Spare me LOL

lol

Mr Bean himself... Rowan Atkinson :o)

Well done Niki. You are correct.

So far, Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 has took in between $8.2 million to $8.4 million in it's first day, positioning it to be the #1 movie.

"White Chicks" took in about $1.5 million LESS the Fahrenheit 9/11 to place it second.

What makes those numbers if more remarkable is that Fahrenheit 9/11 opened in just 868 theaters - fewer then a third the number for the movie White Chicks!

I highly recommend this film. It received a spontaneous standing ovation in a conversative southern town where I watched it yesterday. Those who see it will not be disappointed.

Movie List

Well for this weekend:

1)Fahrenheit 9/11 - $21 mil - in only 868 Theaters!
2)White Chicks - $19 mil - in 2726 Theaters

Anyway, I watch the movie stats a lot since I play on a site called HSX - which you buy/sell stocks to movies to increase/decrease your profolio - and I wish I would have bought more stock in Fahrenheit 9/11 since no one really thought it would do that good in so few theaters.

Cute picture BBW

What better to scare my opponents into making a stupid move! Muhahahahaha *COUGH* *COUGH* - sorry, hair ball.

ROFL

Just got this film on DVD. It's hilariously frightening!

Follow this link

has anyone here heard or tried this? put on the wizard of oz, after the lion roars for the 3rd time in the opening of the movie (not the lion in the move the one before the movie starts) put on Pink Floyds Dark Side of the Moon. put it on repeat so it keeps playing throughout the movie. the CD/album goes with the movie, its pretty cool. it took 3 times of listening to the album, the first and third were the best. the end was really cool!

What are you on?

'Cause I want some hahahaha

how come it's listed as comedy ;)

Listed where as a comedy? :-)
I got to see it last week. Wow. Sure enough in that to keep ya thinking

Guess 911 not the book? LOL

Yeah Rose. I wuz kiddin. ;) A friend of mine just gave me $$ to go and see it. I told him I'd wait for it to come out on video but he said to see it now. hmmmmm

It's a propaganda piece. Not everything in it is true. Just because someone makes a movie doesn't mean the content is reliable. Especially when it's cut and edited to make things look a certain way. But I will see it anyway. Have seen parts and some claims of Moore's are not accurate.

I'm waiting for the DVD, but as long as it's making money as is, it might be a while. I know a lot of people who rely on Moore's wisdom. I don't know what to think of all this.

I actually began liking Michael Moore after seeing him in an interview on Fox. I'm currently reading one of his books just to see what he has to say.

I'm almost positive that the DVD will be out BEFORE the November election - already 3 or 4 studios have been "bidding" on the rights to distribute the DVD (even though Disney in it's blackmail still gets like 75% of all profits from the movie even though they did not want to release it.)

Note - all Disney's 75% profit goes to a charity of Disney's picking. So actually think of it this way - seeing the movie is like helping a charity! :-)

(I'll see if I can find the news story that has the details that I wrote about here.) :-)

News Story - OK, sorry - it's 60%, not 75%

AD - I'm glad to see that you will go see the movie - I know some people who are so stuck in their own world that they would never watch the film - I guess because they fear things might make since.

Hopefully everyone who see's the movie will be open minded, and also know that only 1 side is covered in the movie (Michael Moore even admits he tells the story from only the one side - basicly because the side he shows is the side that the media has refuse to cover, while the other side is continuasly covered by the media)

Anyway, glad to see open-minded people here - even if you come out of the movie and disagree with everything in it.

very true...hard to argue against something you've not gotten a complete picture on..

Propaganda is mean to convince a person of a particular point of view even if doing so means facts must be distorted or even made up. It remains to be seen just how much of the movie is "fact" and how much just one man's (mis)interpretation of things. :)

(in my opinion) most of the movie is "fact", BUT AGAIN, just the one side.

The movie makes a lot of good & valid points, but does leave out the other side. Even though I love the movie, and would like people to be better educated by the film - I try to warn anyone I know who has seen it that it is just the one side - confuses most people I know since I want them to see it, then I try to point out the "other side" of it. :-)

The point is that Michael Moore's argument is the one that would never have been heard in the traditional media. AND, the information needs to get out before the election. Haha! Out, WAY out!

Yes but that assumes his "argument" is true. That remains to be seen.

This is true.

I haven't seen 911 (and don't plan too).

My kids watch a lot of movies. They are continually asking me..."Is it real". I know LOTS of adults that are that way. There are too many people in this world that are sponges (believe everything they hear/see). There are also too many people in this world that live behind brick walls. No matter the logic or proof, they will not change their mind.

With that said, I don't think someone that does not want to see the movie is "Close-Minded". Almost everyone believes there is an agenda behind the movie. I prefer to get my information from un-biased sources (does anyone know of one?).

I belong to a religion that receives a lot of persecution. I have seen/read a lot of the "Anti" literature put out there against my religion. The most effective ones are the ones that present the facts (while ignoring some others) in such a way that it gives a different meaning. I have learned that you can always present facts to back up your opinion.

So, should I watch this movie to learn what really happened...I think NO! It might be filled with facts, but that doesn't mean it is accurate. It also doesn't mean it is wrong either. It WILL probably give a lot of interesting ideas and maybe even some facts that most people don't know about. But, if someone wants to really know, they need to research it on their own. Don't just take one persons opinion. Especially if presented in movie format. When someone has a different view from mine, I like to discuss it with them. You can't do that with a movie.

I know myself well enough to not be afraid to listen, openly, to other points of view. I am quite open minded, but intelligent enough not to be swayed by emotion. Mostly I don't want to see the movie because it isn't the type of movie I like watching.

Well, it was about as true as farenheit 911. Some historical facts played as motifs, but other than that, yeah, Bush may as well have played batman...

