User reviews

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.

I admire good film-making, and this movie is definitely well crafted. Unfortunately, it is so full of preposterous half-truths that no amount of artistry can cover the sheer silliness of the film's premise. An interesting study in effective propaganda -- and that's about it.

If you hate George Bush, you'll love the Bush-hating. If you like Bush, you'll just be amazed that anyone can take this film seriously.

In that regard, this film is similar to another recent controversial film, Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ", in that people take away from the film exactly what they take into it. Both are well-made movies in their respective rights, but both represent the sole view of the filmmaker. In both cases, these films do not tell the whole truth.

I'll start of by stating that I am quite liberal. I am only stating this because people are going to attack my statements by just claiming that I am a conservative idiot. I know there are some good issues raised in this film, but it is serious a very poorly put together film. Michael Moore doesn't ever put out a thesis at the beginning of the documentary by which to follow, and this is the film's downfall. It skips around from point to point, but rarely if ever are the points he raises in the film ever resolved. As a prime example of Moore bringing to light another tangent that has no relevance whatsoever to terrorism, Moore proceeds to show more damn footage about Flint Michigan. I'm sorry but WTF, not everything has to do with Flint and how poor the people are. I'm pretty sure Michael Moore is from Flint Michigan, and I'm also pretty sure that Michael Moore is a fine example of how someone from Flint Michigan can make a large amount of money.

At one point Michael makes fun of American soldiers by showing them as bloodthirsty fools, and then he tries to make you feel bad that they are dieing. I suppose all of the Bush footage is humorous, but I've watched the Daily Show before, and thus little of it is actually new. Also, I know Bush is an fool, but with enough editing and being around cameras, almost anyone is going to make themselves look incompetent. I really do question if this film has any lasting relevance. The hardcore liberals, who are going to the movie just because it's liberal, aren't really going to learn anything they don't already know. The hardcore conservatives are going to go to the movie just so they can condemn it. The rest of the middle are either going to dislike it because they hate Michael Moore, or not have their opinion changed because it so extremely to the left. I don't really think that Bowling For Columbine was that good of a movie, but it was definitely better than Fahrenheit 911. At least it stays on track most of the time, and seems to have a conclusion (as shitty as of a conclusion as it may be). If you want to see a good Michael Moore documentary, watch Roger & Me, otherwise you are just wasting your money to say that you more liberal than your friends.

Hi guys. I'm a fan of Michael Moore's work. I enjoyed Roger & Me and Bowling for Columbine, but did have to admit even in those films that some of his points were a bit unbalanced. I just saw Fahrenheit 9/11 for the first time last night. I do have to admit some bias, as I am a supporter of the president. Apart from lacking some of the zing and excitement of his past films, this film was, by far, the most one sided film of his that I have seen. Seriously! There are equally effective arguments to many of the points he brought up. Some of his claims were so absurd and lacking in logic. I appreciate his perspective, and am glad he made the film - he is free to present his opinions, and does it effectively. I just can't believe that people blindly agree with all of his points and use them as arguments against the re-election of George Bush.

I wouldn't expect any congressmen or women to enlist their children in the the armed forces when prompted by Michael Moore. That is the individual's decision - not their parents!

So what if the Bushes invest in a company that Saudis also invest in. I don't get the big deal. So what if the Saudi ambassador had dinner with George Bush days after 9/11. Wouldn't you expect them to meet to discuss what had just happen?

Do you know how many warnings of terrorism this administration and the Clinton administration get/got on a daily basis? There is no way you can convince me that Sept. 11 was preventable. Who in this country understood that those terrorists were so willing to sacrifice themselves and pull off such a drastic attack?

It is outrageous to suggest that George Bush was "in on" 9/11.

What is Michael Moore's suggestion for Iraq? Just pull out all forces immediately?

Sorry to all you Michael Moore fans, among whom I once used to find myself too. But I have to give up this time: this movie is NOT a masterpiece, and unlike some of Moores previous films, this one in particular becomes an embarrassing victim of its own arguments. It presents a lot of peculiar facts. Of course all those small pieces of reality should make one wonder what kind of guy the US president actually is. But instead of just showing the facts, Moore cannot refrain from jumping to conclusions - moreover, he becomes a simple manipulator just as the man he's chasing. Moore is not a bad film maker, not at all, this piece is technically candidating for an A+. But to let the very plot make an over-stating fool of itself, which ALMOST happens towards the ending of Bowling for Colombine, is a mistake, which Morre this time he carries out to the bitter end. What a shame.

