*says something short, not really wanting to touch this thread with a ten foot pole*
The movie was fun. The movie put questions in your head, if you're open-minded enough to hear them. The movie needed to be done.
Pundit: one who gives opinions in an authoritative manner
Pundits are usually associated with conservatives. Michael Moore is one of the few liberal pundits out there. Kudos to him for that. If the political climate were liberal these days, people would jump on everything Rush says instead of everything Michael says.
<!--QuoteBegin--Javert+Sep 28 2003, 04:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Javert @ Sep 28 2003, 04:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>Organization and Editing</b> There is very few "filler" in this documentary and not a moment is wasted. Moore clearly presents a thesis dealing with American fear and presents arguments, support and evidence. The film flows smoothly and has nary a "boring spot". All the interviews are nicely organized and juxtaposed. He knows how to make film.
[ <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Are you telling me that the way he abused Heston during that interview was nice? I guess you said nicely organized, as was other parts of the film where he clearly took things out of context with his editing.
Xzilien, what the heck crawled up yer arse and died? You've put no facts, with the references, to support YOUR claims.
I liked the movie. Even if it wasn't factual, it still made you at least THINK about the issues. It's also kind of creepy when you think about it though, the statistics he used.
BFC was a good idea in terms of what it was meant to accomplish. I wish more films like that (films intended to make you think about issues, done in a format palatable to the average moviegoer) would come to the light and get the kind of publicity and exposure that it did; that said...
But it was terrible for accomplishing any real purpose (other than to put money in Moore's pocket) and as for the man himself, I think he should be banned from making any sort of media at all. It's like he wants to be the neo-rebel frontman for an audience that's all too willing to eat up his "facts" and "statistics" without ever bothering to think that perhaps he's just a showman making it all up; he wants to be the one to expose the "true" facts of this-or-that issue, and if he has to 'adjust' some facts or splice a few things here and there, so be it; and that's the last person I want trying to influence what people think about any issue of relative importance.
<!--QuoteBegin--Xzilen+Sep 28 2003, 06:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Xzilen @ Sep 28 2003, 06:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Javert+Sep 28 2003, 04:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Javert @ Sep 28 2003, 04:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>Organization and Editing</b> There is very few "filler" in this documentary and not a moment is wasted. Moore clearly presents a thesis dealing with American fear and presents arguments, support and evidence. The film flows smoothly and has nary a "boring spot". All the interviews are nicely organized and juxtaposed. He knows how to make film.
[ <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Are you telling me that the way he abused Heston during that interview was nice? I guess you said nicely organized, as was other parts of the film where he clearly took things out of context with his editing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Did I say Michael Moore treated Heston with bended knee? Was the Heston interview the only one in the documentary? No.
If you read further, I actually exonerated Heston's comments.
Comments
The movie was fun. The movie put questions in your head, if you're open-minded enough to hear them. The movie needed to be done.
Pundit: one who gives opinions in an authoritative manner
Pundits are usually associated with conservatives. Michael Moore is one of the few liberal pundits out there. Kudos to him for that. If the political climate were liberal these days, people would jump on everything Rush says instead of everything Michael says.
There is very few "filler" in this documentary and not a moment is wasted. Moore clearly presents a thesis dealing with American fear and presents arguments, support and evidence. The film flows smoothly and has nary a "boring spot". All the interviews are nicely organized and juxtaposed. He knows how to make film.
[ <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you telling me that the way he abused Heston during that interview was nice? I guess you said nicely organized, as was other parts of the film where he clearly took things out of context with his editing.
I liked the movie. Even if it wasn't factual, it still made you at least THINK about the issues. It's also kind of creepy when you think about it though, the statistics he used.
But it was terrible for accomplishing any real purpose (other than to put money in Moore's pocket) and as for the man himself, I think he should be banned from making any sort of media at all. It's like he wants to be the neo-rebel frontman for an audience that's all too willing to eat up his "facts" and "statistics" without ever bothering to think that perhaps he's just a showman making it all up; he wants to be the one to expose the "true" facts of this-or-that issue, and if he has to 'adjust' some facts or splice a few things here and there, so be it; and that's the last person I want trying to influence what people think about any issue of relative importance.
/end my two cents
There is very few "filler" in this documentary and not a moment is wasted. Moore clearly presents a thesis dealing with American fear and presents arguments, support and evidence. The film flows smoothly and has nary a "boring spot". All the interviews are nicely organized and juxtaposed. He knows how to make film.
[ <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you telling me that the way he abused Heston during that interview was nice? I guess you said nicely organized, as was other parts of the film where he clearly took things out of context with his editing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did I say Michael Moore treated Heston with bended knee? Was the Heston interview the only one in the documentary? No.
If you read further, I actually exonerated Heston's comments.