IMDb user comments for
Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 143:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

1422 comments in total

---

297 out of 502 people found the following comment useful :-
A whirlwind tour of corruption and diplomatic deceit, 29 June 2004

Author: 0rganism from Portland, Oregon

"Fahrenheit 9/11" is an important film, dealing in detail with the great issues of current American society, with a degree of skepticism that our newsmedia has proven entirely incapable of exhibiting in the last decade. Lone gadfly Michael Moore cannot singlehandedly reverse the effects of a servile corporate media, but he can -- and does -- fling it right back in their faces. Is it any wonder televised interviews with Moore have been less-than-cordial of late?

It doesn't matter. For a film like this, any publicity is beneficial, and Michael Moore has gone out of his way to thank his conservative detractors for their support.

As a movie, it's a whirlwind tour of corruption and diplomatic deceit at the highest levels of the industrial-political machine, mixed with direct examination of the lives of the "ordinary" people affected by the decisions of the aristocratic few. Much like a roller-coaster ride, it pulls you up the first steep incline with images of the 2000 presidential election followed by the major players in the bush administration getting ready for their performances, and then comes the first plunge: a stomach-wrenching drop into the black screen, with only the sounds of that awful day in September when "everything changed". Fade back in on the people of New York, confused, hurting, seeking their loved ones in the rubble.

From here on, there is no stopping for breath. We observe the flight of Saudi aristocrats who, but for their political connections, might have been held as material witnesses. Moore depicts vividly the links between the Bush family and their Saudi friends, one of whom (Prince Bandar) "earns" the Bush surname. On it goes, fact after fact after irrefutable and disgusting fact. Many of us entered the theatre thinking we knew the score, but seldom has an overview of each tree led to such a complete vision of the forest.

Along the way, we'll see behavior from members of the bush administration that cannot be described as flattering -- but once again, this isn't up for debate. It's the facts, it's what they themselves said. You can argue context, but the footage speaks for itself. And more than anything else, this is where Michael Moore proves he's grown as a director. No longer are his films chock-full of his narrative, he lets the evildoers hoist themselves on their own petards without as much overdubbed commentary. His statement rests in the overall structure of the film, rather than his usual assortment of shame-defying pecadillos and exposes.

Which is not to say that fans of his spirited antics won't have something to watch, as he drives around the capital building in an ice cream truck reading the Patriot act to the representatives who never bothered to read the legislation they passed, or chases after congressmen trying to get them interested in enlisting their children for a tour of duty in Iraq.

Aaah, Iraq. The second half of the film deals with the buildup to and execution of our current adventure in nation building. Iraq is shown with a brief clip from before and a whole lot of after -- with its people confused, hurting, seeking their loved ones in the rubble. Our soldiers are also given plenty of time on-screen, time to describe what it's like, time to proclaim the thrills, dangers, and ennui of life as an occupying army. Far from being unsupportive as claimed by its detractors, this film makes every effort to give the front-liners their say. Wounded soldiers are treated with no less compassion than the other victims in this film. And unlike the corporate newsmedia, Moore's cameras dare to follow the injured to the Walter Reed medical center and into their underfunded rehabilitation.

And it follows the heart of a patriotic woman from Moore's hometown of Flint whose soldier son makes the ultimate sacrifice for Bush's folly.

This is, above all, a sympathetic, patriotic and humanistic movie. Even its main star, George W. Bush, is given a measure of understanding. We understand that he is out of his league, unable to push for the appropriate diplomatic solutions with Saudi Arabia, forever beholden to the corporate interests that purchased his throne, barely capable of coherent thought, and not at all comfortable with the responsibilities of the presidency. He would far rather be golfing, or "lookin' for bugs", or hanging at fundraisers with "the haves and the have-mores"; the presidency is a burden he clearly cannot bear. He almost begs to be removed from office.

This movie has a lot more to say than any reviewer's encapsulation can convey. Ignore the naysayers who, in all likelihood, haven't even seen the film. Understand that the facts are the facts, the presentation is Mr. Moore's, and your opinion is your own.

My opinion: 10/10 -- If there's a documentary/editorial piece that could touch this one, I haven't seen it yet.

---

189 out of 294 people found the following comment useful :-
If this is news to you, wake up!, 28 June 2004

Author: sbudach from New Hampshire

Yes, Michael Moore has an agenda. However, every documentary does. Believe it or not folks, but a documentary does not just show reality, it also interprets it. Remember the experts that Ken Burns shows in all of his documentaries? He used them to interpret the facts of the Civil War, Jazz, and Baseball, among others. The Ken Burn's agenda just wasn't as controversial as Michael Moore's.

