Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: beet1e on February 21, 2005, 02:15:53 PM
-
For anyone who hasn't seen it, check Channel4 tonight. I was surprised to see they gave it a rating of FIVE STARS!! I would have expected three or four, but five seems high - for a documentary.
Details: http://www.radiotimes.com/ListingsServlet?event=10&channelId=132&programmeId=25503010&jspLocation=/jsp/prog_details.jsp
-
It's not a documentary.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
For anyone who hasn't seen it, check Channel4 tonight. I was surprised to see they gave it a rating of FIVE STARS!! I would have expected three or four, but five seems high - for a documentary.
Details: http://www.radiotimes.com/ListingsServlet?event=10&channelId=132&programmeId=25503010&jspLocation=/jsp/prog_details.jsp
There are five star doco's....Some Kind of Monster, Supersize Me, One Day in September, Fog of War are some off the top of my head..A mate reccomended Touching the Void, which I have yet to see
Zero Hour's (http://www.discoverychannel.com.au/zerohour/feature2.shtml) Columbine High school Shooting episode was extremely worth watching
Tronsky
-
Was my first experience with Michael Moore, and it made me despise him and pity the people he suckers in. Certainly not a documentary.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
For anyone who hasn't seen it, check Channel4 tonight. I was surprised to see they gave it a rating of FIVE STARS!! I would have expected three or four, but five seems high - for a documentary.
Details: http://www.radiotimes.com/ListingsServlet?event=10&channelId=132&programmeId=25503010&jspLocation=/jsp/prog_details.jsp
Bait.
-
Just not interested even if Keira Knightley delivered buttered popcorn naked and told me I couldn't touch her until the end of the movie.
(http://www.netenigma.com/gto/keiraknightley/keiraknightley05.jpg)
Ok...after finding this pic...maybe for strawberries....
-
It's not a bad documentary, but 5 stars? Maybe 3 or 4.
-
I'm with Nash... it's not a bad documentary, maybe 3 or 4 out of 5, but not 5/5.
-
Bowling for Columbine is the best documentary I have ever seen. Thank God for great Americans like Michael Moore.
-
Originally posted by Steve
It's not a documentary.
Are you sure about that? I heard there was some fuss when it got an Oscar for best documentary, but I've just checked IMDB and see that at least a dozen film critic organisations gave it an award for best documentary. Here is the list: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310793/awards
One of the American user critics enthused thus: One can hardly quarrel with most of Moore's basic facts or the urgency of his subject or his commitment to it. Because of its significance to Americans on both personal and national levels, "Bowling for Columbine" has to be considered the most important (and it's becoming the most watched) US documentary film in many a year. This is being recognized in all sorts of ways, first of all with the special jury prize at Cannes.
This acclaim has since been surpassed by an even more enthusiastic reception to another documentary, Fahrenheit 911.
tronski! - I saw Supersize me - once. I don't think I could watch it again.
-
Irrelevant Beet1e. It can't be a documentary because Steve doesn't like it.
-
Most people who I hear bad mouth this movie consider it an anti-gun movie
Do you consider it an anti-gun movie.....?
I think you missed the point if you do.......
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Irrelevant Beet1e. It can't be a documentary because Steve doesn't like it.
:lol;)
-
Originally posted by OneWordAnswer
Bait.
Yup, and here he goes...
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Irrelevant Beet1e. It can't be a documentary because Steve doesn't like it.
That's not true.
I don't know what the guidelines for documentary are, but dictionary.com defines it as:
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.
Most of the criticism as to whether or not it's a documentary revolve around the evidence that it is not presented objectively and is edited to be misleading.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Most of the criticism as to whether or not it's a documentary revolve around the evidence that it is not presented objectively and is edited to be misleading.
I think you've got that confused with White House press briefings.
No no no... Bowling for Columbine is a completely different thing. It's a movie. A documentary to be more specific.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I think you've got that confused with White House press briefings.
No no no... Bowling for Columbine is a completely different thing. It's a movie. A documentary to be more specific.
