 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
...from the Rotten Tomatoes site is FRESH! :o)
Follow Ups:
Does Moore mention anywhere in the film that the decision to let the bin Laden family leave was entirely Richard Clark's call, not Bush's? Clark was a holdover from the Clinton administration, in case people have forgotten.
nt
Who's Moore appeasing for fun and profit? Seems to be Islamofascists and their sympathizers. Even Hezbollah offered to help distribute the film.
... was actually a holdover from the first Bush Administration & before that Reagan/Bush; he was a career political appointee.AuPh
Haven't seen Farenheit 9/11, so I don't know how Moore tries to paint the decision to let the bin Laden family leave the U.S. Still wondering if you know.
wanting a high level in the Department of Homeland Security and only becoming critical when
1. he didn't get that position
2. it became clear he had worn out his welcome.
3. It was obvious he no longer had daily access to the president but that George Tenet did.One might be tempted to say that was a mistake, given the CIA's performance in the decades since the Church and Pike committees although it isn't a mistake structurally, certainly. As to what Richard Clark might have said if given daily access . . . given his reputation for sucking up; who knows?
I suspect (actually, I am told) that such conduct has been his modus operandi regardless of the administration he was serving.
Oh, well. His notoriety certainly helped the sales of his book.
and by its definition points out his strong and weak points.He is emotional, illogical, devoid of history but has put his finger on a pulse of resistance to current policy that has considerable resonance.
We have had numerous polemiscists in the US, starting with Thomas Paine. There have been other polemiscists in film (Costa-Gavras comes to mind). Though they are not exclusively revolutionary or zealots they are most often that. And in the late 20th/early 21st century they are predominantly left of center and liberal humanists. Moore, to his credit, is working class populist as well. I frankly think he was at his most convincing and accurate in "Roger and Me", but then I had met and dealt (slightly) with Roger. I thought Moore was too kind.
Nevertheless, all polemicism has a weakness, and that is seeking to destroy a flawed but functioning organism with an idealistic one that has never functioned. It also shades the truth, ignores oposing points of view and is masterful at presenting literal truth is such a way that it is an essential lie. Moore lies within that tradition and deserves notice.
As a believer that knowledge should inform understanding rather than misunderstanding I dislike polemiscists. And that includes Paine, Lenin, Goebels and Moore. But I have respect for the change they can effect. And, Lord knows, I pay attention to what they are saying.
If Moore is all that, what does that make of bush, cheney, rice, rumsfeld? what about "journalists" like oreilly?
At least Moore is not dangerous and he is humoristic. That cannot be said about the ones mentioned above!:)
Hopefully, they are not reading this... I might end up on a leash.
Costa- Gravas a bore. But never the less a conscience.
Good post.
I do not find "Z" a bore. I find "Z" realistic. Having been one of the few contributors to this group old enough to have heard Hanah Arendt; her comment about evil is stunningly profound. The most staggering thing about evil is that it is so banal and so ordinary. A film that makes it special and extraordinary is untrue.Having met people who survived Idi-Amin in Uganda (Obote II was worse, actually) and having been in Uganda, Angola, Kenya, India and witnessed the Shell House shootings of the Zulus the comment rings so true it is shattering.
The spelling I know and found would seem to be Costa-Gavras rather than Costa-Gravas. Have you a reference I should look up?
Absolutely. Costa-Gavras. Realistic maybe mostly, but for me still boring. I just do not like this kind of cinema-verite.
If devil would not be banal, nobody would be evilish except the mad. The routine is the key word here.
Well, if I do not like them, it not saying they should not exists, on the contrary I respect them. Just not my cup of tea.
I find that C-G.'s films (the ones I've liked) are character driven and compelling on a personal level. If I liked his people, then the films left me with lasting impressions. I really liked "Missing." Have you seen that? With Lemmon and Spacek, it's a heck of a film, though much different in style than "Z." (I admit to admiring "Z.". When Montand's character is assassinated, I was powerfully affected. And to see all the bad guys getting their "just desserts" from Trintignant (the prosecuter) during the interview montage, I want to cheer. ) I find C-G's range as a film maker to be rather broad. Certainly nice to have a forum to discuss interesting films. Thanks.
Yes I have seen " Missing " still I do not likle his style...And you are fully right about the character driving of his players.
It is just a matter of taste as C-Gavras belong certainly to the better directors. Maybe I should gave them a second look...So to know better why I donītīlike them, or for changing my mind....
Oh yes!! Good place to learn a lot more on movies. Our love.
Thanks too.
Dude, Who Stole My Figure?
Michael Moore Kicking Self For Not Filming Last 600 Trips To McDonald's
______________________________
Stranger than that, we're alive!Whatever you think it's more than that, more than that.
-Incredible String Band
s
Dammit.
.
nr
n
it generally takes a 7.2 or above for a movie to be worth seeing. Also, judging from Michael Moore's past pictures, it will likely be laced with deceit and propganda. Save your money and pass on this one.
You've seen it?
Michael Moore's films aren't any more propagandistic than Fox News.Deceit? That's a serious charge. Cite something--a fact, an argument, etc.---from a Moore film that was intentionally deceitful.
Jeffery
I second that. I actually canceled my cable subscription to not contribute to that propaganda channel... oreilly (a self-proclaim christian!) is unlistenable and I can't believe that guy is not put off the air. I hope his audience take all his silly crap with humour and don't give him much credit.
...is not to take him too seriously. Most people don't get that; hence bad reviews and a lot of huffing and puffing. However, it is becoming more and more difficult to view Moore's films this way. Oh, to return to the good clean fun of TV Nation . Nevertheless, I haven't missed a Moore work yet and won't miss this one.
zzzzzzz
nt
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
