraq if it wasn't situated above an ocean of black gold. However, I would reject that the failed natural gas pipeline in Afghanistan had anything to do with the decision to go to war. Another poorly executed point is Moore's attempt to discredit Bush's initial reaction to the second plane hitting the trade center. Bush can hardly be blamed for having a blank expression on his face for 7 minutes. I was a little confused that morning, too.

Another point that Moore could've explored further is the Saudi connection. Saudi Arabia seems to be the home to most of these Al Qaida operatives, yet we give their government a free pass. What happened to going after "countries that harbor terrorists?" The official US stance on Saudi Arabia is that they are a friendly government that simply cannot control the terrorists within their own borders. Since when is this an excuse? We refuse to recognize Palestine for that exact reason! I was shocked to see that the Saudi embassy is protected by Bush's secret service.

American ignorance and blind support of Israel in the Israel-Palestine conflict is largely at the root of Muslim anger toward us, yet Bush has NEVER mentioned this as a motive. The current Israeli government is as frighteningly right wing and war-mongering as our own, but the American right will blindly support Israel no matter how many innocent people they slaughter because the religious right has a psychotic Christian Zionist end-of-the-world fantasy. This is perhaps too complex (and too controversial) a topic for Moore to tackle, but it is definitely an important link that MUST be discussed. Our military bases in Saudi Arabia were also a motive for the hijackers, but Bush has never mentioned those either. Instead, he claims that we were attacked on 9/11 only because the terrorists "hate freedom." Think rationally for a minute. When has any human ever killed another human for "hating freedom?" It just doesn't make sense. Al Qaida is fighting a Jihad against us. Nowhere in the Quran does it direct Jihadists to "attack free people."

Another point that Moore never makes is the inherent absurdity of the phrase "War on Terror." We are about as likely to defeat terror as we are to defeat "fear" or "jealousy." The correct move would have been to specifically declare war against Al Qaida back in September of 2001. We were attacked by Al Qaida. They are the enemy, and it's too bad that BOTH presidential candidates insist on fighting a broader, unwinnable battle against "terror." I don't believe that anyone in Washington even knows the correct definition of "terrorist" anymore. The insurgents in Iraq, for instance, are not terrorists; they are guerrillas. Big difference. Unfortunately, Bush insists on painting his war with broad strokes, because that way he can fit just about anyone under the banner of "terrorist." They might as well just call it the "War on Bad Guys."

Go see Farenheit 9/11. Laugh. Cry. Get p***ed. Argue about it afterwords. It's healthy for Americans to be engaging in political discussion.

I give Moore a 10/10 just for having the guts to make this movie. Despite what other viewers are writing, he definitely doesn't hate America; his hate is reserved for the Bush administration, and criticizing the president is quite different from hating America. Despite what right-wingers say about Moore, he is passionate about bringing change to his country. It is both ignorant and stupid to suggest that anyone who dislikes the president hates his country. On the contrary, we're showing how much we love America by exercising free speech and trying to cure the neoconservative Mad Cowboy Disease that has infected Washington.

Democracy in action!

[sreenyvasn-1 · 7/10 · 24 February 2005]

'To speak his thought is every freeman's right, in peace and war, in council and in fight.' —Homer.

In 2004, amid a loud 15-minutes standing ovation, 'Farenheit 9/11' got the Best Documentary Film Award at the Cannes Film Festival, exemplifying its overwhelming clout.

Michel Moore, a man known for his earlier popular documentaries like 'Bowling for Columbine,' produced this devastating piece of 'truthful account.' Narrated by the director, this is based on several newspapers, magazine articles and books published on this controversial subject. It is a critical analysis about America's war on terror, precisely, how the nation was misguided by its leader, President George W. Bush.

The film opens with George W. Bush's much controversial election victory (year 2000) over his rival Al Gore. In the following parts unfolds the disgraceful way in which the Nation was betrayed by the smartly manipulated campaigns by Bush and Co. This film thoroughly examines the Bushes' and Saudi Royal family's business connection, long before the September 11 terrorist attack. Soon after 11/9, the unseen visual shows President Bush's reaction, in fact his inaction! We also come to know that more than any valid reason oil interest was behind the invasion of Iraq, in which America also faced heavy casualty. Sarcastically, Moore tells how the 'freedom of war' deformed into 'business of war' in Bush-instigated Iraq war. A touching interview with an American mother, who lost her son to the Iraq war, mournfully shows the real loss of the common man. Showing its deceptive 'freedom campaigns,' the ordinary people, mostly blacks and deprived, were literally 'caught' by the US Government, the visual shows! In one segment, through a smartly enacted drama, Moore reveals the Congressmen's evasion of sending their own daughters or sons to war-front!

This gritty film unfolds misuse of government authorities to manipulate the secret documents, popularly quoted in the media as 'sexing up' of documents. The film also made possible for us to hear the voices—along with gruesome visuals—of ordinary Iraqis and their sorrows. A well presented, persuasively argued and highly regarded as unbiased – this critically acclaimed documentary is a cherished treasure of free speech.

'Freedom lies in being bold.' –Robert Frost

Old TV news footage rehashes the not-so-distant past

[moonspinner55 · 4/10 · 28 June 2004]

Michael Moore is the ultimate spin-doctor but he's not a very focused documentary filmmaker. He takes TV news segments from the past few years and slants them in his favor via canny editing techniques. His assessment of the George W. Bush administration, and Bush's apparent bungling of affairs in post-9/11 America, wanders into the murkiest of political waters, with only Moore's dryly sarcastic voice-over to punch up what we're seeing. It isn't very entertaining, but should it be? I felt the narrative wandering after the first hour, with too many targets on the agenda and FAR TOO MUCH television news footage to slog through. The political players all end up looking like irresponsible buffoons, which would be amusing if it weren't so terrifying. Moore wants to tread humorously through some of these passages, and his appeals to our collective sense of humor are welcomed, however the overall feel of "Fahrenheit 9/11" is one of pasted-together jabs: some forceful, some sardonic, and some simply meager. ** from ****