Aaaah, so you're admitting you didn't see it. Well, I see that didn't stop you from having an opinion.
Carry on. The Democrats need sheep too.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Most of the criticism as to whether or not it's a documentary revolve around the evidence that it is not presented objectively and is edited to be misleading.
That's fine, but whether the film is objective or not really isn't a relevant point.
From Encyclopedia Britannica:
Fact-based film that depicts actual events and persons.
Documentaries can deal with scientific or educational topics, can be a form of journalism or social commentary, or can be a conduit for propaganda or personal expression. The term was first coined by Scottish-born filmmaker John Grierson to describe fact-based features such as Robert Flaherty's Nanook of the North (1922). Grierson's Drifters (1929) and Pare Lorentz's The Plow That Broke the Plains (1936) influenced documentary filmmaking in the 1930s. During the World War II era documentary filmmaking was a valuable propaganda tool used by all sides. Leni Riefenstahl contributed to the Nazi propaganda efforts in the 1930s; the U.S. made films such as Frank Capra's series Why We Fight (1942–45); and Britain released London Can Take It (1940). Cinéma vérité documentaries, which gained notoriety in the 1960s, emphasized a more informal and intimate relationship between camera and subject. Television became an important medium for documentary films with goals that were more journalistic (such as CBS's Harvest of Shame [1960]) and educational (such as Ken Burns's Civil War [1990]).
-
Originally posted by Sandman
That's fine, but whether the film is objective or not really isn't a relevant point.
From Encyclopedia Britannica:
Whether or not it is relevant is what the issue is. I didn't pass judgement either way. I was just stating facts.
Some people argue, and can back up, that it doesn't qualify as a documentary due to it's content and editing.
-
Some people are narrow minded and wrong. ;)
-
Martlet is on the mark.
It got 5 stars because its the type of propaganda that the rater agrees with.
Its called a documentary because its the type of propaganda that those who call it such want to believe despite being blatantly and delibertly misleading and often false. It's not even original in being so. This is the kind of work that Joseph Goebbels, Rudolf Hess and Leni Riefenstahl pioneered in the 30's and 40's. It's just a different flavor for a different cause. The methods and complete lack of respect for the basics of humanity for the sake of greed are the same.
-
But did you enjoy it?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Some people are narrow minded and wrong. ;)
Yeah, but I didn't think it was the proper forum to point out your flaws.
;)
-
I don't support human waste of any type.
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
I don't support human waste of any type.
Ah! An informed opinion!
-
Are you sure about that?
Yes, a documentary is supposed to have an unbiased view of the subject matter. Moore is so far to the left that he's almost off the horizon. The only people who consider his work documentary are left wing idiots and whackjobs. Notice the tards that are commenting that it's a documentary, like Thrawn and Nash. They don't get any more Kooky and dangerous than those two wingnuts.
-
That's fine, but whether the film is objective or not really isn't a relevant point.
From Merriam Webster:
Documentary:
: of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE
edit: BTW, I didn't add the caps, Webster's did. How appropriate here.
-
Now that's just slander.
I'm not dangerous.
-
But Steve, what about all the awards described in IMDB? At least a dozen for best documentary, from various organisations. Are you saying that they're all wrong?
-
Lol Nash. I apologize.
You're only dangerous if you andyour ilk weild political power.
-
Are you saying that they're all wrong?
Yes, because: The only people who consider his work documentary are left wing idiots and whackjobs.
Now, quit your trolling and go make dinner or something.
-
Oh - so all film critics are left wing nutjobs?
I had dinner a couple of hours ago. But... look at the time - just coming up to 23:05 in Limeyland - maybe I'll watch BfC.
-
"You're only dangerous if you andyour ilk weild political power."
Yes, he might start a war of aggression that will lead to tens of thousands of dead people.
PS: I wish I had some ilk. :(
-
Oh - so all film critics are left wing nutjobs?
Just about, yes.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Oh - so all film critics are left wing nutjobs?