This movie may be entertaining, but a documentary should be factual first and entertaining second. In resorting to a fast and loose approach for the purpose of furthering his own agenda, Michael Moore has become what he mocks.

In addition, I read from an interview with Ray Bradbury that he was not contacted regarding the unauthorized parody of his title Fahrenheit 451, and is so upset he is planning legal action. I disagree with creative theft in any movie.

P.S. Michael Moore can always respond to these issues on his web sight using his own underpaid foreign workers.

I was very disappointed in F9/11, it was of little interest to anyone other than Americans, it suffered from too few appearances from Mr Moore, his personal screen presence lifted the movie each time he took an active part. Also it seemed full of cheap shots at George Bush using editing, using this method anyone can be made to look stupid. I was hoping for a balanced viewpoint, it was far too one sided. I must agree with other posters that the anguish of the bereaved mother was overplayed. I very much enjoyed Bowling for Columbine, it seemed to have a definite point unlike this movie, the only purpose of which seems to be to get Kerry into the White House.

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.

I was excited to see this movie and was curious exactly what all the hub-bub was about. But it was very boring. I actually got up and left the couch a number of times while watching it because there is not much to keep you riveted unless you are filled with hate and anger. I now realize that anything that portrays Bush in a bad light is going to get lots of hub-bub for just that and that only. There is nothing in this movie that makes me believe that Bush is a bad person despite the desperate ploys of goofy Moore. If you hate Bush then this will reinforce your feelings of hatred, but if you are indifferent to Bush you will probably find this movie extremely boring. Bowling for Columbine was more compelling and interesting than this cut and paste movie that is filled with a desperate need for hatred by the have-nots.

I have no problem with documentaries being biased. I think it's inevitable that any presentation of material will always favor certain conclusions. This movie, however, far from being a well-researched, thought-provoking piece, is inane and insulting. Here are three simple examples:

1) After a Senator refuses to "enlist" his son in the Armed Forces, Michael Moore essentially makes the "see-I-told-you-so" argument that the Senators will recruit people relentlessly from Flint, Michigan, but won't sign their own sons and daughters up. This makes no sense for several reasons. First, why would you ever be allowed to sign someone else up for the armed forces? Secondly, the Senator in question SERVED IN THE NAVY. He SIGNED HIMSELF UP.

And he talks about it with Michael Moore and the Marine Corporal accompanying him. So Michael Moore's point is completely lost in that episode.

2) One of the major themes of the movie is that the White House (and especially President Bush) is in bed with the Saudi royal family. He uses this hypothesis to circumstantially explain all kinds of things, without any support for his claim that resembles "evidence". If the Saudi royal family exerts so much influence over US policy, why did it allow the United States to open up its largest potential oil-producing competitor (Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world)? This doesn't make sense. A movie that brings up issues like this without touching even such cursory and obvious points of contention is simplistic and insulting to its viewer. It assumes its viewer knows nothing about the world and will accept whatever speculation the movie offers as truth.

3) The opening of the movie claims that all the major analyses of the Florida election results show Al Gore would have won. This just plain isn't true. There were three major studies done on this issue. One concluded that has the votes been counted accurately (as in a hand-recount), Al Gore would have won. The other two studies concluded that Bush WOULD HAVE WON BY MORE.

Michael Moore taunts his viewers and mocks them. Either because of his own ignorance or his desire to manipulate, he created a movie which manipulates, obscures, and misleads. This is precisely what he accuses the Bush administration of doing. Because I remember history, read the papers, and study these issues, it is blindingly obvious to me how deceptive the movie is and how much it both preys upon people who don't have time to do the research themselves and insults those who do.

I am all about freedom of speech and their god given rights accorded to the U.S. citizens from the Constitution. This movie will either make you hate President Bush for Michael Moore's adaptation of what he considers the truth. He fails, however, to mention that the events Sept 11, 2001 could possibly have been prevented if the previous President, as proved by the 9-11 Commission Report. There were many failures that led to the events; however, to blame one President (Republican) for all actions, is being a poor sport. As a person who supports left wing issues you can only expect it. The movie was a wonderful example of how America is so great. Had this movie come out in the former Soviet Union, Mr. Moore would have been dealt with quickly. For that reason only I gave it a "3". I would have given it a higher rating "7-8" if he would have shown more than a one-sided opinion. God Bless America!