The point of a documentary is for those who see it to start making their own judgments. If you don't agree with Michael Moore's interpretation of the why's of the Iraq war, what is the right interpretation? Can you use the facts or find more facts to come up with a different interpretation? I would call that highly unlikely, but I would like to see the interpretation.

This documentary set out to answer the question "Why is the US in Iraq?" I can tell you I have asked that question a lot and I found no good reason. Michael Moore has done the same thing, just to a larger audience. While you might disagree with his assessment that it was strictly for money, it is hard to support a different view after seeing this movie. You would be hard pressed to find any evidence linking Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Why? Because it doesn't exist. No matter how much Bush railed for a link, even he had to admit it wasn't there.

I guess I would like to see a Republican version of events. I just can't imagine what it would use as evidence. How can you refute the 7 minutes of inactivity of Mr. Bush in the Florida classroom on 9/11? How can you refute the fact that planes were loaded up with Bin Laden relatives on 9/13? How can you call the "coalition of the willing" a coalition if it includes countries that send no troops? These are the facts folks. Michael Moore interpreted them to slam the Bush administration. I was saying the same thing before this movie. However, I reach a small audience since I don't make movies. Thanks to Michael Moore for making this film. Maybe some of the clueless, like Britney Spears, will wake up and start questioning what is going on out there. Because, Ms. Spears, in America, we are allowed to question the president. He isn't God, he is a human being.

So, pro-Iraq war people, give me your interpretation. Why? Why are we there? Why don't we have Osama Bin Laden? Why?

---

157 out of 244 people found the following comment useful :-
The silence before the ovation is what stays with me, 27 June 2004
Author: strangely_coloured_dog from Halifax, Nova Scotia

Contrary to what so many of us were lead to believe, this movie does not portray a negative message. George W. Bush and his administration aren't painted as fascist tyrants at all. They appear to be fools, power-hungry but fallible. As such, their stranglehold over the American people isn't concrete. There is hope that things can change, and that seems to be the overall message in this film.

For every American soldier Moore shows talking about the adrenaline rush they get when they kill, every soldier that appears on screen as a trigger-happy madman, he shows an American soldier dead on the streets of Iraq. The film progresses as a two-hour reenactment of the thoughts that must go through so many soldiers minds, starting out as a soldier going to war, fighting for the safety of their country against enemies that surely want all Americans dead, but all certainty of their righteousness gives way to hesitation, to men and women questioning why they are there fighting a war that has no clear justification.

Moore also uses his various clips and interviews to show how similar the American civilian population are to the Iraqis. His portrayal of the Saddam-era Iraq was certainly biased, but so many people are happy, looking for joy and prosperity, something that isn't as alien as some of us would like to think of the Iraqis as being. One thing that stays in my mind now, the day after watching this film, is one Iraqi woman crying for her lost family members outside her burned and ruined home, screaming to Allah for help. Comparing that woman to Ms. Lipscombe from Flint, Michigan, who lost her son in the war, crying in her interview with Moore and asking for support from Jesus just shows how this war affects all the people caught up in it equally.

That is to say, all of the people, except those running it. Throughout the horrifying clips of war, we see Bush, who appears to be completely out of touch with how his war is affecting those who are fighting it for him. Bush's bumbling makes up the lighter moments in the film, but in retrospect, they are just as frightening as the War itself.

Moore's overall message was that hope exists, but without action on the part of the silent and downtrodden, that hope will vanish. This is a film designed to have people take action, whether it is in the form of taking to the streets in protest, or simply voting Bush out of office in November. It was a powerful message for a powerful film, and as many have said before me, it received standing ovation at the end. But it was that short moment of silence before the applause that really stays with me. That quiet collective gasp where people are trying to digest the weight of Moore's message.

Yes this movie is biased. It is the war and the world through Moore's eyes, but the message is not buried in the bias. I suppose I can sum it up best by saying this film was painfully human. It is human nature to question injustice and hypocrisy, and Moore is there to remind us of that.

---

166 out of 301 people found the following comment useful :-
Too Much Bias?, 12 July 2004
Author: micahconkling (micahconkling@adelphia.net) from Iceland

Let's admit it, it's nearly impossible to find someone or something today without a bias towards one thing or another. Fahrenheit 9/11 is clearly not an exception. I saw this film very recently and was stunned. Shocked. Michael Moore's work was thorough, concise, and extraordinary. I was truly impressed. However, there are things that the public needs to consider after seeing this movie. One- this is not the whole story.