I had dinner a couple of hours ago. But... look at the time - just coming up to 23:05 in Limeyland - maybe I'll watch BfC.
Not all film critics rated it as a documentary or favorably. It's also been categorized as a comedy and a drama.
-
Michael Moore = exploitive biased crap.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Oh - so all film critics are left wing nutjobs?
It's bigger than that. Everyone in the film industry are left wing nutjobs. ;)
Rather than Websters, I think I'll trust a filmaker's opinion on what constitutes a documentary film.
“As I am a documentary maker myself, I can tell you that already in the pre-production of a documentary, a message or argument is defined as an objective for the documentary. Usually this message will be chosen to reflect a point of view that is not commonly represented in the media picture, and aim the camera at aspects of a conflict few tend to consider. This way the documentary is meant to spark debate around the issues, and make its audience think deeper and become more reflected. It is because of the objective defined in pre-production documentaries are so different from news genres, which are supposed to not judge but merely report. Documentaries are not built to be this open allowing for individual conclusions, but rather to challenge narrow-mindedness among its audience so they will not merely follow the opinion of the general public. This way the documentary can challenge prejudices in a way news media can not.”
-
Yes, he might start a war of aggression that will lead to tens of thousands of dead people.
Who did? Bush? I mean if you ask the Iraqis, over 95% of them are glad the Americans stopped Hussein from continuing his muderous regime. I mean, if you are referring to Bush, you must feel that Hussein should still be in power? Is that what you mean?
-
I think I'll trust a filmaker's opinion on what constitutes a documentary film.
That's because like them, you are a a left wing extremist.
-
95% eh?
Reference?
-
Originally posted by Steve
That's because like them, you are a a left wing extremist.
I consider myself fairly moderate. I'm just to the left of you. :p
-
I consider myself fairly moderate
Well, like many left wing whackos, you lack the balls to admit you're a liberal. This continues to baffle me, but I stopped trying to understand liberals long ago. Ther is simply no way to use logic on them.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
95% eh?
Reference?
Heh.... For someone so against propaganda, I would love to see where he got that number from.
Maybe he only appreciates state sanctioned propaganda? I find it rather dry, myself.
-
95% eh?
Do your own research. Or you can simply deny it in order to justify leaving Hussein and his murderous henchmen in power.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Yes, because: The only people who consider his work documentary are left wing idiots and whackjobs.
And only rightwing idiots and wackjobs are soooo intent on defining it as something other than a documentary... you know why?
So it wouldn't win the Oscar for best Documentary.
Incredibly funny how the righty-tighties scorn the "hollyweirds" on one hand then try like heck to influence their vote with the other.
I challenge you or any of YOUR ILK to name a documentary that is not slanted or has completely factual content...
fire away punkin.
-
So Nash, you admit that you feel that Hussein should still be in power?
-
Originally posted by Steve
Do your own research.
Lol.... you slay me.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
And only rightwing idiots and wackjobs are soooo intent on defining it as something other than a documentary... you know why?
So it wouldn't win the Oscar for best Documentary.
Incredibly funny how the righty-tighties scorn the "hollyweirds" on one hand then try like heck to influence their vote with the other.
I challenge you or any of YOUR ILK to name a documentary that is not slanted or has completely factual content...
fire away punkin.
I fail to see your point. So the right does it too. That's old news. You don't need to join the defense mob, though.
Unless you like being led by the nose.
-
Originally posted by Steve
So Nash, you admit that you feel that Hussein should still be in power?
The only thing you need to do next is to blame it all on Bill Clinton. What does this have to do with the documentary Bowling for Columbine?
-
So it wouldn't win the Oscar for best Documentary.
You are mistaken. I could care less what people do w/ Oscars.
I've seem one, it would make a good paper weight. Many films interest me but I could care less about the film industry and who gets what kudos. Did Moore win an oscar? I couldn't tell you.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Well, like many left wing whackos, you lack the balls to admit you're a liberal. This continues to baffle me, but I stopped trying to understand liberals long ago. Ther is simply no way to use logic on them.
