Hmmm where are the member reviews of F911?

I know some of you must have seen it... hint hint wink wink...

Writing this review is a big job.  I\'m not finished yet.  Actually, I\'ve been writing it in my mind for a couple days, I just need to put my fingers to a keyboard.

[videoholic]

I\'ve been watching it the past 4 years.

It\'s called the news.  There is only one person who can chop up bytes and misslead information better than the news organizations.  Michael Moore is the king of misinfo.

Did any of you watch Daily Show last week when he was on?  He point blank said this was his slant and his view on things.  He made no bones about it.  The movie is completely skewed.  

I have to say at least he didn\'t try to pretend to be a journalist.

A documentary has no responsibility to presenting BOTH sides of the story.  It can be as skewed as you want it to be.  If you have a problem with it, the only recourse is to make a skewed documentary of your own.  The important thing about them is that you present your side, however skewed you want, but make sure the facts are completely accurate.  Bowling for Columbine was criticized heavily for not doing just that and Moore went ahead and made sure that this particular movie actually was as accurate as possible -- only he made sure to include half the story rather then changing it around to make a more interesting film.

A subtle difference and still a lie when you get down to it, but a far better lie then what he did in BfC.

[GmanJoe]

Originally posted by Ryu
A documentary has no responsibility to presenting BOTH sides of the story.  It can be as skewed as you want it to be.  If you have a problem with it, the only recourse is to make a skewed documentary of your own.  The important thing about them is that you present your side, however skewed you want, but make sure the facts are completely accurate.  Bowling for Columbine was criticized heavily for not doing just that and Moore went ahead and made sure that this particular movie actually was as accurate as possible -- only he made sure to include half the story rather then changing it around to make a more interesting film.

A subtle difference and still a lie when you get down to it, but a far better lie then what he did in BfC.

doc·u·men·ta·ry    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Sorry, his movies are not documentaries. Filming a documentary with an agenda is not a documentary.

Originally posted by GmanJoe
Sorry, his movies are not documentaries. Filming a documentary with an agenda is not a documentary.

You\'re quoting the adjectival form of the word.  It\'s used in this sense as a noun.  The definition from a dictionary is thus:

NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

Here\'s a better definition from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences:

I. DEFINITION
1. An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.

2. A film that is primarily a promotional film, a purely technical instructional film or an essentially unfiltered record of a performance will not be considered eligible for consideration for the Documentary awards.

Muddeling through definitions isn\'t going to solve things.  I would consider Roger Ebert, easily the most highly regarded film critic of our time bar none despite what you may think of him, to be a pretty good authority on the subject on what genre a film is.  He and I see eye to eye on this one.  Here, read for yourself as this article explains entirely what a documentary is even if you don\'t agree with his critiques on films.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr-moore18.html

Even Michael the Hutt doesn\'t claim his work is a documentary - its an "op/ed piece" - a terrible one at that as most editorials use facts to back up the authors opinions.  I find it amusing he won\'t confront any of his critics who find inaccuracies in his work.

Originally posted by Ryu
Muddeling through definitions isn\'t going to solve things.  I would consider Roger Ebert, easily the most highly regarded film critic of our time bar none despite what you may think of him, to be a pretty good authority on the subject on what genre a film is.  He and I see eye to eye on this one.  Here, read for yourself as this article explains entirely what a documentary is even if you don\'t agree with his critiques on films.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr-moore18.html

No offense - but he shares the same opinions as Moore so why wouldn\'t he think that Moore\'s fact checking is accurate especially when he states "I agree with Moore that the presidency of George W. Bush has been a disaster for America."?

In the case of BFC Ebert probably didn\'t feel passionately about the subject so he could be more objective, though he first gave it a "glowing" review.  Other reviews on other websites have already pointed out wrong, twisted and skewed facts in F911 and the real danger is him passing off his opinion as fact.  There is a word for it - propaganda.

When it comes to films -- the people who make them, produce them, critique them professionaly, write about them professionaly, star in them, or any other of the hundreds of diversified film positions out there all agree that his film is to be considered a documentary, who am I to argue?  The point with Ebert\'s article, other then your obvious dissaproval of him agreeing with Michael Moore on the views presented in the film, is that a documentary film has no obligation to present both sides of the story.  Whether his points appear skewed or not is irelevant.  You want straight facts all the way through which present both sides of the story objectively, you watch CNN -- but don\'t watch this movie.  That\'s the point.

I beg to differ - the point is if you are going to present your opinion, back it up with legitimate facts.  Don\'t alter facts to support already weak arguments.  What matters is his portrayal of the facts, which are wrong.  To assert we invaded Afghanistan for the sole purpose of building a gas pipeline?    :rolleyes: Yeah, Roger Ebert knows the truth!

I also don\'t agree with the "because they are in the industry so they should know" point of view.  I don\'t need to be a Five Star Chef to know what tastes good.

[EDIT]Hmmm, I guess this post is irrelevant.  The post it referred to is gone now.  Oh well

Originally posted by GigaShadow
I beg to differ - the point is if you are going to present your opinion, back it up with legitimate facts.  Don\'t alter facts to support already weak arguments.  What matters is his portrayal of the facts, which are wrong.  To assert we invaded Afghanistan for the sole purpose of building a gas pipeline?    :rolleyes: Yeah, Roger Ebert knows the truth!

I also don\'t agree with the "because they are in the industry so they should know" point of view.  I don\'t need to be a Five Star Chef to know what tastes good.

You don\'t understand what I\'m trying to say, but it\'s kinda moot at this point, but I\'ll try to reiterate.  I don\'t care what Moore has to say.  I\'ve not even seen the film.  The point that I\'m trying to make is that this IS indeed a documentary, nothing more, nothing less.  If it\'s a shitty documentary, that\'s for you to decide based on whatever arguements you may have.  I could care less what you think of Moore or his slant or lack thereof on the situation as it\'s not my place to decide as I have not seen it.  I just know that this film is a documentary.  You can even call it a documentary that has propaganda like overtones, that\'s fine, but it\'s still a documentary.

If I go and make a film about the benefits of organized crime in New York, I can do that.  I can create a film that shows how it employs people, keeps them taken care of, and, at times, is a totaly legitimate business while leaving out the crime and violence and the gritty ideals behind the scenes.  That\'s my prerogative and it indeed would be a documentary.  If you disagree with the facts presented and know that I left portions out and lied through omitance, that\'s your prerogative and if you felt so strongly about it, you too could make an opposing movie showcasing exactly what I left out.  Just like mine though, your movie, just as well even if you left out the portion I highlighted, would be a documentary.

That\'s all I\'m trying to say.

Well I missed a few parts, bad sou.. I mean, I was not paying attention.

Very good, maybe not as good as Bowling for Columbine.
Very touching towards the end.

I recommend it to everyone (well, a few extre.. mm, people should perhaps not see it ), I\'m planning to see it again.

I\'ll rent it but I don\'t wanna give Moore more money (teehehehehehehe)

His legs are ginormous btw.