IMDb user comments for
Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 142:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

1420 comments in total

---

268 out of 453 people found the following comment useful :-
A whirlwind tour of corruption and diplomatic deceit, 29 June 2004

Author: 0rganism from Portland, Oregon

"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.

---

136 out of 211 people found the following comment useful :-
The silence before the ovation is what stays with me, 27 June 2004
Author: strangely_coloured_dog from Halifax, Nova Scotia

Contrary to what so many of us were lead to believe, this movie does not portray a negative message. George W. Bush and his administration aren't painted as fascist tyrants at all. They appear to be fools, power-hungry but fallible. As such, their stranglehold over the American people isn't concrete. There is hope that things can change, and that seems to be the overall message in this film.

For every American soldier Moore shows talking about the adrenaline rush they get when they kill, every soldier that appears on screen as a trigger-happy madman, he shows an American soldier dead on the streets of Iraq. The film progresses as a two-hour reenactment of the thoughts that must go through so many soldiers minds, starting out as a soldier going to war, fighting for the safety of their country against enemies that surely want all Americans dead, but all certainty of their righteousness gives way to hesitation, to men and women questioning why they are there fighting a war that has no clear justification.

Moore also uses his various clips and interviews to show how similar the American civilian population are to the Iraqis. His portrayal of the Saddam-era Iraq was certainly biased, but so many people are happy, looking for joy and prosperity, something that isn't as alien as some of us would like to think of the Iraqis as being. One thing that stays in my mind now, the day after watching this film, is one Iraqi woman crying for her lost family members outside her burned and ruined home, screaming to Allah for help. Comparing that woman to Ms. Lipscombe from Flint, Michigan, who lost her son in the war, crying in her interview with Moore and asking for support from Jesus just shows how this war affects all the people caught up in it equally.

That is to say, all of the people, except those running it. Throughout the horrifying clips of war, we see Bush, who appears to be completely out of touch with how his war is affecting those who are fighting it for him. Bush's bumbling makes up the lighter moments in the film, but in retrospect, they are just as frightening as the War itself.

Moore's overall message was that hope exists, but without action on the part of the silent and downtrodden, that hope will vanish. This is a film designed to have people take action, whether it is in the form of taking to the streets in protest, or simply voting Bush out of office in November. It was a powerful message for a powerful film, and as many have said before me, it received standing ovation at the end. But it was that short moment of silence before the applause that really stays with me. That quiet collective gasp where people are trying to digest the weight of Moore's message.

Yes this movie is biased. It is the war and the world through Moore's eyes, but the message is not buried in the bias. I suppose I can sum it up best by saying this film was painfully human. It is human nature to question injustice and hypocrisy, and Moore is there to remind us of that.

---

146 out of 234 people found the following comment useful :-
If this is news to you, wake up!, 28 June 2004

Author: sbudach from New Hampshire

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?

---

144 out of 262 people found the following comment useful :-
Too Much Bias?, 12 July 2004
Author: micahconkling (micahconkling@adelphia.net) from Iceland

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?

---

16 out of 21 people found the following comment useful :-
Moore's specious arguments ruin what could have been a good film..., 2 April 2006

Author: Ogden Knight from United States

I really liked "Bowling for Columbine," but this film starts out badly and just gets worse with the unfounded logic of Moore's emotionalism. For example, before the title even comes up, he asserts that the claim by Bush's cousin at Fox News that Bush won the presidency caused the other networks to automatically change their calling of the election for Gore (why would that happen? it makes no sense...), and then asserts that this somehow cemented the election for Bush (how could that possibly happen?). It goes on down hill from there...

Whereas some of Moore's films really poignantly detail the matter that he is working with, this flops because it is basically a film about blaming and accusing George Bush for everything and going beyond the boundaries of logic to do it. I am not a big fan of Bush, but Moore's claims just took me right out of the film. I am sure that if you hate George Bush like so many do you will love the film, but if you are independently minded (and surely if for some reason you actually like Bush) you will not appreciate the film.

---

28 out of 45 people found the following comment useful :-
farenhype 9/11 this couldent be moore wrong, 9 February 2006

Author: Dorian Kellaway from United Kingdom

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Michael Moore an acclaimed novelist and filmmaker is famous for bad-mouthing and as he claims "exposing" the truth about America, in regards to oil profits foreign policy and most recently the war with and occupation of Iraq.

