All the films from all the editions, including those subsequently removed, presently totalling 1187. An easy way of seeing how…
Controversy... what controversy?
Michael Moore's view on what happened to the United States after September 11; and how the Bush Administration allegedly used the tragic event to push forward its agenda for unjust wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Even though I tend to follow those Letterboxd subscribers that have high review/watch ratios, only three out of my 37 friends who logged ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ actually wrote down their thoughts on it. This fact is telling, I think, about how ambiguous it is to compile an opinion on Michael Moore’s documentaries and especially this one. Is it extremely manipulative in its narrative? Yes of course. But does that make the chain of arguments have an impact and trigger critical thinking as well? I bet you it does. ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ does not merely touch upon the Bush administration and its position towards the Iraq war, it effectively burns it and its spokesperson to the ground. Moreover, whereas most of his other documentaries seem to get stuck in endless bash modes, here he appears more focused, firing his attacks with precision and actual back-up (be it an exaggerated kind, echoed by strategically edited video material).
Despite the massive amounts of controversy spawned by and arguments of inaccuracies directed at this film, it's nonetheless a remarkable motion picture. Even setting aside its scathing indictment of corruption and ignorance in the Bush administration, Fahrenheit 9/11 is a powerful, focused, and very well-made piece of film. Not only does it deal heavily in the aforementioned (and very important) mistakes of the American government, it becomes a damning statement on poverty and war itself; there's some very emotional stuff in here, and it's clear Moore has a measurable amount of respect for these people. It never truly derides into vitriol but, instead, pinpoints factual evidence and interviews to support its ripping views.
One of my favorite quotes from the…
Is it well made? Yes.
Does it convince you? Yes.
Are its points true? Yes
Does it even acknowledge an opposing side? No. That's my biggest problem with this as a film. It can spit out all of the blame it wants and needs to on the Bush Administration, but without any political view from the other side, it seems incredibly single-sided. But at the same time, if it were to explain the other side of the argument on the War on Terror, the laziness of the President, the rigged election, Fahrenheit wouldn't have the same effect it does.
So I'm left at a standstill.
On a political and emotional level, this is easily an "A" (4 stars)
But on a documentary film making level, it is hard to really say because it's completely unbiased as Fox News would say.
Nothing more than sanctimonious pandering to the American paranoia of the time. Bowling for Columbine might have had a very strong and obvious propaganda agenda, but at least it kept a coherent thesis throughout. It was truthful in a very unsettling way because it didn't claim to understand exactly why the Western world was turning as it was. Fahrenheit 9/11 is just pure, uncompromising and condescending propaganda. Absolutely no notion of objectivity to be found here.
It's just not a good documentary and assures us that Moore's ego has only become more inflated since his last (incredible) outing.
When a director or actor becomes a nuisance to you with their public personality, it is hard to separate the two when it comes to watching their work without prejudice. Michael Moore done himself no favours by showing off a huge ego outside of his documentaries, eventually splitting an audience that started out very much on his side. Fahrenheit 9/11 sits very much in that camp, a confusing mixture of passion, ego and manipulation.
George W Bush is an easy target but not an unfair one, a President who led thousands of men to their deaths for unsubstantiated reasons. He was never viewed as the brightest of men and this is the film that crystallises…
Michael Moore is a hard guy to love. But anyone who takes the piss out of George W Bush, questions his military record, his leadership in a crisis, and his overall intelligence, deserves credit for stating the fucking obvious.
This whole movie I was like: I hate war!!! I'm so glad I didn't live in America during the Bush administration!! Then I remembered John Howard....
A landslide of a political documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11 is Moore sinking his teeth deep into a flimsy presidency and government. Is it the perfect argument? Perhaps not, but is it effective? It most certainly is.
The documentary film examines the state of America post-9/11. A brief look of at President Bush before looking into it all, from the patriot act to the war in Iraq. Moore challenges these decisions and makes it abundantly clear he disagrees.
I side with Moore, I like where he stands so I have no quarrels with what he presents. I recognise that others would, Moore's argument here isn't really much of an 'argument' and more of the stating of one side of facts. Yes, it's…
A quote from The Big Lebowski, of all things, went through my mind frequently while I was watching this again since forever: "You're not wrong, you're just an asshole."
Does Moore make some valid points in this documentary? Yes. And I have no doubt that a lot of the information he presents as fact is indeed true. However, his overly manipulating way of filmmaking, with lots and lots of rapid intercutting of scenes (no wonder three editors are credited) and music that's ridiculously manipulative, the film ends up leaving a very bad taste in my mouth. And that's a shame, because all of this deserves a documentary that's a little more grounded, and not a director who seems to have gone after Bush because he made a disparaging remark at him.
And also, crediting yourself in the end credits before you pay respect to all of those killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and 9/11 is a dick move, Michael Moore.
Michael Moore is one of the most polarizing filmmakers in history, and while "Fahrenheit 9/11" remains his most successfully film financially, it is also his most divisive. His biggest detractors cry fowl over the agenda he pushes with his films, and while this is a scathing and honestly one-sided examination of George W. Bush's administration, I watch it and wonder how any American can watch this and not be infuriated.
Sure Moore stacks the deck against the former President, and the facts are clearly lopsided, but they are facts nevertheless and I sat there growing angrier and angrier, wondering just how people can continue to defend him. As is the case with all of the director's other movies, it mixes…
Although Fahrenheit 9/11's glaring bias and considerable lack of any proper means to allow any form of riposte from Bush or anyone else in his administration diminishes the central argument, Moore is still able to formulate a solid and provocative case when left to his own devices. Bursts of wit and black humour aid the intake of the political and economic horror he uncovers.
Michael Moore is just so incredibly biased that he lays it on way too thick. The first half of the movie was factual and gave insight into Bush's administration, but then the second half was just trying to manipulate the audience with terrible stories and images. I would have liked it more if it had more of a balance. I'm on Moore's side and I agree with him, but he's just so heavy-handed.
A shocking, fascinating watch with all the subtlety of a screaming baby.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is a film that shouldn't be praised for its view of historical accuracy. Something like that is incredibly difficult to do, especially in these days of a world overloaded with information. It should be awarded for its power as a film, its cinematic powers to immerse the viewer in someones view of the world, someones personal opinion. And if there's anyone with an outspoken opinion in this world, it's Michael FUCKING Moore.
Much has already been said about this film and the forceful way Moore pushes his ideas into the minds of the viewer. But firstly, that is exactly what documentaries do. They may show multiple opinions, but they always highlight one of them. Secondly, if you take…
Originally a list made prior to Cannes 2014, now updated every mid-April.
This is every Palme d'Or nominee since the…
Can't tell if satire or not.
Working on adding notes for all of them.
Almost any movie directed…