Meanwhile, you lack the balls to admit you're a fascist.
Balance is achieved. :aok
-
Originally posted by Steve
Do your own research. Or you can simply deny it in order to justify leaving Hussein and his murderous henchmen in power.
Damn... I should take notes. From now on I'll just spout out "facts" and when questioned, my reply shall be "Do your own research."
:aok
-
What does this have to do with the documentary Bowling for Columbine
It has to do with this:
Yes, he might start a war of aggression that will lead to tens of thousands of dead people.
Try to keep up.
:)
-
Originally posted by Nash
The only thing you need to do next is to blame it all on Bill Clinton. What does this have to do with the documentary Bowling for Columbine?
Clinton financed the movie with ill-gotten gains from a real-estate deal in Arkansas. Do the research!
-
Meanwhile, you lack the balls to admit you're a fascist
Umm define it as you see it then I'll let you know. Because if you are referring to what it traditionally means, and what the dictionary says it means, then no, I'm not.
So, you tell me what you think it means and I'll happily answer.
-
Do the research!
-
Already did, there's the difference between you and I. I'll do research, you stick your head in the sand for fear you might be proven mistaken. Besides, I tried to research your opinion. You refused to give it, thus far.
Fascism per Merriam: exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
I dno't support any of that. so by definition, no, I am not a fascist.
I am a conservative, right wing hawk though. Now you try it. Try to admit that you are a left leaning liberal pacifist who likes to pretend that there is no evil in the world that cannot be dealt with by sticking a flower down a rifle barrel.
-
Like I said... I'm a moderate. I have more in common with the Libertarians than either the Republicans or the Democrats. I'm socially liberal, but fiscally conservative.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Do your own research.
Unsupported BS! Just like what you accuse Michael Moore of doing.
WTG glad to see that you are also a big supporter of him and his methods.
-
Just like what you accuse Michael Moore of doing.
Where?
-
I'm socially liberal, but fiscally conservative.
Kind of a tight rope act isn't it? I'm not saying it can't be done (I dunno)but don't the two sometimes clash?
-
Originally posted by Steve
Kind of a tight rope act isn't it? I'm not saying it can't be done (I dunno)but don't the two sometimes clash?
The two sometimes clash? Try the one sometimes clashes.
Conservatives are spending like kids in a candy store.
"Fiscal conservative" has a whole new meaning now... and it aint exactly flattering.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Kind of a tight rope act isn't it? I'm not saying it can't be done (I dunno)but don't the two sometimes clash?
It's easier than you think. (http://lp.org/)
-
This is the film Moore should have made.
Super Size.... (http://www.supersizeme.com/)
-
Originally posted by Nash
Conservatives are spending like kids in a candy store.
"Fiscal conservative" has a whole new meaning now... and it aint exactly flattering.
odd how that works isnt it.
oh, and that the republicans are all for less government.
hey, i got an idea, rather than giving people back thier money, lets create another government beuracracy to handle it. then lets blow all sorts of cash on foreign wars to jack up the profits of our oil business.
ya. wtg republicons.
-
Originally posted by Steve
You are mistaken. I could care less what people do w/ Oscars.
I've seem one, it would make a good paper weight. Many films interest me but I could care less about the film industry and who gets what kudos. Did Moore win an oscar? I couldn't tell you.
LOL
-
(http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/sp022105.gif)
-
Conservatives are spending like kids in a candy store.
Umm other than the very just war we are waging, spending is DOWN.
-
You'll have to teach me a little about libertarian policy. I mean, I am guilty of assuming libertarians are NOT socially liberal. I understand their views on individual liberties and forgein policy.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
It's easier than you think. (http://lp.org/)
Being fiscally conservative and socially liberal? It isn't that easy, nor is it that libertarian.
Let's talk about Welfare.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Like I said... I'm a moderate.
oh good lord!
:aok
-
Originally posted by JB88
odd how that works isnt it.
ya. wtg republicons.
