Fahrenheit 9/11

[akaria]

I have seen a lot of criticism of Michael moor and this movie (mostly by people who haven’t seen it yet) but even the reviewers, such as the article posted earlier, don’t say anything except that moor is full of it, they make little to no reasonable backable arguments as to why he is full of it, they just say he is and expect the people of America to accept what they say as fact, no questions asked.
Before I thought that for sue this wouldn’t work, people want to look it up for themselves and find the truth wherever it may be. But I can see that I am wrong. If you take this one person’s ranting with no proof to back it up as truth… I can’t help you. I just want to say that most of the people on this forum are smart; you should be able to cut through the rhetoric and get to the facts. You are not going to find the truth any other way.

[Adam Y.]

http://www.newsday.com/entertainment...homepage-promo This I feel happens to be a really good review of the movie. In fact the only thing that the guy critizes is the fact that he makes George Bush look like an idiot for no reason at all.

[Joshua May]

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

If it is interpreted to the way it's written it would mean that the war going on Iraq now is entirely faked. Im guessing he means information.

Didn't you get the memo, Iraq doesn't exist because the Earth is flat.

But seriously, good article.

[Yan Wang]

So far, here's my biggest objection...

WHY IS IT R??!

[Joshua May]

Originally Posted by Yan Wang

So far, here's my biggest objection...

WHY IS IT R??!

Yeah, I'm 17 but I don't have my Driver's License yet so I can't go see it alone, grr. But Michael Moore encouraged teens to go see it, and even sneak in if they have to

[Yan Wang]

It is important for 12-16 year olds to be able to see this film and all other documentaries. At an impressionable age, it's good to view something with substance, even if it's from one viewpoint. If I had a kid, I'd rather have him watch Fahrenheit 9/11 rather than Chronicles of Riddick or Garfield! I had the same qualm when Almost Famous was rated R. That was an awesome movie for teenagers.

But luckily my extra liberal town won't care if a 5 year old goes in the theater to see this movie. So I'm really just whining.

[Adam Y.]

It is important for 12-16 year olds to be able to see this film and all other documentaries. At an impressionable age, it's good to view something with substance, even if it's from one viewpoint. If I had a kid, I'd rather have him watch Fahrenheit 9/11 rather than Chronicles of Riddick or Garfield! I had the same qualm when Almost Famous was rated R. That was an awesome movie for teenagers.

Twelve years old is too young. They won't understand a single issue in the movie. I think fifteen and sixteen are probably the right age.

[Joshua May]

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

Twelve years old is too young. They won't understand a single issue in the movie. I think fifteen and sixteen are probably the right age.

I have to disagree with you that twelve is too young. I have been very political and have kept very up-to-date with politics and news since I was about 10.

[David Kelly]

Originally Posted by Yan Wang

So far, here's my biggest objection...

WHY IS IT R??!

Because there is profanity in the movie... it has something to do with somebody's mom

[akaria]

Well i read a bunch of reviews on www.imdb.com and from the review thereit looks like people will either love it or hate it, big suprise there so far for ratings it has 63% 10s and 30% 1s but from practicly all of the reviews everyone says that it is a must see. i can't wait fortunately we'll know pretty soon

[Yan Wang]

Originally Posted by David Kelly

Because there is profanity in the movie... it has something to do with somebody's mom

As long as it's pro-American or pro-government, etc., it is OK for it to have profanity, violence, and sex, or any combination of the aforementioned. Remember a couple years ago ABC showed the full unedited version of Saving Private Ryan on TV (and yet the FCC complained about a breast being shown for half a second this past year)? I loved that movie, but there's also more than enough swearing and gore. But nonetheless, it was shown during a national holiday because it embodied an accepted idea of brotherhood and sacrifice in this nation (I'm not objecting to these ideas at all). However, there'd be no way Fahrenheit 9/11 would be shown on September 11 of this year to celebrate its anniversary. It'd be too... anti-Bush-administration.

[Adam Y.]

Remember a couple years ago ABC showed the full unedited version of Saving Private Ryan on TV (and yet the FCC complained about a breast being shown for half a second this past year)?

It's neither pro-American or negative. It's just vulgar. I also believe that Jackson managed to annoy a bunch of parents watching that.

However, there'd be no way Fahrenheit 9/11 would be shown on September 11 of this year to celebrate its anniversary. It'd be too... anti-Bush-administration.

Nope. It wouldn't be the Bush administration's fault. It's not mainstream enough for America. Im not saying that there is nothing wrong with not being mainstream is just that most programming tends to lean that way.

[Yan Wang]

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

It's neither pro-American or negative. It's just vulgar. I also believe that Jackson managed to annoy a bunch of parents watching that.

Hey, if you went to Europe, showing Saving Private Ryan would be vulgar and seeing the waldrobe malfunction would be ok. But my argument was not as to which was more acceptable, it was that 2 hours of gore and swearing is, imo, a lot worse than half a second of vulgarity.

[David Kelly]

Originally Posted by Yan Wang

Hey, if you went to Europe, showing Saving Private Ryan would be vulgar and seeing the waldrobe malfunction would be ok. But my argument was not as to which was more acceptable, it was that 2 hours of gore and swearing is, imo, a lot worse than half a second of vulgarity.

The FCC has the rights to protect children and society from such language. I'm glad they have finally started cracking down on what has been such open "say anything and do whatever you want to do"airwaves. If the rules say that movies with swearing deserve an 'R' rating, then by all means they better follow those rules for all movies, and not make an exception to Michael Moore's movie.


There IS somebody looking out for you.

[Bill Gold]

Originally Posted by David Kelly

The FCC has the rights to protect children and society from such language. I'm glad they have finally started cracking down on what has been such open "say anything and do whatever you want to do"airwaves. If the rules say that movies with swearing deserve an 'R' rating, then by all means they better follow those rules for all movies, and not make an exception to Michael Moore's movie.


There IS somebody looking out for you.

David,
The FCC doesn't rate movies. The MPAA does.