Home | Reviews | Exclusive Writings | Great Links | Miscellaneous | FAQ | Contact Us

Fahrenheit 9/11 /

Rated: R

Starring: Michael Moore

Directed by: Michael Moore

Produced by: Michael Moore, Kathleen Glynn, Jim Czarnecki
Written by:
Michael Moore
Distributor: Lions Gate Films


Michael Moore talking with Congressman John Tanner (D-TN) on Capitol Hill in Lions Gate Films' Fahrenheit 9/11

President George W. Bush issues a warning to terrorists, then adds, ďNow watch this drive,
Michael Moore talks with fellow Flint, MI native Lila Lipscomb, mother of a serviceman stationed in Iraq, in Lions Gate Films' Fahrenheit 9/11

     Before watching Fahrenheit 9/11, I actually had some sort of admiration for Michael Moore. In his previous, most popular, two movies, Bowling for Columbine and Roger and Me, he was able to hide the fact that heís truly a sleaze-ball. Moore could, somehow, convince you that he was right, even if you didnít agree with him, and never intended on doing so. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a different experience than his past two outings, though. In it, he lets the filth fly, exposing his entirely evil heart, which is offensive and vile through and through. No matter how many quick cuts and slick moves he can make behind and in front of the camera, thereís no disguising his despicableness here. Fahrenheit 9/11 is comprised of one percent truth, thirty-three percent staging, sixteen percent bents of reality, and fifty percent downright, inexcusable, lies. If I was a Democrat, Iíd be ashamed that such an obnoxious scum was representing my political party, in film. If I was on the fence, voting, I would steer towards George W. Bushís side because of the atrociousness Moore utilizes in this film.

     The so-called documentary, which would be more appropriately called a shitty piece of propaganda, is a downright attack on President Bush. According to Michael Moore, Bush is an incapable man, who snoozed during his first few months of presidency, and lost in those that he has been active in. Even though I donít agree with any aspect of this argument, I donít really care that the filmmaker has made a picture pertaining to current events, democratically. I do expect it to be intelligent, however. What Moore does is assemble multiple shots of our current president and his cabinet posing like jackasses (most of which are freeze-frames of exaggerated expressions) and, with them, comes to one illogical conclusion after the next. Most of these regard our current situation in Iraq.

     The entire chain that Moore leads is absolutely preposterous; it works just about as well for the movie as a piece of dental floss would for someone trying to descend to the ground, from the window of a two-story building. Letís just say he is all-knowing, and every element of ignorance featured in Fahrenheit 9/11 is somehow true. Even then, the conclusions he ties would all still be pure coincidences. But, what most of his liberal supporters are not willing to acknowledge is that half of what he says is entirely made up. Itís actually kind of ironic that Michael Moore is blaming Bush of going to war on false pretenses, when his entire theory behind their validity represents an entire scandal, in and of itself.

     Moore, like so many of his conglomerates, has to open the film, reaching back nearly four years ago, in time. And, once again, we are conventionally bombarded by the Democratsí viewpoint that Bush didnít actually win room and board in the White House for four years. If you want to discuss current times, politically, does this have any resonance, whatsoever? Gore isnít the president right now, and this isnít just going to change magically, all of a sudden. Why reflect on something thatís already been decided? All it does is, essentially, make Moore look like his only reason for making Fahrenheit 9/11 was to vent about his malice. Oh, wait, Iíve been mistaken. It was.

     Afterwards, of course, heís got to insignificantly explain the U.S.ís economic situation with Saudi Arabia, making it sound like the only reason for Bushís prolonged actions on 9/11 was his own greed. Is it just me, or hasnít this been the exact opposite of what this term, for him, has been centered on? Hasnít he taken great risks for this country, as any righteous president should? Yes, and yet Moore pretends the whole situation to be centered on profitability. He pretends that all conservatives want is to stem every ďevilĒ corporation possible. Yet, the economy still remains desperate, at the moment; only the few businesses he talks about are actually making any money. Why them? Because of the very type of business that they are; the war is acting as a mere bump in the road in their prolific conduction. But to say Bush ignored 9/11 because of his own business affiliations is simply ludicrous. I think Moore knows this, and such is the only logical explanation as to why, exactly, he allows all of his conclusions regarding to the Saudis to rely on a crossed-out name on a statement regarding Bushís militia records.