:p I love sore losers :D
-
Originally posted by Steve
Yes, a documentary is supposed to have an unbiased view of the subject matter. Moore is so far to the left that he's almost off the horizon. The only people who consider his work documentary are left wing idiots and whackjobs. Notice the tards that are commenting that it's a documentary, like Thrawn and Nash. They don't get any more Kooky and dangerous than those two wingnuts.
(http://images.usatoday.com/money/_photos/2004/03/08/guinness-thumb.jpg) BRILLIANT!
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Being fiscally conservative and socially liberal? It isn't that easy, nor is it that libertarian.
Sure it is. The term applies to tolerance, not government subsidy.
It's a gross oversimplification but it boils down to the belief that the government has no place in my bedroom and better have a good reason for being in my wallet.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Sure it is. The term applies to tolerance, not government subsidy.
It's a gross oversimplification but it boils down to the belief that the government has no place in my bedroom and better have a good reason for being in my wallet.
Unfortunately, there is much about being socially liberal that directly conflicts with being fiscally conservative and even more so, libertarian. Again, I bring up welfare.
I identify more closely with libertarian than I do anything else.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
:p I love sore losers :D
i lost twice.
no. three times.
1. i voted liberrarian.
2. i lost the america that i love.
3. i now live in a paranoid fear driven society.
cant wait for the clouds to part and change to come. and it will. oh it will.
but no, im not sore.
i just dont happen to agree with you or your party with its agenda of lies and sheepdom.
i used to have great conversations with republicons, now its like talking to a tape recorder.
way to be humble winners guys. nice example.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
:p I love sore losers :D
:aok
nail ----> head
-
Originally posted by Martlet
nail ----> head
Shouldn't it be:
head ----> nail ?
The way you've got it now, it looks like the head of a hammer is getting hit by a nail, which is just completely retarded.
Er wait... is the "head" you're talking about actually the head of a nail, and not the head of a hammer? If so, that implies that the nail is beatin' on itself.
I probably just don't get it it.... so nevermind. I just use "Nailed it", which avoids any such ambiguity... er unless of course we're talking about, say, Janet Reno... where "nailed it" could be misconstrued....
Oh the internet is so whacky.
-
It's a gross oversimplification but it boils down to the belief that the government has no place in my bedroom and better have a good reason for being in my wallet.
Well I certainly agree w/ you here. What about the social side though? Is a libertarain typically a social liberal?
-
Originally posted by Steve
Well I certainly agree w/ you here. What about the social side though? Is a libertarain typically a social liberal?
As I understand the term, yes... But as I've discovered here, not everyone agrees on what "socially liberal" means. If the term is too ambiguous, we can just drop it and find some other more accurate labels for each other. :)
-
OK, well when I think of socially liberal, I think of Govt funded soup kitchens, welfare, endless unemployment benefits, govt health care for those who do not put money into the system, housing subsidies for those who are too lazy to support themselves, disability checks for people who turned a sore back into a life long illness.... etc.
As you can see, it conflicts w/ being fiscally conservative.... imho
-
Originally posted by Steve
OK, well when I think of socially liberal, I think of Govt funded soup kitchens, welfare, endless unemployment benefits, govt health care for those who do not put money into the system, housing subsidies for those who are too lazy to support themselves, disability checks for people who turned a sore back into a life long illness.... etc.
As you can see, it conflicts w/ being fiscally conservative.... imho
That's the "border" between economic and social aspects of politics. It's one of the places where it gets confusing, since it has a foot planted firmly on both sides of the fence.
I, like you, put the majority of it on the social side, since I feel that's where welfare is rooted.
-
Originally posted by Steve
OK, well when I think of socially liberal, I think of Govt funded soup kitchens, welfare, endless unemployment benefits, govt health care for those who do not put money into the system, housing subsidies for those who are too lazy to support themselves, disability checks for people who turned a sore back into a life long illness.... etc.