Watch and make your own determination.

Ya know, Mike Moore was a great documentary filmmaker. Roger & Me and Bowling for Columbine were personal favorites of mine, and I liked his TV shows too. So this movie was a really tremendous disappointment. I went in expecting another great documentary - I thought that the controversy simply came from the issues themselves, not from the way the movie was made. I was wrong. Moore makes it pretty clear from the beginning that the purpose of the movie is not to explore the dangerous implications of the patriot act, or to investigate the circumstances and causes of 9/11, but rather to insult George W. Bush. Those other issues are just to back up this main point - "Bush sucks". The shot of Moore's first encounter with Bush, where Bush dropped a casual insult "you ought to get a real job", is the giveaway. This is his answer to that insult, that's all. We expected more, Mike.

I am giving this film a three because it has some credits when it comes to the techniques used and the introduction of some "humouristic" sequences... but when it comes to the real content, I believe they have twisted the reality so much that made the argument absurd. Had it been neutral and objective, perhaps I could have really enjoyed it. For example, I think it is offensive to the locals the way they paint pre war Iraq, as if it had been a paradise of harmony and peace. Actually this film has nothing to do with reality... Another tasteless segment deals with this very patriotic American mother who lost her son in Iraq and out of grief starts to hate the president and to condemn the US action. Please... nobody likes wars, but defense is something different.

Michael Moore is a self-admitted propagandist. He's the Leni Riefenstal of the smug liberals. He's got something to say and the vehicle with which to say it. I'm not questioning his right to a political opinion, I'm not doubting his sincerity in getting his message heard. My beef is with Michael Moore the filmmaker, Michael Moore the documentarian. This film (as a film not a political statement or message) is a terrible film. It's a good half hour too long. It's use of funny little nods to the TV generations savvy (Bonanza) is insulting not only to the people who are profiled in the film but also to those watching it. But you know something? I could get over all that if he didn't consistently take the low road and mock the very people he's profiling. (I'm not talking about the Bush administration here--I'm talking about the ordinary people like Lila Lipscomb and the soldiers he interviews). He did it in Roger and Me, I'm sure he did it in Bowling for Columbine (I couldn't bear to watch that one), and he does it again here. He acts like he is much smarter, cooler and "in the know" than the people he's speaking to and he edits the living daylights out of his footage to make them all look like idiots. If he is trying to make the point that the poor, disenfranchised youth of America are fighting the war for the big, bad politicians (and believe you me, that is one of his points), then he would be much better served if he didn't make fun of them by editing their words thematically. Let me explain. He thinks it's amusing to interview soliders and ask them what music they listen to when they're "working". He then uses these clips strung together to paint a very unflattering picture of the very soldiers he asks you to feel sorry for a half an hour later in the film. The soldiers may very well be pawns in the industrial military complex. Does that mean they have to be pawns in a Michael Moore film, too?

It is very unfortunate that this film will line the pockets of Michael Moore and even more unfortunate that people will be swayed by its themes into thinking it's a good film. Come awards season, we'll no doubt have to see Mr. Moore's large, disheveled self pontificating from on high. I'm thinking of taking a trip to Saudi Arabia around the end of February just so I don't have to watch.

In my opinion the movie is not a very good piece of work. It lacks a lot of objectivity which pretty much just makes it stand out as a propaganda movie. All I saw in the movie was a loud cry to the US saying "Do NOT reelect the warmaniac bush, he'll kill all your children". I do not see myself as a pro-war person, maybe not even pro-bush, but this is what the movie looked like to me. In my opinion the movie was created to mess with peoples minds and reminded me a lot of Soviet propaganda. If you have not yet seen the movie I cannot advise you to, but still, if you choose to anyway all I can say is: Make sure you know where to vote before you watch it, and guard yourself from what you see. Yeay God and bless ya all.