Mr Moore however is the master of the cheap shot, his ability to embellish and elaborate certain facts to the point where they are global conspiracy's, has made him what he is today. The man however should stick to exploiting the institutional problems that clearly do exist within America itself. Bowling for columbine Moore's first critically and globally acclaimed film challenged and explored the overwhelming problem of gun culture and the still existing problem of racial prejudices being fuelled by the media, leading to one of the most horrific juvenile crimes in American history the columbine high school massacre. This film was eye opening powerful and for the most part accurate. Moore's chief priority now though seems to be challenging the credibility and exploiting the truth about George w Bush his father and how they stole the general election using George H Bush's cronies, tame judges and electoral fraud. Although most of Moore's information on this matter is accurate Fahrenheit 9/11 is simply not.

The film itself is really an example of Moore's regurgitation and repackaging of things said in earlier novels such as stupid white men and downsizes this. The first half of this film is mainly about America's dealings with Saudi Arabia and how it connects with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Footage of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Sadam Hussein and the Saudi's in the early nineties is quite powerful; using slow dramatic music this film could easily obfuscate one from the truth. But Moore doesn't focus on America's primary concern being to stay rich and get richer through oil profits in a truthful manner. He creates the illusion that every move America makes is decided by a secret cabal of white house officials who are in league with the terrorists the average American fears. He pushes his belief that every move is made in the interest of the Saudis. Interesting as this may be it does not at all correspond with America's most recent wars. Saudi Arabia was not too happy about the invasion of Afghanistan and so critical of the invasion of Iraq that they ordered Americans, off their territory. If the general thrust of this movie is as Moore quotes; "The truth and nothing but the truth." Then why do Americans keep doing the opposite of what their masters dictate?

The next conspiracy theory in this film is about America only invading Afghanistan so Unocal could build a natural Gas pipeline that will be worth millions. Moore completely ignores the Talibans reign of terror or how terrorists took up residence there, but instead focuses solely on Unocal. The fundamental problem with this conspiracy is that Unocal abandoned their plans and is not going to resume them any time soon.

The second half of this feature (much more credible than the first) is about the very controversial war in Iraq. Moore uses the most horrific footage one could find depicting the carnage perpetrated by the military. He then visits a mother in his hometown of flint Michigan who lost her son in Iraq when insurgents shot down a black hawk helicopter. Her grief is heartbreaking and far more powerful than any statistic that could be printed, but it is in my opinion milked for too long.

Moore's film is filled with blatant contradictions, if there were far too few terrorist alerts prior to 9/11 then why is it a bad thing that there are more now. Furthermore if airport security was far too lax before why mock extensive measures being taken to ensure safe flights now. This film does not qualify as a documentary; anyone who believes it does should read a dictionary, which will clearly state that a documentary should; present facts objectively without editorialising or inserting fictional matter. This film crosses the line from selective reporting of evidence in support of a position, to fabricating evidence in support of a position. To be fair many documentaries are guilty of this but Moore is not even subtle in his approach, he doesn't seem to even attempt to hide his blatant disregard for facts.

The main and most offending contradiction though, is Moors claim that there are not enough televised funerals of fallen soldiers in Iraq. But Moore has quoted that the Iraqi resistance are not the terrorists or insurgents but, that they are freedom fighters, and that their numbers will grow and they will win. I would pay to see Mr Moore visit the funeral of a fallen soldier and explain to the relatives that their son or daughter was killed by the Iraqi revolution. I would then join in the chorus about his supposed courage.

People may call Michael Moore the thorn in the side of corporate America or the scourge of political hypocrisy but that does not make him right.

---

28 out of 45 people found the following comment useful :-
Moore poses some interesting questions but the effect of the film is spoiled by the way he leaps to conclusions with no facts to back it up., 18 January 2006

Author: bnunesbook from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

After viewing the film and remembering Moore's childish outbursts against President Bush at the Oscar ceremonies, it is obvious that he made the film just before the election, hoping to defeat Bush at the polls. Because it was apparent to many viewers that Moore is an ideologue with an ax to grind, his film probably galvanized conservative voters and Bush was re-elected.

Moore's pseudo documentary is too much like Oliver Stone's outlandish JFK film which asks viewers to believe a conspiracy that is even more outlandish and unsubstantiated than the Warren Report which it seeks to contradict.

Moore criticizes Bush for sitting in an elementary classroom and not reacting more quickly to the terrorist attacks. He suggests that Bush was befuddled. One could just as easily conclude that Bush was shocked and then reflective, not wanting a knee jerk reaction. An official inquiry into 911 concluded that Bush, like nearly every intelligence agency in the world as well as the U.N. believed that Hussein had nukes and was hiding them. Why else would he resort to subterfuge and kick out U.N. inspectors. Bush went to war only after Hussein violated over a dozen UN resolutions, yet Moore would have us believe that Bush merely lied us into war.

