|
Grex > Cinema > #68: Grex goes to the movies - The Summer Movies Review Item |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
jlamb
|
|
Grex goes to the movies - The Summer Movies Review Item
|
Jun 22 02:57 UTC 2004 |
Grex Goes to the movies - the Summer Movies Review item
|
| 323 responses total. |
jor
|
|
response 1 of 323:
|
Jun 23 15:17 UTC 2004 |
More horrible than any horror film!!
I am shreiking in horror!
Evidently there is a remake of
Manchurian Candidate about to be
released. I am so horrified,
that I need to play a soothing
game of solitaire.
Starring Terrible Meryl Streep
(screams in horror) as . .
'Angela Lansbury'! (faints)
Maybe Jon Voight will save it.
Or maybe monkeys will fly out of his
ears. With The Gulf War as a stunt double
for the Korean War. From the dude who
brought us Silence of the Cramps.
Wait, IMDB has made some mistake,
it's not filed under genre = horror.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 2 of 323:
|
Jun 23 16:07 UTC 2004 |
> With The Gulf War as a stunt double for the Korean War.
"The Babylonian Candidate"?
I agree, that doesn't sound promising.. "The Manchurian Candidate"
was kind of marginal to begin with and the thing which redeemed it
for me was its camp value. Judging from past efforts to remake that
sort of film, striking the right balance is a very difficult task.
|
richard
|
|
response 3 of 323:
|
Jun 24 04:57 UTC 2004 |
FAHRENHEIT 9/11-- This is the incendiary new documentary from Oscar
winning writer/director and Flint, Michigan resident Michael Moore.
This movie is a scathing indictment of George W. Bush and his
administration. It starts with the 2000 election debacle and then
shows 9/11/2001, with the planes hitting the World Trade Center. As
the first plane crashes into the WTC, we see unedited footage of what
Bush was doing at that exact moment. He was reading a children's book
at a kindegarten class in Florida. An aide comes in and whispers in
his book, "we're under attack" Bush doesn't do or say anything, just
goes on nonchalanlantly reading his book. Then seven minutes later,
he's still reading his book, and the second plane hits, and still he
does nothing.
Moore goes into extensive detail about the relationship between the
Bush family and the Saudis and the Bin Ladens. We see George HW Bush
(Bush the Sr.) in the weeks before the attacks, in Texas meeting with
Bin Laden family members who were investors in Texas oil stocks. We
find out that when Bush released the records of his service (or lack
thereof) in the Reserves in Alabama, the official documents released
had some names marked through. Of course Moore got hold of the
unmarked documents, and we find out that they had marked through the
name of the other person who was in the Reserves with Bush and got a
medical leave at the same time. A man who is an old friend of Bush and
later became one of the Bin Laden's money men in the U.S. The
implication being made is that we attacked Iraq to divert attention
from Afghanistan, because the Saudis and the Bin Ladens and the Taliban
are all heavily invested in the U.S. and in the oil industry. In fact,
it is claimed that the Saudis have some $800 billion dollars invested
in U.S. industries, meaning they basically own 1/7th of the U.S.
Moore's argument seems to be that Bush and co. knew we were
bloodthirsty after 9/11 and wanted to hang someone, but he wanted to
spare Bin Laden and not expose the Saudi connections, so we went after
Saddam Hussein instead.
It goes on and on. Moore absolutely roasts Bush. Members of Congress
aren't spared either. Moore goes to Capital Hill and finds out from a
Congressman that most legislators don't read the bills they vote on,
because they don't have time. Then he gets a full copy of the Patriot
Act, and drives around the Capital in an ice cream truck, holding a
megaphone, and reading it out loud.
The most moving parts of the movie come when Moore goes back to Flint,
Michigan and follows Marine recruiters as they walk around shopping
mall parking lots trying to recruit kids, giving them a hard sell to
join the service. Then we get to meet a mother in Flint whose son was
killed in Iraq, and she doesn't know why or for what good reason. Her
plight is compared to the plight of members of Congress. Moore goes
back to the Hill and finds that of all the members of Congress, only
one has or had a child serving in Iraq. Moore then chases different
Congressman down in his man on the street style and demands to know if
they'd send THEIR kids to Iraq. We then see Bush, who also never
served overseas, giving a speech to some of his fatcat donors,
saying "you are my base" The implication being that Bush represents
the elite and the money, and that they are always going to be most
concerned about maintaining their status and their money, and that in
the end regular folk-- like this woman and her family in Flint-- are
the ones paying the real costs.
That only scratches the surface of this film. It is an amazing
work. "Fahrenheit 9/11" won the grand prize at the Cannes Film
Festival, and when I saw it today, it got big applause at the end.
Moore is a propogandist of the highest order, and I don't doubt that
there are arguments for some of the appalling facts he puts forth. But
the cumulative effect of the movie is really REALLY powerful.
I think every American should see Fahrenheit 9/11, regardless of one's
political views. It opens nationally on Friday. (***** five stars out
of five)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 4 of 323:
|
Jun 24 06:57 UTC 2004 |
re #3: I'm pretty sure Michael Moore is a *former* Flint resident.
I think he lives in NYC now.
I won't deny that many of his antics are entertaining but he shouldn't
be mistaken for a serious political commentator -- I'm uncomfortable
enough with the notion that people consider his films documentaries.
Occasionally he scores a good point, often one that nobody else in
the media seems to be making, and is worth checking in on now and again
for just this reason, but for the most part I think he's a master of
cheap shots, duplicitous justapositions, and the "post hoc, ergo propter
hoc" logical fallacy. When it comes right down to it he's not any more
interested in nuance, balance, or honest argument than Ann Coulter is,
he's just starting from a more palatable political perspective.
