Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 9, 2006 20:16:59 GMT
Michael Moore (1954- )1. Bowling for Columbine 2002 2. Fahrenheit 9/11 2004
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 9, 2006 20:23:03 GMT
He's a fat douchebag.
That's all I have to say about him in here.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 9, 2006 20:27:31 GMT
He's a fat douchebag. That's all I have to say about him in here. But what of his films?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 9, 2006 20:36:31 GMT
I've only seen Bowling for Columbine. Overblown propaganda, misleading garbage. It's filled with lies, deceipt, and one-sided arguments/discussions. The guy is a joke.
1. Bowling for Columbine (2002)
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 9, 2006 20:44:16 GMT
Funny, I thought, if anything, you'd have a beef with him for Fahrenheit, which is by far more bullying and obvious than Bowling for Columbine. Then again, most people against Moore didn't see Fahrenheit...
I plan on rewatching both of these films again, soon. Primarily, I admire him for his editing. What seems to be, on the surface, a rather muddled piece, is actually well-constructed propaganda. Perhaps he will be looked upon in a better light when these times of political upheaval are long gone and a thing of the past, when audiences can view the film without political bias, as "an outdated documentary of its time," and, whether they like it or not, "a historical document".
|
|
|
Post by Vercetti on Feb 9, 2006 20:49:29 GMT
Bowling For Columbine Fahrenheit 9/11
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 9, 2006 21:59:52 GMT
I'm wondering (genuinely): is it possible to appreciate this guy's works while disagreeing with his politics? I'm in accordance with his arguments, and therefore allow myself to enjoy his films, though I'd be the first to admit their propagandist treatment.
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Feb 9, 2006 22:28:41 GMT
Bowling for Columbine Farenheit 9/11 (0) How I feel about the subject matter isnt really relavent here. The first film is fun and creatively done, made me watch, and doesnt really lack much until the ending (spoiler) when he blames all of the worlds problems on Charlton Heston The second movie just plain sucked. Pretenious, overblown and boring. Wasnt this film not eligble for best documentary because he wanted it to be in the running for Best Picture? Or something along those lines? LOL
|
|
|
Post by Vercetti on Feb 10, 2006 0:46:44 GMT
I actually got pissed off with the end. Why the hell did Heston owe anyone an apology?
If my friend dies from a car accident, should I protest a car show?
|
|
|
Post by mikola on Apr 28, 2006 12:30:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Nov 15, 2008 13:11:21 GMT
1. Bowling for Columbine (2002) 1/10
|
|
|
Post by theundergroundman on Mar 31, 2010 16:34:11 GMT
1. Roger and Me (1989) - [blue]4/10[/blue] 2. Sicko (2007) - [blue]4/10[/blue]
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Mar 31, 2010 20:21:09 GMT
I'm wondering (genuinely): is it possible to appreciate this guy's works while disagreeing with his politics? I'm in accordance with his arguments, and therefore allow myself to enjoy his films, though I'd be the first to admit their propagandist treatment. Sorry for responding 4 years too late (in RRA trademark fashion), I would cite what George Orwell said of the brilliant (fascist) painter Dali: "One must seperate the artist from the person."[/i]
|
|