What might have been a meaningful film that would encourage policy debate is seriously marred by Moore's personal politics, half-truths, and tendency to be disingenuous. Moose seems to be more interested in character assassination than enlightening his audience.

---

17 out of 24 people found the following comment useful :-
Sloppy, scatter-shot mess that fails to convince, 9 July 2005

Author: MichaelB (cream_of_the_wheat@hotmail.com) from Athens, Georgia

As someone who opposed the Iraq war, I have to say that Fahrenheit 911 was a monumental disappointment. Rather than use existing and available cold hard evidence from credible sources to dispel the myths and bad intelligence that lead to the invasion of Iraq, Michael Moore chooses the low road, watering down his argument with sarcasm and misleading juxtapositions. This documentary focuses on circumstantial evidence which either isn't followed through with or is ultimately a fabrication, such as the accusation that the Bin Laden family received special treatment from the Bush administration in that they were allowed to leave the country while other air traffic was grounded. That sneaky insinuation doesn't correspond with the fact that the Bin Ladens (after being interviewed) were free to fly as was the rest of the country.

Moore uses other cheap tricks to embarrass the Republican party and paint them as a pack of hypocritical heartless neocon chicken hawks. The stunt in which he tries to get congressmen to enlist their children for the war in Iraq to depict them as unwilling to pitch in their own effort is very deceptive. Congress cannot enlist their own children for any war; they have to do that themselves. Mocking the contributions of countries not nearly as prominent as the United States (such as Morocco, Romania, Palau, and the Netherlands) smacks of the sort of superpower arrogance that the antiwar movement purports to hate, and it contributes nothing to the case.

This film does do a somewhat decent job as a time capsule with respect to recalling the feelings and paranoia of post-September 11 America, but at the end of the day, no one's mind is changed. If you went in already against the war, then this film will tell you nothing you didn't already know and will not give you any additional debate ammunition. Bush supporters walking in this film will be highly skeptical and suspicious and will leave with their minds unchanged, and rightly so. This film only serves to galvanize the opposition and weaken the perceived credibility of Bush's critics. It failed in its goal and ultimately fails to be a moving, significant documentary done to alter the course of American politics. 4/10

---

18 out of 26 people found the following comment useful :-
Has a fundamental flaw, 31 August 2006

Author: DudleysDominators from Lake Oswego, Oregon

Let me start off by saying that I'm biased. I am a Republican, and (surprise!) am not a huge fan of Michael Moore. But I decided to judge the movie more based on its quality than on my personal opinion of it (more on that later). Here's what I thought: First of all, anyone who says that this movie is NOT propaganda is flat wrong. I heard Michael Moore interviewed on NPR's "Fresh Air", and he stated that the purpose of the movie was "to get Bush out of office". The explicit objective of the film is to impose an opinion on the audience; thus it is propaganda. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that.

But some things were clearly wrong with this movie; mainly Michael Moore's typical habit of complaining about the way things are without suggesting how things SHOULD be. Moore tells us what he considers to be a problem, but offers no real solution apart from implying that change is needed. I know this would have been beside the point of the film, but the least Moore could have done was promote an alternative to the current state of affairs. The film fails in this regard--it's basically smearing George W. Bush, albeit often with (selective) facts, and nothing else. This is the biggest fundamental flaw of the movie.

I could detail all of my other grievances concerning this film--that Moore excludes any fact that would weaken his conviction (exactly what he now criticizes the Bush White House for doing, strangely); that he chiefly includes interviews with not-so bright conservatives rather than ones with intelligent conservatives; or that the movie is, frankly, highly unlikely to change many people's opinions about Bush--most of the people who see this movie probably already hate Bush anyway. But I really don't see the need to. I give this a 5 out of 10 because, although I think Farenheit is ultimately flawed and unpersuasive, the movie did successfully present a case against President Bush. It's worth seeing, if for no other reason, to understand a very distinctive view on American politics. But it's not particularly good.

---

19 out of 28 people found the following comment useful :-
Disappointing, 27 October 2004

Author: hotlepard from Oxford

I was very disappointed in F9/11, it was of little interest to anyone other than Americans, it suffered from too few appearances from Mr Moore, his personal screen presence lifted the movie each time he took an active part. Also it seemed full of cheap shots at George Bush using editing, using this method anyone can be made to look stupid. I was hoping for a balanced viewpoint, it was far too one sided. I must agree with other posters that the anguish of the bereaved mother was overplayed. I very much enjoyed Bowling for Columbine, it seemed to have a definite point unlike this movie, the only purpose of which seems to be to get Kerry into the White House.

---

---

Page 1 of 142:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
Newsgroup reviews	External reviews	Parents Guide
Official site	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history