|
Grex > Cinema > #68: Grex goes to the movies - The Summer Movies Review Item |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 323 responses total. |
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 25 of 323:
|
Jun 24 17:48 UTC 2004 |
Heston said what was shown that he said. No words were put in his mouth.
What "trickery"? And are you denying that the bank offered a gun as a
premium?
I looked at http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/bank.
htm
where the "staging" of the scene is described. Of course it had to be
"staged" to be filmed. But the fact remains: the bank was offering a gun
as a premium. Most people consider that weird on its own. Toasters, sure:
but, guns?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 26 of 323:
|
Jun 24 18:20 UTC 2004 |
re #6:
>> for the most part I think he's a master of cheap shots, duplicitous
>> juxtapositions, 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.
Is there anyone here who has given serious thought to Moore's work
(which obviously excuses Richard) who doesn't think these are fair
criticisms? They don't mean that Moore's work isn't entertaining or
interesting, but let's not confuse entertaining or interesting with
honest. One must keep in mind when reading Moore's writings or watching
his films that Moore is an untrustworthy narrator.
Richard doesn't seem to be able to separate the idea of criticism of
Michael Moore's argumentative style from criticism of Moore's political
positions. I suspect he would therefore be shocked to find out that I
agree (at least partly) with Moore's positions on a number of issues.
I'm not willing, though, to check my skepticism and critical thinking
skills at the door when listening to someone, even when I agree with
much of what they're saying. I simply don't appreciate being conned,
even (or perhaps especially) when the con artist is telling me the
things I want to hear.
> 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.
Is that really the standard to which we aspire: no more intellectually
dishonest than Bill O'Reilly? Perhaps democracy really *is* doomed.
|
richard
|
|
response 27 of 323:
|
Jun 24 19:05 UTC 2004 |
RE #13..slynne, I don't recall any item where Michael Moore's views on the
death penalty in michigan were discussed, at least by me. You must be
confused.
re: mcnally, okay I see your problems are with his style. Moore has an in
your face take no prisoners style and he has been accused of not being
tactful. there were people who thought he ambushed poor charlton heston and
didn't like it. But it didn't change the words that came out of Heston's
mouth did it? It is whether the means justify the ends, when it comes to
Moore's tactics. I believe that what he is telling is truth, in a way that
few others have the guts to tell it these days, and questionable tactics
aside, that should be admired.
btw, at the theater, every single showing all day long in all three theaters
in the multiplex that had it were sold out all day long yesterday and today
in advance. this movie should break all the records for highest grossing
documentary. Makes you wonder if Disney regrets refusing to release it.
Moore gets in his shot there too. In the movie, he goes into the various
corporations that Saudis are heavily invested in, and pointedly mentions
Disney as being one them.
|
slynne
|
|
response 28 of 323:
|
Jun 24 19:34 UTC 2004 |
resp:27 I was just teasing you about that one time when you went on a
rant about how no one in Michigan seemed to be doing anything to
abolish the death penalty. That was years ago but it stuck in my mind
because it was soooooo funny ;)
|
gull
|
|
response 29 of 323:
|
Jun 24 19:43 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:4: I consider him more like Rush Limbaugh than Ann Coulter. Ann
Coulter is her own special brand of harshness -- she thinks anyone who
disagrees with her is guilty of treason. Reading her work you get the
impression she wants to see all liberals locked up behind razor wire.
Moore, like Limbaugh, is selective and one-sided, plays fast and loose
with the facts, and is an entertainer, not a journalist. Moore,
unlikely Limbaugh, is actually funny. (Limbaugh used to be funnier,
before he started taking himself so seriously, though.)
Of course, Limbaugh's audience and media exposure is exponentially
larger than Moore's, too.