I loved Bowling for Columbine. It was fascinating, entertaining, funny, and intelligent. This is none of those, and really not even a good film. First of all, where is Michael Moore going with this? Most documentaries of this nature will propose a question and set out to determine answers, that being the filmmakers' purpose. I can't tell what direction Moore is trying to go with this, or what ground he is trying to break. It's like, yeah Bush isn't going to go down in history as the greatest president, everyone know's that. But here, Moore practically begs you to hate Bush. It is such obvious propaganda. And Moore's followers are blind to anything other than what he says. It's like he's some God that taught them how to think or something. This film made me lose respect for him. Like I said, I loved Bowling for Columbine. This on the other hand was sad, bland, and surprisingly boring. I honestly checked my watch like four times.

I have seen "Bowling for Columbine" and found it to be interesting and perhaps even entertaining, but its owner is one of the most repulsive figures in the business. That's the feeling I took into watching Fahrenheit 9/11. That this film earned a "Palm d'Or" at Cannes tells me that the Golden Palm is no longer a guide to great film making, but a political vote cast by a liberal camp. Michal Moore conducts interviews with bait & switch questions, conclusion drawn from totally irrelevant statements and journalism without context. While this film did give me cause think about the Iraq war and terrorism in general, it left me feeling that I was watching a video of some internet conspiracy theory that had gone on too long. As he did in Columbine, he duped people into looking foolish, paraded grief as some special insight and conducted a strident, personal vendetta directed toward GWB. Though I don't agree with all of the administrations decisions and policies conducted in the Middle East or even many of the "Homeland Security" vs. freedom implications, I could not give any credence to this biased, poorly assembled, piece of propaganda. Perhaps propaganda was the category under which the Palm d'Or was awarded and in that case, it may have been deserved. I awarded this effort 3 of 10 based on its ability to raise controversy, but wouldn't recommend that people actually view it, unless there was nothing else on.

I waited a long time to finally go see this movie, and found it lacking in a number of ways. It would have been much more effecitive if Moore had left his personal dislike of Bush, and focused on the broader issues. Also, he needed a more

focused thesis for this movie. I felt like I was following a moving target - I knew I was supposed to be upset about something, but what exactly? Bush stealing

the election? The Bushes being friendly with the Saudis? Bush using the

events of 9/11 as cover for his evil agenda involving invading Iraq? It needed some editing the sharpen the message and film clips. Some clips were just too long, and too pointless. I felt like I should have been outraged by the film, but I was actually a bit bored. I rate it about 3 or 4 out of 10. And no, I've never been a big Bush fan and won't be voting for him in November.

I will not duplicate all the documented lies told in this film, but since it is in the guise of a documentary and it is far from that, I give it a low rating. It is entertaining. One thing that really puzzles me is why anybody is surprised about Bush telling reporters to watch his drive. Interview a guy on a golf course and that is what you get isn't it? Funny though. I was a fan of Moore's film, especially his early works, but I don't feel that he is trustworthy now. Asking a senator, "Will you sign up your kid for the armed forces" is a bit silly since anybody who did join did so on their own and not because of their parents. I wish Moore would use his talents to make compelling documentary films rather than make agenda films disguised as documentary film.

Exactly as Kylopod describes in his comment, watching this film was very disappointing because it fails completely to deliver properly build arguments. It is well made as Bowling for Columbia was, but in spite of getting better Michael Moore criticism has fallen into an hymn of auto satisfaction. Every shot of this movies are so biased that after a while it fails completely to convince the viewer to even listen to Michael Moor's arguments which might be a little bit true. For example as he was talking about America's coalition for Irak we see ridiculous picture which should represent countries and the lack of support that they bring to the USA, but no mention was made from UK, Australia, Japan, Spain, Italy, South Korea, Poland... which forces are definitely more serious than the one show in the movie. Michael Moore only used to defend his idea the tactics to turn his enemies into ridiculousness rather than trying to find any good arguments. All in all if what we see is right, we can conclude that Bush has no brain, his administration is only thinking about selfish interest (how about Moore.. do all the money he made from his pictures and books go to charities or poor Iraky kids?),Irak was the best country in the world far from the corrupted world of USA, Marroco do only have monkeys, Roumania still lives in Middle Age, Holland people are retarded hippies who spend their time smoking pot, every person with a turban is a terrorist, and that if a person of your family is a criminal we should imprison all the family.