Unfortunately, I don't know the whole story. Go figure. And two- in order to migrate further from possibly getting tunnel vision, we need to look at and seriously consider the other side. Don't get me wrong, I was enraged by the facts in Fahrenheit 9/11. If all of them are valid, I see no justification for the lies and corruption. But again, this perspective is not the only one and therefor other views should be considered and digested. Am I wrong?

---

18 out of 23 people found the following comment useful :-
"I'm a War President.", 19 June 2008

Author: princesss_buttercup3 from United States

To be fair, I should qualify this review by saying that I'm progressive, a political science professor, anti-war, and a Bush opponent. So I was hardly watching this film with an objective eye.

That being said (and if you can still trust my review), Michael Moore has done American voters a big service by making this film. It's not without it weaknesses, namely the voice-overs where Moore speculates on Bush's thoughts during those endless blank stares. But for once, Moore has made a film that is woven together with a chronological and thematic logic that ultimately asks one critical question: Is it that the Powers that Be don't understand, or that they simply don't believe in, true democratic principles? While George W. Bush is the primary subject of the film's critiques, the Democrats are not left unscathed. In fact, the first 10 minutes are devoted to a skewering of the Democratically-controlled Senate (including, ironically, former V.P., Senate President, and Presidential contender Al Gore.) Moore's commentary here, as with his past films, revolves around the relationship between money and power, and how that connection degrades democracy and in its most insidious form, leads to the loss of innocent lives. While he holds the Bush family and key administration officials most directly accountable, Moore does not let anyone off the hook. This includes not just the usual suspects (Saudi Arabia), but the Democratic leadership, the Supreme Court, the media, and finally, the American voters. Nothing here is new to anyone who has spent any time perusing the alternative or progressive media in the past four years, but the effect is substantial because Moore has finally shown himself to be a true documentarian, and has woven together a coherent picture of the connections between the players and the events from December 2000 to the present. Setting aside the few moments of Moore's own commentary and some silly interjections of old westerns, the message ultimately relies on the presentation of documents, images, and interviews. The facts are so tight that the worst anyone can say about the veracity of the film is that it is biased, a critique that will carry far less weight when compared to the snippets of Fox news propaganda spliced into the movie.

Moore will be called anti-American, unpatriotic, and probably a fascist. This, of course, is the last resort of a regime and its supporters who have no credible challenge to the facts of the film, only to its message. Ultimately, all audiences, regardless of their political proclivities, should be able to see that Moore is anything but anti-American or anti-democratic. The single biggest piece of the film is devoted to following around the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq. She is a patriot and a "true American", by any definition. Her son, and the thousands like him, are honored by Moore. They are portrayed as heroes, but also as victims. They are protectors of American security, but also pawns in a global struggle for power.

By finally asking the right questions (4 years too late??), Moore has shown himself to be not just a solid filmmaker, but a patriot and a defender of the most sacred American liberty- free expression.

---

118 out of 225 people found the following comment useful :-
Thank God for Michael Moore, 29 June 2004
Author: dr.gonzo-4 from The Projection Booth

Before I begin let me say that I am a big Michael Moore fan, ever since the days of The Awful Truth. But not in any nutso, radical activist kind of way. I love my country. I couldn't imagine living anywhere else. But I, like Michael and many others, can't just bow our heads and be good little robots of society. We seek change. Not in a bad, violent revolutionary way, but done democratically through the people. Through all the criticism and backlash this film has recieved, one simple idea was grossly overlooked. What Moore put in his film is exactly the kind of stuff we SHOULD HAVE SEEN on the evening news. All the haters out there are accusing his film of being overly one-sided, well guess what folks, in case you didn't notice those precious television news reports we sit through every night while we munch away at our dinners is INSANELY one-sided and biased in every way, shape and form.

With that said, FAHRENHEIT 9/11 is the most important film in the history of cinema. There has never been a film, documentary or not, that has directly attacked our active President. Michael Moore is not some cook radical spewing unsubstantiated accusations through a Hitler-esque propaganda film (as its been called). If Moore's agenda had simply been to "dethrone Bush at all costs", then he could have left out a good fifty percent of the film and focused primarily on the man everyone is convinced he loves to hate. He is very simply offering us a "second opinion" if you will, on all the news media that has bombarded us since September 11th. He is simply exercising his freedom of speech to the tenth degree and THAT is what I love about this country. If this film was made in any other country about their leader, they would be jailed, beaten, and maybe even killed.