As you can see, it conflicts w/ being fiscally conservative.... imho
...and I'd call your example fiscally liberal. :)
-
Originally posted by Nash
... er unless of course we're talking about, say, Janet Reno... where "nailed it" could be misconstrued....
That is just gross and completely uncalled for!
-
Originally posted by JB88
i lost twice.
no. three times.
1. i voted liberrarian.
So you were you suprised?
2. i lost the america that i love.
Just a eensy weensy bit dramatic, don't you think?
3. i now live in a paranoid fear driven society.
? WHO... is paranoid?
cant wait for the clouds to part and change to come. and it will. oh it will.
Yep, it will... just like "it" did in 01. I can only hope it doesn't come in the form of some flower waving socialist fathead who refuses to accept the reality that WE are the good guys, out to do good things, for good people.
but no, im not sore.
Horse pucky...
i just dont happen to agree with you or your party with its agenda of lies and sheepdom.
Your not sore.
i used to have great conversations with republicons, now its like talking to a tape recorder.
So, what do you expect THEY say about conversations with you?
way to be humble winners guys. nice example.
Stop the hate, I'll stop the spiking the ball.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
i lost twice.
no. three times.
1. i voted liberrarian.
So you were you suprised?
2. i lost the america that i love.
Just a eensy weensy bit dramatic, don't you think?
3. i now live in a paranoid fear driven society.
? WHO... is paranoid?
cant wait for the clouds to part and change to come. and it will. oh it will.
Yep, it will... just like "it" did in 01. I can only hope it doesn't come in the form of some flower waving socialist fathead who refuses to accept the reality that WE are the good guys, out to do good things, for good people.
but no, im not sore.
Horse pucky...
i just dont happen to agree with you or your party with its agenda of lies and sheepdom.
Your not sore.
i used to have great conversations with republicons, now its like talking to a tape recorder.
So, what do you expect THEY say about conversations with you?
way to be humble winners guys. nice example.
Stop the hate, I'll stop the spiking the ball.
no. i wasnt surprized.
not too dramatic. we accepted the lie. i thought that we were better than that.
the patriot act is a portend of things to come if we do not carefully guard our liberty. what we have lost is going to be hard to recover and power does not like letting go of power. this has been proven again and again.
oh, i dont know. any american since 9/11 who watches fox for more than 10 minutes seems to get that "saddam was gonna kill us" stare.
personally, i dont think that corporate suckup and/or subterfuge is good, much less a president who requires you to sign loyalty oaths. sorry. just not seeing it. in my opinion that is coersion.
i expect that what they say about me is about the same as they do anyone else who dares have an opinion like our forefathers did.
was that a spike? felt more like a feather slap.
i dont hate you mumphry. i just think your ilk is self righteous and suffers from control issues but thankfully it will all soon be placed on the thrift store shelf like everyother american fad since the first one.
mandate my arse.
:)
88
-
I saw it. And I thought it was great. Changed my mind about gun control. Its not the guns.
What you guys need is news media control;) Who was that shallow b**tard outside the school where the little girl was shot dead? Crying crocodile tears into the camera and fretting about his hairspray.
It made me think how glad I am to be living in a country not gripped by paranoia and fear. ( though sadly it seems we are doing our bit to catch up with the states as usual ) Actualy I think Canada looks like a pretty cool place. Now I can see why my father's side of the family emmigrated there.
I woke up much happier that I am a Brit. Though it still concerns me that a nation led by a paranoid president, and riddled with the attitude that if you are a bit different people should be afraid of you, is pushing its weight around the world and spending more than ever on war.
I wonder would the, little guy who shot the girl's, mother have had to go and work all those hours on that bus if a fraction of the money spent on the war had been put into helping out the poorer people in society?
Marylin Manson may be freaky and way out there but he said what for me was the most important thing in the film.
Someone should have taken the time to listen to those guys at Columbine and then maybe it would never have happened.
( mind you if they couldn't have got a gun at Kmart!!! it wouldn't have happened either! )
-
Zulu7 - well I'm glad someone was able to benefit from my thread in the way it was intended. ;)
Do you think it was worthy of the 5 stars?