If you think I've painted an unfairly harsh portrait of Michael Moore,
well, just keep in mind next time you're watching one of his films that
the most dangerous arguments are the ones you *want* to believe.
|
richard
|
|
response 5 of 323:
|
Jun 24 07:31 UTC 2004 |
Moore has a house in Flint and an apartment on the upper west side in nyc.
Splits his time. He is maybe the most famous graduate of UM-Flynt too.
|
richard
|
|
response 6 of 323:
|
Jun 24 07:40 UTC 2004 |
McNally wrote
[b]for the most part I think he's a master of
cheap shots, duplicitous justapositions, and the "post hoc, ergo
propter
hoc" logical fallacy. [/b]
Don't make such accusations unless you can back them up with specifics.
Its easy to say those things when you don't agree with his political
views, but unfair unless you can back it up. At least Moore gives details
and specifics. Did you see "Roger and Me"? That was a powerful
documentary that has only resonated even better over time than it did when
it first came out. "Bowling for Columbine" made a lot of good points too.
There is nothing wrong with a documentary filmmaker who wants to make a
statement, and push a particular point of view, in his work. This is just
one point of view. He is not making any pretense of being unbiased, and
he doesn't have to. Reporters reading the news have to be unbiased.
Columnist and documentarians do not. Moore's tactics aren't any worse
than what Robert Novak and Bill O'Reilly do in their columns.
|
slynne
|
|
response 7 of 323:
|
Jun 24 14:06 UTC 2004 |
I havent ever heard anyone accuse Michael Moore of being fair or
balanced. Even Michael Moore admits that he has an agenda with his
films. Still, I like his sense of humor and I expect that I will like
this film as much as I have liked his other ones. And hey, once in a
while, he opens my eyes to something. Like that Marilyn Manson
interview in Bowling for Columbine. Interesting that the creepy rock
star with the terrible lyrics seemed to actually be a nice guy with a
brain in his head. Well wht do you know! And what Marilyn Manson said
about not talking to kids but listening to them has kind of stuck with
me. *shrug*
|
jor
|
|
response 8 of 323:
|
Jun 24 15:06 UTC 2004 |
I am tempted to go to the Mich to see it tomorrow
when it opens. I only go to see first run films
about once per century.
|
tod
|
|
response 9 of 323:
|
Jun 24 15:27 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 10 of 323:
|
Jun 24 15:34 UTC 2004 |
Haha. I am kind of thinking that I might try to catch a morning show at
Showcase tomorrow but I dont think I am going to have time. GRRRR
|
furs
|
|
response 11 of 323:
|
Jun 24 16:13 UTC 2004 |
re #5. I'm sorry, you are wrong. That would be iggy.
|
klg
|
|
response 12 of 323:
|
Jun 24 16:26 UTC 2004 |
This movie is, of course, a despicable work of propaganda and
trickery. But we are interested in learning whether the "we're under
attack" quote is, in fact, true. If so, (1) how is that known if it
was whispered and (2) was the the entire extent of the interchange
between the President and his aide?
|
slynne
|
|
response 13 of 323:
|
Jun 24 16:29 UTC 2004 |
resp:5 richard isnt one for checking facts. Moore may have attended UM-
Flint but he never graduated. Next you are going to tell us about all
of Moore's great work in Michigan getting rid of the death penalty
here. ;) hahahaha. (remember that one, richard?)
|
slynne
|
|
response 14 of 323:
|
Jun 24 16:30 UTC 2004 |
resp:12 I am sure that if anyone was slandered, they wont hesitate to
take legal action.
|
klg
|
|
response 15 of 323:
|
Jun 24 16:33 UTC 2004 |
Why? And in this context, what constitutes "slander?"
|
slynne
|
|
response 16 of 323:
|
Jun 24 16:43 UTC 2004 |
Well I figure that if Moore told any actual *lies* in his movie, he
will be sued. I imagine that he didnt. Which isnt to say that I expect
the movie to be unbiased. But having a bias is different from telling
untruths.
|
jor
|
|
response 17 of 323:
|
Jun 24 16:52 UTC 2004 |
I read or heard somewhere, recently, Bushie was
acting nonchalant on purpose. c/b spin control in
respnse to MM's film.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 18 of 323:
|
Jun 24 16:53 UTC 2004 |
IHB tod started a new item for 9/11 discussion.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 19 of 323:
|
Jun 24 16:55 UTC 2004 |
Bush may be, but the talking points still involve villifying Moore in
whatever ways possible.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 20 of 323:
|
Jun 24 16:55 UTC 2004 |
There is a difference between telling a one-sided story and telling
lies. Most critical commentary is one-sided. Take Jonathan Swift,
for example, who excoriated hypocracy and stupidity. That was one-sided, but
not lying. Does Moore lie? Very little, as far as I can tell - at least
that is not what he is criticized for. He is criticized for telling
one-sided stories. Well, OK then: let his critics tell the *whole* stories,
but not of course omitting what Moore highlights or they will be equally
one-sided.
|
klg
|
|
response 21 of 323:
|
Jun 24 17:08 UTC 2004 |
Mr. Moore is, for example, legendary for using trick editing to convey
false impressions to his audience. He uses the camera to lie for him.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 22 of 323:
|
Jun 24 17:15 UTC 2004 |
Examples?
|
klg
|
|
response 23 of 323:
|
Jun 24 17:18 UTC 2004 |
The trickery involved with Charleton Heston's speech the the NRA, for
one. A second example is "showing" the ease with which a bank depositor
could obtain a gun as a premium, when, in fact, in his case it was all
pre-arranged.
|
scott
|
|
response 24 of 323:
|
Jun 24 17:19 UTC 2004 |
Don't be silly, Rane. klg has solid opinions about the content and
presentation of this movie, and despite the fact that he'll probably never
see this movie, he'll defend his opinions of it to the death.
|