And he has tapped into a very important thing about our society. That MOVIES have power. And guess what, lower and middle-class people go to the movies the most. People who don't normally vote go to the movies. People who have no idea who Michael Moore is will go see this movie. And the YOUTH will go see this movie, and they'll bring lots and lots of friends. You remember the youth of our country right? The apathetic, non-political group of 18 to 20 year-olds that were always ignored by politicians? Not that this film has turned them all into a bunch of Bush-haters, but it HAS gotten them involved. What no person or institution has been able to do for the longest time has been accomplished by one little documentary.

As I sat there in the movie theater, with the end credits coming on screen and the house lights shining brightly down. I saw something that I have never seen in my life. I looked around the packed theater (on a Monday night) and witnessed all different kinds of people, old and young, Black and White, applauding and cheering out of their seats. The hair stood up on the back of my head and a tear came to my eye. I was totally blown away by what I was seeing. As I made my way for the exit, I softly whispered to myself, "Now that is what I call CINEMA".

Please, you owe it to yourself to see this movie with an open-mind and a thirst for not the truth, but a "second opinion". It is guaranteed to make you laugh and cry, it will shock and anger you, and you will DEFINITELY never forget it.

Fahrenheit 451 was a book about a society that burned books in order to censor them from the people. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a film about a society that refuses to show certain newsworthy material in order to censor it from the people and instead substitutes its own, self-promoting news in order to manipulate the people. You be the judge.

---

19 out of 30 people found the following comment useful :-
Please Don't Call This a Documentary, 25 June 2004

Author: jsc173 from Cleveland

Saw the first showing at noon today (an extended lunch hour on a rainy day). Reality check -- this movie isn't a documentary. Even Moore himself has described Fahrenheit 9/11 as an "op/ed" piece -- it is not unbiased journalism. If you insist this a documentary, then I will agree with you provided you agree that Ron Popeil is the single greatest documentation in US history. Let's just call Fahrenheit 9/11 an infomercial for Moore's political viewpoints.

I had seen Roger and Me years ago, a clever "gotcha" piece. It was an expanded version of what 60 Minutes was in the early days, when Mike Wallace would show up after they got somebody to do or say something bad on hidden camera and then try to get that on-my-God-deer-in-headlights look that the bad guys always had when they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Clever, but also a bit dated these days as a tactic.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is more sophisticated, but at the same time pretty transparent in its overwhelming desire to make Bush look like a moron. There were no surprises, probably because a tremendous amount of what's in the movie has been "out there" on the Internet for months. If we didn't have Iraq and Afghanistan 24/7 on many cable channels for months and another couple of months of hype about this movie, maybe it would have had more impact on me, but I wound up being quite bored.

As for his editing style, I'd bet (as he was accused of doing in "Bowling for Columbine") Moore did a bit of rearranging of footage to make certain people look foolish -- some things seemed disconnected, though you were led to believe they were all part of one continuous flow. As one journalist said, the difference between a credible journalist and Michael Moore is Moore just rearranges things to suit his purposes -- a credible journalist will insert an ellipsis (. . .) between words to indicate they've edited for brevity, not content. With Moore, you don't get the ellipsis.

So, Moore gets two thumbs up for being clever, again. But just being clever isn't enough anymore. I suspect this movie will do well financially. It can't have cost much to make. Those who hate Bush will line up to pay their admission to see Bush look like a bumbling hick and they won't be disappointed. Those who subscribe to various and sundry right wing conspiracy theories will also be thorough entertained.

Here comes the tough critique:

Others have written books or produced news stories that have unseated politicians, even Presidents. Moore's use of his films hasn't caused a single change material in the World. I think it's because he's too hung up on making people look foolish and less interested in using his considerable skills to investigate and report on real stories. But that sort of work won't make you quite as wealthy as Moore has become. He's created his own genre and is becoming ever more wealthy with each project. In that regard, you have to admire him as a financial success. But if his true motive is to change the world he's an abject failure.