Anyone here(in america) watching the DNC(democratic natoinal convention)? As a Bush follower and not a Clinton fan, It was all riff-raff to me. All they did was put own the President. Did anyone here enjoy it?

boring......you can read the highlights in the paper or read it on the net. Then networks will cover the highlights too. So why torture oneself by sitting through the whole thing and risking permanant brain damage? ;)

Michael Moore's 911 plays loose with the facts. It will be interesting how he handles himself in his interview tomorrow on Fox. He's a smart guy, so let's see how he handles the parts in the movie where he was flat out wrong.

You think everything in 911 was completely factual?

That wasn't my question. I didn't ask if you thought Michael Moore collected "facts." I asked if you thought they were factual. It's one thing to collect data, another to prove that data to be factual.

So the question is: "You think everything in 911 was completely factual?"

I'll make it simple for you SF:

1. yes
2. no

Which is it? 1 or 2

Do you think everything in 911 was completely factual?"

1. yes
2. no

that's an answer? ok no point in continuing

I don't have a lot of time to talk about this now, but hopefully tonight I will have more time.

AD - What parts do you think are "Flat out wrong"?

Personally I believe there are many opinions in the movie which are either right or wrong depending on what opinion you have, but I also have not done much research into everything that is mentioned in the movie.

I like the movie, but I also know that is is COMPLETELY one sided, and even Moore will agree with that.

So I believe some things were left out, but I as of right now I don't know of anything in the movie which is flat our wrong - but would love to hear what parts you think are, plus any link or information on why you think that way would be great.

Hum... starting to sound like a debate board. But hopefully we can stick to the Movies topic of Michael Moores movie, and not get into too much how bush has destoried America. (or not destroied America depending on your view.) :-)

Opinions are truth are separate issues. I may have the opinion Michael Moore is a genius, but that opinion is just one man's idea about a particular thing. Truth, on the other hand, is a verifiable fact, (not always, for something might be truth but we just can't know it) and is independent of any person's opinion.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" is not a documentary. It is a propaganda piece. It's a cut and paste of events put together in such a way as to promote Moore's one-sided-view.

A few snippets that Moore got wrong:

*The Bin Laden family did not get to fly out the next day as Moore reported. True that some flew early, but most flew out after all American could fly again as well. The FBI was NOT prevented from interviewing the Bin Laden family.

*Moore ignores facts that he doesn’t want in his film. When interviewing, he cleverly manipulates the events to put lawmakers in a bad light. Lawmakers to star in Moore film

*In the film Bush is shown reading a story to some Sarasota second-graders when news of the 911 plane attacks reaches him. Moore sarcastically highlights the fact that Bush stayed an additional 7 minutes while he calmly finishes reading the story to the students. Moore implies that the President seems confused and indecisive. But, Lee Hamilton, the vice chairman of the 9/11 commission insists that Bush did the right thing by projecting calm. People should know that when you see only one side of a situation without hearing the complete story, you are likely being manipulated.

*Moore claims that Saddam never harmed or threatened any American. Last year, the Pentagon recorded 366 violations or provocations by the Iraqis in the two no-fly zones -- 221 in the south and 145 in the north

you can read more here

(especially see the bottom for more links)


As yet another innocent person has their head severed by Islamic "extremists," Moore apparently glosses over the fact that democracy, in general – and America, specifically – is under attack. I am innately aware that Michael Moore is first and foremost a provocateur, and he thrives on controversy.

Am I saying Moore doesn’t have a point? No

But when making that point, it would be nice if he’d keep his facts straight and present them honestly. Moore clearly manipulates events in his film to make his points. That is dishonest. Moore was clearly wrong on many points he tried to make in the film. I believe he does this deliberately to promote his ideology.

Moore will be on Fox’s The O’Reilly Factor tonight. It ought to be interesting.

Well I have not had a chance to read all the links in the previous post, but as soon as I have some more time - I will for sure take the time to read through them. But going from memory, here are my replies to the few snippets that you provided in the post.

* "The Bin Laden family did not get to fly out the next day as Moore reported" - Now I heard this "argument" before I seen the film, and when I watched it - I did not find ANYWHERE where it said that they left the next day. I believe it said like on day 2 or 3, many (all) of the Bin Laden family were allowed to leave as soon as possible. I also think I remember it saying that the FBI did interview the family members it thought it should - but the point that I got from Moore was even if they did not think the family members had anything to do with it, Moore was making the point that they should not have been allowed to leave since they probable did have more information then they got.

* "Moore ignores facts that he doesn't want in his fiml" - Yea, that is true. Moore even admits that he tried to make a film with the information that you normally don't see in the main stream media. Just like when Bush was deciving America, Bush left out the information he did not want the public to know. This is sad, but common - and it's usually the best way to get what you want.

* "... reading story to some Sarasota second-graders..." - I don't know how this is not a fact. Moore wanted to make the point that Bush stayed there an additional 7 minutes. That is a fact. Was Bush confused? Probable - along with almost 100% of America. This was something that caugt basicly everyone off guard, and if Bush wasn't confused and ready for this attack - well then that probable would scare me even more!

* "*Moore claims that Saddam never harmed or threatened any American" - Again, I don't remember seeing this in the film, but it might be in there - I don't remeber. I was thinking that something to the effect that Saddam was not a THREAT to America was in there, but I don't remember the above. Again, haven't seen the film for awhile, so I could be wrong. (Will have to watch it again before I can comment any more.)

"Moore clearly manipulates events in his film to make his points. That is dishonest." - I agree 100%. But when the Bush Administration manipulated data, that is dishonest also. What goes around, comes around I guess. :-)

just want you to qualify that one BBW so I know that to which you are referring.