SillyDog701

[Ron Williams]

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a movie due for release on June 25, 2004 in the U.S. regarding September 11, 2004, the war in Iraq, The U.S. patriot act, The response and staments of presidents and the elite government exposeing them. The U.S. republican party did not want this released but it is anyway.

It is an interesting movie I believe from viewing the trailer and the media coverage it is receiving. I would like to know your opinion of the movie if released internationally if not at least view the trailer. Here are two I found for it.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gat ... nheit_911/
http://www.fahrenheit911.com/trailer/

I do not suggest you to use The windows Media Player because it did not work on my XP

The movie The Day After Tommorow is a Movie about how weather conditions becoming so bad that the world is wiped out. Origionally the U.S. Government did not want the movie released but when Nasa told the directors of the movie that the are signifficant disturbances in the weather patterns and the weather is becoming more irratic they decided to make the movie. I highly suggest this movie seeing it myself it is amazing and scarry at the same time.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/dayaftertomorrow/
and international language
http://www.thedayaftertomorrow.com/

I am a U.S. citizen and honestly I think our culture is wasteful and spoiled. A few years ago they wanted to pass a law over the U.S. emmisions laws and we did not agree saying that it would deplete our economy but i think living is more important than economy. Scientist say that in ten years the hole in the ozone layer will be so large that it will be irreversible. This movie opens eyes to a possible future.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206 Firefox/0.8

[profman]

All movies released in commercial theaters in the US are essentially works of fiction even if they pretend otherwise. The well-informed citizen will not get his facts from such movies, only his entertainment.

I probably will not view either movie since I gather my information in different ways. I suspect that both movies were made by people with agendas to promote, although this does not mean that they necessarily bad or inaccurate films.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113

[Ron Williams]

Profman Said:

All movies released in commercial theaters in the US are essentially works of fiction even if they pretend otherwise. The well-informed citizen will not get his facts from such movies, only his entertainment.

Although you may not have meant it in any way I think my commercially released movies in all countries are in some way inaccurate.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206 Firefox/0.8

[Shark Daddy]

911 is going to be awesome, as was the case with Bowling for Columbine, a documentary that combined good journalism, bad journalism, and lots of entertainment. As a non-American, I've found that ony certain Americans have been able to paint an enlightening picture of the current US administration, and Moore is one of them.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206 Firefox/0.8

[Ron Williams]

Although everything is bias now I do think that the dirrector (forgot his name) tries in the movies he has done to show all sides of the story

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206 Firefox/0.8

[Antony]

From some news report on this movie here in Australia, I would say... if the government believe it should be banned, then ban the movie.

There are many reasons that certain movie, artwork, publications, information should be banned for some reasons. And in many situations, it is better not to discuss the reasons.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.8

[Shark Daddy]

From some news report on this movie here in Australia, I would say... if the government believe it should be banned, then ban the movie.

There are many reasons that certain movie, artwork, publications, information should be banned for some reasons. And in many situations, it is better not to discuss the reasons.

I'm pretty sure that's illegal in Australia...

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206 Firefox/0.8

[Antony]

From some news report on this movie here in Australia, I would say... if the government believe it should be banned, then ban the movie.

There are many reasons that certain movie, artwork, publications, information should be banned for some reasons. And in many situations, it is better not to discuss the reasons.

I'm pretty sure that's illegal in Australia...

What is illegal?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.8

[Shark Daddy]

Banning a movie from theatres. I know that in some places a review board can ban television ads for example (Ontario, Canada is an example of this barbaric practice), but I highly doubt a government can get away with banning a movie in a self-respecting democracy.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206 Firefox/0.8

[Antony]

Banning a movie from theatres. I know that in some places a review board can ban television ads for example (Ontario, Canada is an example of this barbaric practice), but I highly doubt a government can get away with banning a movie in a self-respecting democracy.

Government has the right to ban any media being broadcast in any form if the content is not suitable for any reason.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/125.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.8

[Shark Daddy]

"Not suitable?" I can't believe that... no one would try that in North America. Nobody complains about this in Australia? Is there a written constitution?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206 Firefox/0.8

[Antony]

[...] no one would try that in North America.

No one?
A very bad example of "not suitable" is the video clip (and/or the audio) OR even the afterwards image of the "executing" of Mr Nick Berg. (No offence intended)

I do believe the US Government (or local government) has the right to ban such video/audio/images.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/125.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.8

[Ron Williams]

in order for a movie to be banned in the U.S. it can be banned for 3 months then it must go before congress and then if either side does not like the answer they get they are can appeal to the supreme court.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206 Firefox/0.8

[Shark Daddy]

in order for a movie to be banned in the U.S. it can be banned for 3 months then it must go before congress and then if either side does not like the answer they get they are can appeal to the supreme court.

That is terrible. Who gets to ban it?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206 Firefox/0.8

[Shark Daddy]

I was replying to someone on another message board and thought you might find this interesting

Saw it a few hours ago; I can honestly say it wasn't saying anything new. That is, same content as what we've been fed, but interesting form (by the way, the rating is justified). This documentary/movie consists of mostly information we knew already (or are in denial of in some cases), supported by fact that we never cared to go into, all in an interesting format. It is inferior to Bowling for Columbine, but retains a lot (but not all) of the interesting style senn there. It should be noted that Moore resorts to distasteful badgering in this movie too, but of course it's very entertaining, so he gets chuckles and claps from the audience. The way he antagonizes the senior Bush Administration officials at the start is wickedly clever, and you can only truly appreciate it in a movie theatre.

In fact, as many of the Republican loyalists here will be quick to point out, it is simply a lot of anti-Bush rhetoric, much of which is founded but has no relation to the original thesis, which basically deals with the sinister and real connection between the United States' elite, economy, the Bush Family, the bin Laden family, and Saudi interests. There are a lot of specific facts that support things we already knew that go against the Bush Administration and Bush himself, but this connection should have been explored more. By the end of the movie, we are left thinking not of 9/11, but of the folly of the government. The thesis by then has abstracted to basically, "Bush sucks, here's why." Compelling, yes, but it's not a very credible documentary for that reason. It also uses a lot of images we really didn't need to see to understand a given situation, but that also goes into the entertainment/random info factor.

As is always the case with this kind of material, moviegoers at Kennedy Commons AMC Theatre 9 all witnessed someone who didn't have the personal fortitude to sit through something he didn't agree with, that was raising point after point against. If you go to see this movie, expect nothing more that people who can't take bias. Now about bias, my lesson is just chill. Of course it's this movie is biased! It's a thesis, with rationally developed arguments (weak though they are in some cases). But if you still put objectivity on a pedestal, you have much to learn about learning.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206 Firefox/0.8