---

24 out of 40 people found the following comment useful :-
My brief review of the film, 4 January 2005
Author: sol- from Perth, Australia

Despite the mind-numbing subjectivity, the first half of this pseudo-documentary is interesting, and if Michael Moore had just stuck to his conspiracy theory with the September 11 terrorist attacks, he would have made reasonably good film. But the second part of the film, in which he attacks the war on Iraq, manages to present nothing that a well-versed viewer has not seen before. It is just the same old anti-war messages and sentiments. It shows the horror and suffering caused by war but hardly anything about the war on Iraq in particular. Films such as 'All Quiet on the Western Front' were made over 70 years ago with same anti-war messages. In many ways, Moore's pseudo documentary is best compared to the propaganda used in the Russian and the German autocracies of the 1930s. It tries to engage the viewer, it tries to make its subject matter interesting, but all that it is, is totally manipulative. In any war life will be lost, people will be unhappy and many will protest, so how then does any of this differ from what a C-grade history student at school already knows? A lot of what Moore says is not credible anyway, and since the release of the film over 50 deceptions have been pointed out, where Moore has doctored footage and used his information out of context. For the first half of its duration, the film is amusing and interesting, even if not credible, but the second half of the film is a routine bore – and that is certainly not what a viewer wants to be left remembering at the end of a film. Moore has admitted himself that the purpose of the film was to stop George W. Bush being re-elected, but it will fail to provoke such a view in a person who is not ignorant and who is not moved by age-old sentiments. As amusing as the film may well be at times, it is an overall failure – an utter failure.

---

14 out of 21 people found the following comment useful :-
Heavy-handed piece of political propaganda, 29 May 2006

Author: blaircam from Perth, Australia

This film has clearly provoked strong reactions and that is a very positive thing. It has also helped break down some of the political apathy that plagues the West. Another positive thing. However, as a documentary it resorts to bludgeoning its viewers with its ideology rather than advocating for it and that I found hard to swallow. I have enjoyed Moore's efforts being a fan of the Awful Truth and even finding Bowling for Columbine thought-provoking but there were too many strained conclusions in this movie for me to not rebel. There were probably three key points that nauseated me: 1) It assumed its audience would be basically ignorant of most of its key premises (or possible alternative facts and hence conclusions), 2) It drew the worse possible conclusions from the facts available or the conclusion most suggestive of Bush family incompetence or conspiracy, and 3) It was definitely not above using its subjects in the worse possible way either to be held up to ridicule or manipulated for its own purposes. One key example - the Bushes are responsible for special treatment of Saudi Arabia... The US and the Saudis have had a close relationship for decades and Saudi Arabia has long been seen as one of the few Allies the US has in the Middle East. This is a relationship which has been extremely valuable to the US and will continue to be, regardless of the President of the moment. The Wahabist involvement in terrorism is well-known as is the funding coming out of Saudi however, that doesn't change the fundamental state relationships. That it got a rousing ovation at Cannes is certainly no surprise - it played right up to the prejudices of the Europeans and Hollywood's liberal luminaries. Some interesting and important points could have been made in this film - it is just a shame they weren't. As propaganda this film was highly successful, as a piece of advocacy it was sadly lacking.

---

14 out of 21 people found the following comment useful :-
Check the Facts, 10 October 2004

Author: slave2beauty from Bentonville, AR

A number of my friends had told me to see F911 for months. One said it was incredible, and he had a totally different picture of the man he voted for. He went on to say the movie completely changed his opinion, and now he was voting for the other guy this Nov.

After a sobering conversation with another friend in particular, who happened to hold a masters' degree in business, I finally saw the movie.

My opinion: Well said, 007-what a crock.

One thing I find funny is the hard-line opinion of right-wingers, who say it's crap without having seen the film. But what absolutely disgusts me is the stupidity of this new band of Michael Moore-followers that have seen the movie and have completely swallowed it without having checked a single fact for themselves.

'But what about Rush Limbaugh, etc?' The right may have Rush Limbaugh, but neither Limbaugh, Hannity, nor O'Reilly ever made a mass-consumable movie about pres. Clinton, re: White Water, China, or Lewinski. If this movie holds a single shred of truth, where is the cry for impeachment? Not even Michael Moore has been able to get a petition for impeachment to be taken seriously.

I never saw Bowling for Columbine, but now Moore's credibility is absolutely ruined with me. This 'facts' of this 'documentary' are so over-the-top they would almost read like a comedy, if it weren't for the shock scenes and crying mothers, I'd almost think the Spinal Tap guys were behind it. I am absolutely disgusted with this obvious distortion of facts, and I will never watch another Moore movie. Hollywood has absolutely disappointed me by continuing to distribute this film. Just avoid it and do yourself a favor. I feel dumber for having ever watched it, myself.

---

---

Page 1 of 143:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
Newsgroup reviews	External reviews	Parents Guide
Official site	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history