     Maybe Iím even giving him too much credit, still. Actually, I know so. In some thoroughly offensive clips, Moore proves that heís an absolute dork. Who thought that Iraq was a happy, fun-filled place before we invaded? Apparently he did, and heís got the footage to prove it! I was sickened as he showed clips of children playing in the parks of Baghdad to cheerful music, which supposedly was an everyday occurrence before we came in. Only someone brainwashed or mentally retarded could actually believe Moore on this. I felt violated that heíd actually have the nerve to make the government under Sadaam Hussein seem peaceful. And, then, not to mention, refer to our current one, as if it is a lesser to what Sadaamís was. He also betrays our soldiers, in a sketch that follows this one, depicting them as violence-obsessed imbeciles. He focuses on two who supposedly listen to profane music as they drive tanks and shoot at people in combat. We know what Moore would like us to think during this scene: that Bush dements them to be this way. It would take someone in serious denial to actually believe him on this.

     The negatively fueled writer/director also asks congressmen to sign their kids up for the war, after seeing that only one has offspring in service. What he doesnít tell you, though, is that only a handful of them actually have kids that fit the age billing to enter the Army, Navy, Marines, or Air Force. Notice that he knows the names of the three congressmen he confronts, during this exercise. Itís obvious that he researched which ones he could target, because of their kidsí ability to enter. He makes sure to tell us that there are 565 people in congress, but suspiciously ignores releasing the number of those who have sons and daughters between the ages of eighteen and thirty. Itís genuine Moore propaganda, which only exists because society foolishly allows it to.

     The most loathsome sequence, however, does not come until near Fahrenheit 9/11ís end. In it, Moore talks to Lila Lipscomb, a woman whose son died in Iraq, when fighting. The segment sounds suspiciously forced, as if it were partially acted. Lila makes sure to indicate that, although sheís a Democrat, before Bush, she used to be conservative. Could it be more scripted? Not to mention, thereís crying at exactly the right times, and a controllable force in her voice, which makes it seem like sheís usually putting us on. In the filmís finale of sorts, she travels to Washington for work, and when on a break, looks at the White House. As Moore films her, a woman warns her, on the street, that he may be setting her up for something, which could humiliate her. Lila then turns, looks her in the eye, and shouts the date of her sonís death repeatedly, and saying ďThatís not staged,Ē several times. Call me insensitive, but I think it was.

     During Fahrenheit 9/11, people in the audience gasped, and when it was over, they applauded. I havenít the faintest clue why, though. The information Moore presents isnít anything new, and its presentation isnít particularly shocking. Even if I agreed with him, I probably wouldíve been bored out of my mind watching the movie, and called it a redundant, preachy, and egotistical load of crap. The thing Moore fails to do here, which would be worth everyoneís time, is speak out about the planned solution to fix Bushís ďtrain-wreckĒ he has. Because, frankly, I do not know anything about it, and neither do his blatant supporters. Does he even know what to do, himself?

     As it stands, all Fahrenheit 9/11 is, is a blunt, overbearing, and nonsensical personal attack on our commander-in-chief. The only reason I considered clapping as the credits rolled, along with the liberals in attendance, is because the wrath of terror the film put upon me had finally been terminated. The single redeeming feature it has to offer (other than the humiliation Moore will have to endure from conservatives, after they watch it) is the brisk, beautiful score by Jeff Gibbs. Right now, though, all I can do is be thankful that Iíll never, ever have to witness this awful creation again.

-Danny, Bucket Reviews (6.26.2004)

Back to Home
The Bucket Review's Rating Scale