Well, I think this guy needs to be discussed. I've got bowling for columbine on DVD, and to be honest, it is a biased film. It's got its funny bits in it, but I couldn't watch it a second time. Anyway, michael moore has anew film, and i'm interested in seeing what this one is like.
Of course Michael Moore's biased. In my case I share his bias so I like his films. The new film is supposed to be one big condemnation of the Iraq war and the war on terrorism, with clips from the scene in Iraq I believe. Rock on, Moore.
I think a lot of things that are suppose to be neutral are biased at least a little bit. The thing with Moore is, that he knows how the get peoples spirit on his side, by making them laugh about the funny way he writes or presents the info in the movie, but at the same time cry about the facts that are -in a way- true. So actually he's no different from the things that are going on in politics right now, except that he's telling you what's wrong there and he's trying to shake and wake the system. I like the way he does stuff. And even though I know that some of the things are not 100% right he sais, most of them are. I am really looking forward to Fahrenheit 9/11!
Michael Moore - I've never read any of his books or watched any of his films, but I agree with his views on a lot of topics. But there are times when I don't know I can take him seriously. It's no secret that Michael Moore is very biased, and that's why people have extreme opinions about him.
I don't think they're bad biases (actually, I agree with his biases), but he's obviously anti-war and anti-Bush.
I don't care for Michael Moore, and I have stated my reasons on this site in the past which resulted in me being called a "sheep" and a "typical, couch potato American." And this is simply because I don't like Moore and his blatant propaganda, sensationalism and arrogance. I guess it shows how much more tolerant extremist lefties are from righties (supposedly). It is scary to know that there are some people who think that if it comes from the left, it shouldn't be questioned, it should automatically be assumed factual. Meanwhile, Bowling for Columbine was created largely around lies and distorted facts. But I have also admitted to being bored over issues of gun control, so I could be biased. I don't buy into the "fear" aspect of the documentary, however, because if that was the case Moore would have focused less on guns and more on the media. If ANYTHING instills fear in people it's the media. Plus, Moore is an egomaniac. He is a very arrogant person, and the way he treated Charlton Heston in BFC only proves what an arrogant, egomaniacal person he is. You don't open people's eyes by treating other people like idiots for not agreeing with you. It only proves what an intolerant nazi you are. To me, Moore is the same as Rush Limbaugh, except he falls at the opposite end of the spectrum. If you really want to become informed, don't pay attention to Moore's sensationalism, pick up a Noam Chomsky book and enlighten yourselves. Moore's books and movies are like the fast-food of left-wing politics. Nevertheless, I still plan on seeing Fahrenheit 9-11 when it comes out.
First off, I'd like to agree with the point that its scary how some people assume information to be factual if it appears to come from a certain side. You don't know exactly where any information is coming from. We do not want to be misled, and for this reason, everything must be questioned. I might be wrong here, but I believe the media was one of Moore's biggest explanations for the "fear". I only saw the movie twice, so you can't quote me on this, but he said in one instance of the crime-rate dropping something like 20%, media coverage of crime actually increased about 600%. While I agree that Moore's approach to Heston was a bit wrong, I found it amusing how hard of a time Heston had defending his views. Perhaps if Moore hadn't been so much on the offensive, Heston couldn't have walked away without looking completely ridiculous.
I agree that he handled Charlton Heston wrong, but only because he minced words and didn't cut straight to the point. However, it was very telling that Heston answered that he kept a gun "because the 2nd amendment says I can" instead of actually saying why he needed it, and that he just walked away when asked why he had pro-gun rallies in the towns immediately after kids had killed other kids. I mean, I think that's wrong and he just couldn't justify it. I liked the movie for the interviews with Matt Stone and Marilyn Manson, but he probably had them in it just so that people would think he was cool by association. LOL!
I can actually agree with you on this one, although Moore definitely has more redeeming features than Limbaugh.
I hate Michael Moore. He is very biased, and anyone who acts the way he did at the oscars that one year should be shot!!
He interviewed them because they were the ones taking a lot of blame for Columbine because of their influence on young people. Manson because of his music and Stone because of South Park. I like Moore and his films.
Michael Moore is entitled to his own opinion, but that doesnt mean he needs to persuade others into doing or believing in what he thinks is right. There are two things that can never be reconciled and thats religion and politics. You can argue all you want but in the end people are going to believe in whatever they want.
Michael Moore in my opinion has very cut and dry thoughts about what it is and how it should be. If it's not one way then its the other. However, he tends to leave out a lot of vital information that could be persuasive against his argument.
I really liked BfC but 9/11 was a disappointment. Less original thought, more malipulative and distorted, and less entertaining. I read Dude WMC? too and that really seemed slapped together. So it seems like he is churning out the product and the quality is slipping. I'd call him better than Limbaugh/Coulter/Hannity. And Chomsky too. Chomsky is more dishonest but in a slicker package. One thing that's really too bad is his website used to have a forum which was one of the best on the net (second to this one of course ) but he took it down last year.
yeah alot of his stuff is complete bullshit, and he persuades alot of ignorant people to believe what he is saying. There is a site that explains all the shit he put together for bowling for columbine, but I forgot what it is. I think alot of people support him, because he is anti-bush.
Eh, I am against gun control so BFC wasn't really for me. Now he has succumb to sensationlism so i can't really watch his movies without thinking baout that. What really ticked me off was how he said at cannes that he apologized on behalf of the American people.