-
Arrrg...Intended?
Beetle, god bless ya you ‘ol buckaroo, but you are so transparent, it’s comical. Sure, they take the bait and go from there with your topics, but don’t backslap Zulu.
No shame. Unbelievable.
-
Beetle I thought it was worth 4or5 yeah. It was an interesting take on things and cleverly mixed hard hitting truths with some humour to make it watchable. An Unremiting diet of sadness and violence would have made a lot of people switch off pretty quick so I think it hit the mark and was cleverly made to keep people watching. The guy is angry but I think I would be too if I had to live there. Have you ever watched MArk Thomas at work. He's pretty good too, like our own home cooked version of Mr Moore.
Save us from the paranoia ;)
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Save us from the paranoia ;)
Yeah, it's worst amongst the "conservatives". I was flying home from Phoenix,AZ on Christmas Day, 2001 would you believe. And Sky Harbor airport was alive with military types carrying nasty looking weapons, rushing around from point to point, and scowling like nothing on earth. One passed by me, and I would have said "Merry Christmas", but feared I might get arrested - or shot! So we exchanged blank stares and that was that.
Creamo - you missed the winky in my last post.
-
Ah, cc.
-
Originally posted by Creamo
No shame. Unbelievable.
British.
-
Originally posted by OneWordAnswer
British.
Correct.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/passport2.jpg)
-
Originally posted by OneWordAnswer
Ripsnort^
-
I kept waiting for him to go to a hollywood party and interview all the coke heads and drugies and ask them if they knew that that their drug habits and movie violence was causeing minorities to kill each other over drug turf and could they please stop.... maybe wheel in a poor crippled gangbanger who had been the victim of a driveby.
lazs
-
HA!
Oh this thread is killing me.
Michael Moore does not make documentaries. The basic definition of a documentary tells us that it isn't.
I guess you could call his movies entertainment. I like to call them lies...
-
Bowling for Columbine was crap. It has more holes than some of you guy's underwear. The editting was sloppy and ill-concealed. He just tries to hide it with the sheer force of the message.
1) In the opening bank scene, it was staged. They don't keep guns in a bank. The guns are kept in a vault 4 hours away. The ones on the wall behind the clerk are models. He also left out the part where he spent at least 1/2 an hour in the bank undergoing an FBI background check. It just looks like he walks in, fills out a slip of paper, and walks out with a gun.
2) The hunting dog video isn't so much a re-enactment as a staged video. He uses tricks like adding time/date to the corners to make it look like a real home movie. Btw, anybody that dresses up their dog & gives it a gun... deserves a darwin award.
3) The "blind guy" shoots better than I do. 9/10 on qualifiying exams and 10/10 on the re-shoot. He's not totally blind.
4) The Lockheed plant is a very poor way to make a point. The banner "IT HAS TO BE FOREIGN OBJECT FREE"? This is a gun-control flick, not lessons on how to run a factory. Moore doesn't even bother to defend the arguements he made here because it was filler that people try to hold up as some valid point, even when it doesn't make a coherent arguement.
5) He paraphrased the plaque, and didn't bother to actually say what was on it.
"B-52D Stratofortress. 'Diamond Lil.' Dedicated to the men and women of the Strategic Air Command who flew and maintained the B-52D throughout its 26-year history in the command. Aircraft 55-083, with over 15,000 flying hours, is one of two B-52Ds credited with a confirmed MIG kill during the Vietnam Conflict Flying out of U-Tapao Royal Thai Naval Airfield in southern Thailand, the crew of 'Diamond Lil' shot down a MIG northeast of Hanoi during 'Linebacker II' action on Christmas Eve, 1972."
that's a bit different than:
"The plaque underneath it proudly proclaims that this plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve 1972."