Re resp:25: The Ford dealership in Houghton used to run a promo where if
you bought an F-150, you got entered in a drawing to win a .30-06. I
thought at the time that this was the most redneck bit of advertising
I'd ever heard.
|
klg
|
|
response 30 of 323:
|
Jun 24 19:49 UTC 2004 |
Why is Mr. Moore's film called a documentary? He states that he is not
a journalist; rather, he is a comedian. And a rich comedian at that,
masquerading as a "man of the people." He owns 2 homes, each valued at
> $1M. Even his "life" is a fictional fraud.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 31 of 323:
|
Jun 24 19:54 UTC 2004 |
How does this compare with Rush Limbaugh's finances?
|
gull
|
|
response 32 of 323:
|
Jun 24 20:27 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:30: George W. Bush claims to be a 'man of the people', too, and
he didn't exactly grow up in a trailer park.
|
richard
|
|
response 33 of 323:
|
Jun 25 04:20 UTC 2004 |
hey woody allen's a comedian who's also a great filmmaker. Doesn't have to
be mutually exclusive. The fact is that Moore deals with very serious
subject in an extraordinarly effective way. There were a lot of people in
tears by the end of the movie when I saw it.
Moore btw is making sure Fahrenheit 911 gets released on DVD before the
election and has said he'll work with Move On and other groups, and even go
into his own pocket if necessary, to ensure that voters in swing states get
copies of this movie
|
richard
|
|
response 34 of 323:
|
Jun 25 05:36 UTC 2004 |
Because this is the general movie review item, and Fahrenheit 9/11 is worthy
of more detailed discussion, I have entered item 30 for that purpose.
What other movies has anyone seen recently? Spiderman 2 opens next week and
is getting strong advance buzz that it is better than the first one. One
poster in one board who saw it says its this year's "Empire Strikes Back"
|
richard
|
|
response 35 of 323:
|
Jun 26 04:23 UTC 2004 |
SAVED-- This movie reminded me of "Heathers", the great Winona
Ryder/Christian Slater high school movie from a few years back. You have
the in crowd and the out crowd, and a confused girl who starts out part of
one crowd and ends up in the other. The lead character is a high school
girl at an evangelical private school (a "Jesus High" as some call them)
Her boyfriend turns out to be gay, and she thinks she had a vision from
God that she should sleep with him to save him from his gayness. She
thinks if she sleeps with him, he will be cured of his gayness, and then
God will restore her virginity. It is the kind of twisted thinking you
get from being brainwashed at Jesus High. Naturally the boyfriend is not
cured of his gayness, and she ends up pregnant instead. Causing her to
have a crisis of faith, which her snooty in crowd friends can't
understand, so she ends up with the out crowd.
This movie conveys a fine message of tolerance and acceptance, and that
faith and skepticism need not be mutually exclusive things. Its got a
good cast and good writing. I had a couple of issues with the plot and
was annoyed that the central character, who is hiding her pregnancy,
manages to get almost all the way through her senior year without her
pregnancy showing. She just wears sweaters and manages to gain absolutely
no weight in the face or arms, just in her stomach. The director should
have had this girl go on a get fat diet during the filming, so that she is
actually showing the weight gain in a natural way by the last trimester.
But that is nitpicking. This was a good, not great but solidly good, film
that has a lot of good things to say.
|
slynne
|
|
response 36 of 323:
|
Jun 27 13:58 UTC 2004 |
It isnt unheard of for teenaged girls to effectively hide their
pregnanacies. Not everyone gains weight in the face or arms when they
are pregnant. Different people carry babies differently.
One of my favorite stories is about a friend of mine who ran into an ex-
boyfriend just a couple of days before her due date. Later on she heard
that he had mentioned running into her to a mutual friend and had said
that he thought that she *might* be getting a little bit of a belly
which he thought was kind of weird. Seriously, she just didnt even look
pregnant even that late in her pregnancy.
|
mary
|
|
response 37 of 323:
|
Jun 27 15:39 UTC 2004 |
"The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra" is a hoot. It's a 2004 film that
does a great job of pretending to be a 1950's sci-fi classic.
If you love the genre ya gotta rent this one.
|