Seems to have created a bit of a furore in the USA?

It comes to England this Friday 9th July?

I wonder how peole here will react?

I'm surprised at you, Soup! Just yesterday, we were talking about what topics the BA frowns upon and politics is "one" of them.

ANY discussion of "Moore's movie" will most certainly end up discussing politics.

Yeah, that movie provides a lot of potential for a flame war. Best take it to FWIS.

Moore’s claim says it all. He hopes that it is the first movie in history that help unseat an incumbent President. IMHO, the movie should be banned until after the elections. If we go down the road of creating emotional, full length movies to influence elections, we are in deep deep trouble.

__________________
Reality: What a concept!……………………..><Ç(((Ç°>

Oooops. I thought everything was permitted in Babbling!?

Essentially, but the BA wants us to try and stay away from highly flammable topics like religion and politics. Just post it in FWIS, there are a lot of BABBers over there.

Well, it is as long as it doesn't envolve politics, religion, or Harry Potter.

(Sorry, that last was a bit of a joke.)

...And it's started already...I strongly disagree with what MentalAvenger wrote (sorry) yet, IF I post my opinion, I know it will start an arguement...

I agree with Lycus...let's take this over to FWIS.

If we look at this film from a film making perspective, it is a powerfull film.

I disagree with R.A.F.’s disagreement. I am not talking about politics here, at least not siding with one side or another. What I am referring to is the concept of using a full length movie format to develop an emotional bias for political ends. We all know that movies are specifically designed to temporarily create an artificial world that caters to our emotions. How many of you cried during ET-The Extraterrestrial? I did. How could I feel empathy for a fictional character? Because the movie was designed to elicit that response. A 30 second commercial cannot develop that kind of emotional involement, but a full length movie can, and does.

If there is no deceptive political agenda associated with F-911, then what would be the objection to waiting another 5 months to see it? If there is a calculated and dishonest agenda there, then it should be held back to prevent irreparable damage to the system.

FYI, I would have exactly the same objections regardless of who produced the movie and who the target was. When something is not right, it simply is not right regardless of the focus.

BTW, I also strongly object to all movies (or so-called documentaries) which capitalize on, and feed off of, the pain and suffering of others. It seems that the PTB can feed us a continuous diet of death, destruction, and tragedy, while largely ignoring the incredible good in this world. Unfortunately, we as a people not only allow it, but encourage it. It never ceases to amaze me that garbage publications such as the National Enquirer can even exist, let alone prosper.

Boy, that depresses me.

__________________
Reality: What a concept!……………………..><Ç(((Ç°>

Countdown to locking begins now.........

I don't think there's anything deceptive about Moore's agenda: he made the movie to encourage people not to vote for Bush. Obviously, releasing it in December would defeat that purpose.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

From a Film-making perspective, Michael Moore is very good as an editr and director. From a truth point of view......

This is a very good article that deals with the truth of the film:

The Fifty Nine Deceits of Mike Moore's Fahrenheit 911

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

You're not going to let my temper tantrum go, are you?

__________________
"The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient."

So you agree with my point.

If we go down that road, it will lead to a bottomless pit. I shudder to think of what “entertainment” will become if this sets a precedent. :-?

__________________
Reality: What a concept!……………………..><Ç(((Ç°>

Censorship is not the answer.

__________________
"The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient."

If people can be swayed by a movie, then what does it matter? They can be swayed by the evening news, by their families, or by crazy people ranting and raving in the streets. Why not just shut the entire country down for a year, and not let anyone have access to anything. The outside world, including the opinions of those who live in it, will have an impact on the way someone does something.

The Daily Show rips into Bush &amp; Co on a regular basis. They don't do it because they're Democrats, but because there's entertainment value in it. But they also make the current government look like fools. That sways voter opinion, too. Let's take that off the air until the end of the year...

__________________
"I'm making wheatloaf. It's like meatloaf, only with wheat"
"Isn't that just...bread?"

Moore reminds me Oliver Stone, the conspiracy theorist. I don´t know if I like it (but surely i´ll be going to the theater to see it).

__________________
"As truth is gathered, I rearrange,
Inside out, outside in - Perpetual change." - A British rock band

It's a dirty trick, and the movie strikes me as slightly on the woo-woo side, but I think America needed it. We just can't afford to have a complete moron for a president.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why is the world so full of misery?

I agree with SciFi Chick and disagree with MentalAvenger's disagreement with my disagreement.

Complete agreement.

Let Moore show the film when he wants to.

This is where having film critics that share your views and perspectives really comes in handy. It solves (sometimes imperfectly, as with everything else) the dilemma of paying to see a film which turns out to be a pile of rot.

Using your chosen critics' reviews to decide whether or not to commit your time (and money, which is what Moore, Gibson, et al are really after) to a particular film allows you to decide a priori whether or not to see it.

The beauty of this (a derivative of a free press) is you don't have to give the film people what they're after (your money), time after time, turkey after turkey, in order for you to make up your mind about whether or not you like a film. Later, once it's on video or TV, you can watch to see if your use of your critics was on target, and if incorrect, make certain adjustments and choices about who your future film critics should be.

So what if there's a delay there, it's only a movie, which is something I wish the public/audiences would keep remembering. Then there are those who immediately have to see what's the latest and greatest. Like At Long Last Love

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.