Much of the criticism leveled at Fahrenheit 9/11 is about lies and misrepresentations. As far as I was concerned, the film's main problem is that it failed to deliver complete and singular line of thinking and came off as fairly incoherent.

We are shown that all flights were grounded, but special treatment was given to the Bin Laden family to leave the US. It's implied that the George W or related federal government influences made this happen. So what do we take away from this? Well it seems that this open to interpretation and the nature of the relationship is not explained. Seems there's some sort on convoluted relationship, though what's the significance or point of it all?

Sometimes I wondered whether more was implying some kind of larger conspiracy, but he doesn't! Though it's hard to pinpoint exactly what Moore is driving at by giving us all these facts, that are somewhat 'floating in space.'

Similarly, George Bush didn't react quickly to news of the 9/11 attacks and allowed the children to read a story about a goat. This is seemingly significant, but why exactly??? Is Moore suggesting that Bush doesn't care? That he knew in advance? That he's an idiot? That he doesn't care about Americans?

The US sent troops into the Middle East, but Bush didn't send enough and didn't send them fast enough and the terrorists all got away, but at the same time, it's terrible that the US military is even in there in the first place. Hmm... So is it a good or bad thing that terrorists were pursued?

Recruitment for the military is directed at poor youngsters and African Americans. The people who have so little are always the first to take to arms in service of their country, Moore contends. It's a rightful and poignant point to make. Yet there's some kind of racism and overtones of lower-class inferiority in a capitalist society, which seem misplaced in the context of the film. The woeful and shallow-minded "Congress should send their children to fight in the war too" part seemed to open up a contradiction, as it seems to advocate sending more troops to war while also denouncing the war. It's all very... muddled. And constipated.

It was like that classic mistake you made when writing essays in high school: you list a pile of facts that are relevant, but fail to use them to make a coherent argument and work to completely tie it all together.

Combine this with the fact that the production qualities were poor. The handycam look interspersed with grainy news clips and and rigid editing gave it a cheap and 'college-level' feel.

There's no doubt that this did not deserve the Palm D'or. While Tarantino assured Mike Moore that Fahrenheit 9/11 got the award for the film and not the politics, it's impossible to see how the judges felt that way and they clearly overlooked that this film/documentary is actually quite poor, regardless of the facts and politics.

Micheal Moore is a great story teller. Has been since TV Nation. The problem is, the movies he makes are not documentaries. Their have been more people saying he misquoted, embellished, and flat out lied about what they said. Even to point where he would ask a person questions and edit their answers to fit what he wanted them to say. Some of the answers in Bowling for Columbine are to questions never included in the movie. And for the record, I don't like George Bush. After Fahrenheit 911, however, I've found that Micheal Moore has little more credibility than the dirty politicians he both supports and condemns. This is not a documentary, it is a political propaganda piece, and should be treated that way. I support Disney for not dirting its hands with this.

Don't vote for president in 2004. Then maybe both parties will realize what jack___es they have selected as Candidates.

Honestly we, Russians, don't like president Bush and his policy. So this is the reason why we often enjoy any situation when Bush looks like stupid donkey. But I can't praise this movie. It is not really documentary film. President Bush is The Satan, he eats corpses of unborn babies and also he made Lee Harvey Oswald to kill president Cennedy. Bullshit!

This man, the director of movie, is very cynical and mean scoundrel. His main target was to defile president Bush. He don't want to find the Truth about Bush. He is a fake man. I don't believe he has any feelings about mothers who lost their sons in Iraq. It is just his personal vendetta, not objective documentary film.

I think president Bush is far from best American presidents. But Michael Moore is a real disgusting bastard.

Firstly, my point of view about George Bush is that he is probably one of the worst presidents the USA has ever had.

This film however is so one sided that if I was American I'd vote for Bush next time just to p*** Michael Moore off.

I'm not an expert on Bush's life or American politics, but I know enough to see the one sided view portrayed in this film.

Michael Moore has done some great work, I personally love his programme on the Nike corporation.

This is a good documentary and is well put together but in the long run its biased point of view discredits the message its trying to convey.

For sure Michael Moore's work brings some eye opening situations to what happened in the US twenty-some years ago. But at the same time, he has a clear way to tell a story from a single side, that is frustrating. I would love to see him work on a true neutral journalism work. But having said that, a lot of things he revealed in this one are surprising and so sad...