It was too nice over the long weekend to spend time at the movies. How convenient that the rain returned today so I could take in this pic. This being the Left Coast, I had my choice of 13 screenings at 3 theaters withing a 4-block radius. I kid you not. I went to the 7:00 PM showing at the Neptune, the largest hall of the 3 and it was about 2/3 full.

Anybody who says thiis movie is completely biased and one-sided is completely right. And I have to acknowledge some criticisms such as those from Christopher Hitchens in this article on Slate. I would give those criticisms more credit except for the fact that Hitchens seems to have lost his bloody mind -- he thinks the Iraq war is a good idea. So in the end it seems like a "forest and trees' thing. Hitchens can complain about a lot of things in Moore's arguments and movie but it doesn't undermine the fundamantal premise.

Yes the movie is manipulative and full of incomplete insinuation -- and Moore may be an unpredictable, inconsistent politico -- but here's a case where he's got it right and produced a fantastically entertaining bit of agitprop.

A few things came repeatedly to mind during the movie. I kept asking vis-a-vis Shrub's on-screen appearances "Who *are* the people who are going to vote for this guy in November?" Kind of rhetorical. Some are on this BBS. I work with others. I wanted the movie to ask and answer that question, but I guess that would have diluted the one-sided thrust of the propaganda.

One other thought I kept having was "Whoa, I have never seen that before!" Maybe I just wasn't paying attention, but Moore did a fantastic job of finding and including footage of a variety of events -- whether Bush in the early minutes of 9/11, heartbreaking protests by African-American members of Congress in the wake of the 2000 election, or footage of troops under attack in Iraq -- that really kept my interest.

Most Democrats don't come off well. The complicity in this misbegotten crusade is pretty sickening. I have to say, when I vote for Kerry-Edwards in November it will be a bitter pill. My vote will be strictly punitive in nature. I wish it would count for more than that.

There were some cheap broad stokes -- Moore insulting via stereotype some small nations in the bogus coalition -- that he should have rethought. Overall, though, I managed not to actively dislike Moore in the course of the movie. His tone was generally quiet and he managed to keep himself in the background. Has he learned something about the negative reactions he can provoke even from people who agree with him?

Anyhow, I'm glad I saw it. Since unlicensed downloads are not likely to be prosecuted, anybody who wants to watch this movie so that they can tear it to shreds can watch it without enriching Moore. I highly recommend this.

The basic question I am waiting for the answer to from Hitchens or for anyone here is: "And this war was a good idea... Why?"

one thing i wish he had left in was the planes hitting the towers. the sounds that i heard led me to believe that the footage was an angle that i hadnt seen before

i would be interested in seeing a film showing the other side of the hat, if such a thing exists

In the Florida panhandle I went to see Spiderman II and Farenheit 911 was playing in the theater adjacent. No more than 10 people went to see it. I knew two people that saw it at that showing and they were seeing it to "know the enemy".

I find it interesting that Slate.com's Christopher Hitchens, a left-leaning journalist, wrote, “To describe [Fahrenheit 9/11] as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability.” He goes so far as to compare Moore to Leni Riefenstahl, who made those gorgeously photographed propaganda films for Adolf Hitler.

I thought showing the reactions of people to the World Trade Center collapse was much more effective than showing something we've seen 10,000 times before, especially the older man who was trying to be stoic and simply failed.

As for the sounds, I imagine those were sound effects, not actual recordings of planes smashing into buildings.

The Hitchens article is as disingenuous as Moore's movie is, arguing that Moore's insinuating things that he isn't. There are times in the movie when Moore does imply things that he has no real basis for, but Hitchens never really mentions those. The article is a terribly long-winded playground "is not!".

Well, that didn't take long. Granted, it's not a direct comparison, but still...

Okay, that's fair. I guess I didn't expect the Franken tactic from the "other side"

I still stand by my statement in general, though.

I thought showing the reactions of people to the World Trade Center collapse was much more effective than showing something we've seen 10,000 times before,.

Agree 100% The best choice in the movie.

[As for the sounds, I imagine those were sound effects, not actual recordings of planes smashing into buildings.

I could be wrong, but I think not. I thought they were a sound collage of actual audio. Chilling

The Hitchens article is as disingenuous as Moore's movie is, arguing that Moore's insinuating things that he isn't. There are times in the movie when Moore does imply things that he has no real basis for, but Hitchens never really mentions those. The article is a terribly long-winded playground "is not!".

I have admired Hitchens and his writing for a while. I have a few of his books. He was a great guest on Politically Incorrect . He dares Moore to go toe-to-toe. I would run away if I were Mike, as Hitchens is very clever and *would* rip him apart. Hitchens has an element of the joyful assassin about him and would rip most *anyone* apart.

Tough luck for Hitchens, though, as Moore won't come within range, leaving Hitchens to froth, like you say, one big, long "Not!" I reread Hitchens piece and even have some sympathy with his complaints, but it is almost irrelevant. The movie is done.

When I saw the headline in Google I think he's a big jerk! I knew immediately it was going to be a story about Moore. Fascinating story, the Guardian inviting Texas Republicans to view F 9/11 ...and they are subsequently unmoved -- unchanged in their affection for Bush. Where some see Alfred E. Neuman (did Alfred lie a lot? I can't remember.), others see honesty, simplicty and forthrightness.

Apparently David Denby wrote a very negative review in the New Yorker. I didn't see that, just several letters responding to Denby. Denby apparently called for "at least [...]an attempt [....] to arrive at a many-sided understanding...." to which several readers reply "Moore is not that kind of filmaker, nor does he want to be" and (another) "Moore's documentary is intended as an expression of his view, shared by millions of Americans, that Bush's election has been detrimental for America. He has delivered a partisan commentary in an inherently partisan process, where subjectivity is a given."

Oh, like the goons stomping around the Dade County courthouse in 2000 had any conscience about being fair, and as if Republicans as a whole didn't enjoy their ugly triumph there.

The Guardian's Republican guests in the Texas theater complain of the movie's complete lack of balance. When they say balance, they want Fox News kind of balance. Well, that's tough, I think. It is past time for a little payback.

A Postscript: I realized when rereading that Guardian article that I mentioned only Texas Republicans where in fact the Guardian found some Republican in Washington DC to take to the movie, too. I realized that I might have made it sound like all Texans are Republicans or that all Republicans are Texans. Neither of those is true, nor was I trying to imply either of those things.

(Although I hear that Republicans in Texas are 10 times bigger than Republicans anywhere else.).