So I just rewatched Fahrenheit 9/11......

I'm not saying I completely agree, but it's safe to say that Moore doesn't look stupid a few years later...

 

Does anyone think the movie would have been better received had it come out in 2006 or this year?
I liked it and for all the "lies" and "factual errors" that people pointed out in the movie, I have yet to hear anyone come up with any proof that that Fresno peace group was doing anything that made it worthy of being monitored by the authorities.

 

It's the highest-grossing documentary of all-time. I think it was pretty well-received.

 

Of course it looks less so with the passage of time. Much of its content considered the radical left wing fringe view in 03 became the conventional wisdom by 06. It's safe to say Moore was well ahead of the curve on Iraq.

And, btw, not the first time: Not long ago I re-watched his late 80s flick, Roger & Me, and was struck by how far ahead he was in sounding the alarms about the effects of outsourcing and free trade policies. The issues in that film have become far more relevant and discussed today than they were then. And the plight of Flint he documented was later suffered by scores of other factory towns over the next 20 years.

 

Despite being conservative, I like most of Moore's work...

Sicko was outstanding. Bowling for Columbine was incredibly powerful. Roger and Me was way ahead of its time.

My only real issue with Fahrenheit 9/11 was that Moore used footage that was essentially "Off the record" and used it in a context where he could make anyone look like a complete fool.

I had heard of the "Now watch me hit this shot." line from a friend in the business who had the footage, but knew he could never use it because it was known that was OTR. Journalists can't use it, but Moore had no problem with it. Don't get me wrong, it was hilarious, but if this is a true documentary, he should have to play by the same rules as the rest of us.

The shots of the politicians getting make-up put on was just cheap. There is identical footage of every person who has ever been on TV and was just put there to make the politicians who Moore doesn't like look like fools.

The reason Sicko was so good was because he went after everyone. He shreds Hillary Clinton in the first 15 minutes of the film because of the amount of $$$ she took from the health care lobby.

Moore is most effective when he goes after everyone, not just taking cheap shots at easy targets.

 

It doesn't have to, but the film maker who doesn't heed any rules of balance should expect well-founded claims of bias and propaganda-mongering.

 

The Bush Administration has brought every single one of those chickens, with no help from anyone, home to roost. Bush established himself as a first-rate fucknut to the clear-minded long before "Now watch this drive."

 

I'll admit it....I'm a Michael Moore fanboi. I watched Roger and Me in high school economics and found it to be fascinating. And Fahrenheit 9/11 really got me interested in politics; I think it had that kind of effect on many people my age (18-25 yrs. old or so). I loved Sicko and Bowling for Columbine as well.

 

I wasn't talking so much about gate receipts as how Moore came away looking worse than Bush did.
Somehow it seems like just about anybody who opposes Bush or the war comes away looking worse than he does.
Wonder why that is.

 

How exactly did Moore come away from the movie looking worse than Bush or anybody else?

 

It seems like if you mention Michael Moore to many, if not most Americans, the response is probably not as favorable as that of Bush.
Bush supporters point out a lot of lies in the movie. It's used as more proof that he hates America, etc.

 

Because Michael Moore got bashed on admittedly biased radio programs, he came away looking worse?
That's as ridiculous as the Bush camp's complaints about the movie itself.
Bush got bashed in the movie. He was getting bashed before the movie.
Moore got bashed after the movie. He was getting bashed before that movie.
Neither adds up to mainstream perception.