6) The "History of America" cartoon 1) was done in a style pretending to be Matt Stone & Trey Parker. It wasn't done by them. They do not like Moore & refused to work on the movie. It also tries to tie the KKK to the NRA. Check the dialog & look at the fast-talking. It says that the NRA was founded in 1871, "the same year that the Klan became an illegal terrorist organization." The Klan was actually founded in 1866 in TN by ex-confederates, and the NRA was founded in NY, in 1871, by former Union officers.
7) Heston's speech clip, used to demonize him, and shown as happening 10 days after Columbine, is actually from a year later in Charlotte. "My cold dead hands".
8) To argue that Canada is very ethnically diverse, compared to America, Moore shows 3 black people in Toronto. Woo! It's a regular old melting pot there, what, with that 3% black population.
9) The only way to come up with Moore's 11,127 deaths during the country comparison is to ignore the FBI's (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/01cius.htm) number's, use the National Center for Health's stat's, then, add in the figure for legally justified homicides. It's an intentional skewing of the numbers to make a point. I thought skewing the numbers in your own favor pretty much negates the point you were trying to make in the first place.
10) If the Wal-Mart scene were not faked, it was an illegal purchase of the ammunition. You have to show a driver's license Firearms Acquisition Certification. Now some of you say "whatever, he edited out him showing his ID".. well, the point of the scene is to show what an easy buy it is.
11) The Willie Horton ad was about the "revolving door" policy. It had little to do with racial profiling and fear mongering.
12) Interviewing the kids in Canada, listen to what they say. That's the exact things that sparked off Columbine to begin with.
13) Blaming the Kayle Rowland shooting on Dick Clark, because the mother worked at his grill for the work-to-welfare program.. seriously...
14) The second NRA meeting in Flint he holds up, was 8 months after the Columbine shooting. Bush & Gore were both in the area holding rallies. Moore himself had been in the area hosting rallies. Clever editing makes you think that the tragedy was used for a pro-gun rally, when it was actually a voting event.
15) The "Culture of Fear" author... he's holding up and supporting an author that criticizes sensationalized media when crime rates are falling... but isn't he criticising what Moore is actually doing?
All documentaries are slanted & biased. Some more than others. Bowling for Columbine just happens to be one of the worst.
As for cinematic value.. I wouldn't give it 5 stars. I'd give it a 3, being generous. The editing was sloppy and he does a poor job of making points. However, when you're preaching to your own choir, it's not hard to get a good score.
-
Originally posted by indy007
All documentaries are slanted & biased. Some more than others. Bowling for Columbine just happens to be one of the worst.
So you do agree it's a documentary? :p
I agree, the Lockheed Martin scenes could have been left out.
I see there is mileage left in this topic yet!
-
Soooooooo....
Staging a scene makes the film something other than a documentary?
I wonder how Disney's "Living Desert" would hold up to that scrutiny? Do you think all those animals just happened to walk into and out of the frame?
funny.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
So you do agree it's a documentary? :p
I agree, the Lockheed Martin scenes could have been left out.
I see there is mileage left in this topic yet!
I'm not one of the people that disagree with it, and also shout it down as not being a documentary. I just think it's full of crap :)
-
i've always thought of micheal moore as the guy who boils the water a bit too hot for the tea to be sipped.
dramatic? yes.
contrived? yes.
but the fundemental point of his work remains. where few were willing to go...he did.
its parts where he does the creative editing or goes into the self righteous extravaganzas that pull it down for me...usually towards the end of his films.
id give it a 3 based upon the annoy factor and a 4 based upon the factuality factor.
obviously he is framing. i just dont happen to find that part all too enlightening.
roger and me? too long. still groundbreaking. 3 stars
columbine? mmm. a bit spread out. but there were certainly interesting parts. 3 1/2
farenheit 911. - could have been much better with someone a little less whiney on the other end of the microphone...but its still always nice to know that SOMEBODY is asking questions and posting opinions.
he's alright.
the fact that he ticks so many people off probably indicates that hes pretty close to the mark somewhere.
but i wouldnt expect them to change.
-
wonder how Disney's "Living Desert" would hold up to that scrutiny?
That was a great film. I remember watching it as a kid... mesmerized.