User reviews

Moore's film strips away the pseudo patriotic facade of the Bush administration with humor and tragedy to create a very compelling but flawed message: Bush used false pretenses to go to war while enriching his friends and letting the common people suffer the fallout. The film moves between powerfully tragic scenes( like the sound of planes flying into the Towers as the screen is blacked out to interviewing a dead soldier's mom) to parody( Bush and Cheney dressed like cowboys in a scene with Bonanza music in the background. Moore raises several provocative questions such as why did Bush sit for seven minutes in an elementary classroom without reacting? Moore suggests answers which imply Bush didn't know what to do. Moore raises questions and suggests answers which right wing critics find abhorrent. His film techniques of showing a triumphant, strutting Bush proclaiming major military operations are over and quickly cutting to a roadside bomb in Iraq exploding, showing Bush as either ignorant, stupid, or mendacious were very powerful. Moore's weakness was in trying to give his audience too many messages in a single film but he comes very close to succeeding. His success was apparent to many right wing radio hosts, who immediately declared him both a liar and antiamerican(or America hating).

8/10

I watched "Fahrenheit 9/11" at the New York public premiere late last night in the early hours of Wednesday, June 23rd, the first opportunity for anyone not connected with Hollywood or the media to see this film. I say this so that you take prior reviews (particularly those dismissing the film outright) with a hefty dose of skepticism. I am also a Marine Corps veteran of Operation Desert Storm, and thus am acutely aware of the realities of war and its intended use only as a last resort when all alternate options are exhausted.

I've seen all three of Michael Moore's films; "Roger & Me", "Bowling for Columbine", and now 'Fahrenheit.' Of the three, this current film has a far more disciplined approach. There is generally far less music, grandstanding, and general joking-around. While perhaps disappointing to his long-time audience of liberal partisans (myself among them), this more even-handed approach is truly welcome, because it instills the documentary with a sense of reason and perspective that will appeal to independents and perhaps even conservatives. Moore's audience here is not his long-time left-wing choir; it is the millions of Americans who trusted a President to be one thing and who has turned out to be quite another indeed.

The major newspaper reviewers justifiably point to the first 20 minutes and the last 20 minutes, about Bush's Saudi links and the carnage in Iraq, as the strongest segments. Indeed, the sequence where a series of minority representatives are gaveled to silence in the Congress is shocking in the extreme. Yet the film is fascinating throughout; it is sometimes inchoate and contradictory, but it constantly encourages and demands critical thinking. This is perhaps the real target of Moore's fury; the unaccepting, unthinking acceptance of authority figures and 'leaders' who have not earned that respect. He uses Britney Spears to make this point with devastating finality and grim hilarity. He asks, indirectly, which side are you on-that of unquestioning obedience to a betrayer of the nation's best interests, or the side of truth, criticism, and transparency. It will be hard for Bush supporters to muster the energy to defend their addled puppet after Moore's calmly launched but devastating salvos. Furthermore, it asks the American public to take responsibility for sending its children (mostly middle- and working-class) into harm's way for less than convincing reasons. The deaths of our servicemembers are the price we pay for this president's leadership, and Moore demands that the viewer analyze this war with a eye to its true costs and motives.

I am sad that there are so many in this country who will refuse to see this film for head- in-the-sand political reasons. Moore lets Bush and his cabal do most of the talking, and as such lets them indict themselves far more effectively than Al Franken or Howard Dean ever could. The film makes an absolute mockery of this president, and it is *richly* deserved. It is likely that this effort will finally 'screw to the sticking place' the courage of a national media that has shamefully aided and abetted this belligerent and bumbling national disgrace.

All this being said, this is not a depressing film, at least not for me. Many of the images and themes are certainly profoundly discomfiting, yet the very existence of this film (in nationwide release) is a testament to the endurance and beauty of the American system. This country has tolerated and then dismissed other scoundrels and crooks, and soon enough this current pack of liars and cranks will be added to the dustbin of history. You can thank Moore for his courage and true understanding of our freedoms, rights, and responsibilities that you have the opportunity to see this film and form your own judgment. Do that. Its high time for all Americans to become responsibly informed, and to consider anew the true ideals of American democracy and freedom which have lately become so distorted.

Election day is November 2nd. That's the most important review of all.

When Michael Moore's controversial documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" was released in the summer of 2004, it hit a readiness reaction with a large segment of the American public, people who found themselves increasingly dissatisfied with the direction the country was taking under the Bush administration and who believed that, in this film, someone for the first time was finally giving voice, in a mass media outlet, to their deepest held fears and concerns. Let's face it; no fiction writer could have concocted a more bizarre and surrealistic series of events than what actually occurred in the United States in the first few years of this millennium: a contested Presidential election followed by a terrorist attack of unprecedented proportions followed by a "retaliatory" war aimed at the wrong country and based almost entirely on faulty intelligence. These three incidents converged to create a near "perfect storm" for Moore's documentary. It also didn't hurt, from a commercial point of view, that the film was released in the heat of a bruising Presidential campaign, one in which the stakes never seemed higher for both ends of the political spectrum in the country. The 2004 Presidential election would be a fight to the death, one whose motto was clearly: may the better ideology win.

Well, it has been a year since Moore's film hit the streets and almost as long a time since Bush won reelection for a second term as president. The question to be asked now is, with the passions on both sides cooled down to at least some extent (or are they?), how does "Fahrenheit 9/11" play in a post-election world? The answer is pretty damn well actually, mainly because most of the issues Moore raises are still as valid after the election as they were before (mainly because Bush WAS reelected).

Moore is, of course, an unapologetic liberal and a self-appointed gadfly for the powers-that-be in our society. As such, he aims his sights directly at the Bush administration and all those who support it. He starts off brilliantly by recalling the horrors of 9/11 in a unique way: showing us a black screen while the sounds of the planes crashing into the buildings are heard on the soundtrack. With memories of that horror still lingering in our heads, Moore then proceeds to expose the Bush family's long standing connections with the Saudi royal family, a fact that few people seemed aware of before this film was released. Moore then goes on to criticize the way in which the Bush administration has exploited the "War on Terror" for maximum political effectiveness, culminating in the Patriot Act which, he argues, has had a draconian impact on the civil rights of ordinary American citizens.

But the greatest part of Moore's wrath is saved for the second half of the film, when he confronts what he sees as the wholly unjustifiable war in Iraq. Moore is to be given credit for being one of the first and only people to have shown us actual on-the-ground pictures of the death and carnage that occurred in that country immediately after the initial bombings. Watching these gruesome images, we are immediately struck by just how antiseptic the media's coverage of the war has been here in the United States - a fact that Moore blames not only on the Bush administration but on a press that has allowed itself to become little more than an extension of the rah-rah, war-rallying propaganda machine set up by the government (a government, for instance, that refused to allow any pictures to be taken of flag-draped coffins coming back from the war zone).

The section dealing with the Iraq War is the most emotionally devastating section of the film, mainly because Moore is able to bring it home to us personally through the ordinary individuals who have been most directly affected by it - soldiers on the field, amputees in the hospital and, most heartbreakingly, the mother of a boy killed in a helicopter crash in April, 2003. Her unbearable grief, so nakedly exposed on camera for all to see, becomes an emblem for a war that not only need not have happened, but has, as Moore points out in various ways, been largely bought and paid for with the blood of brave men and women from the lower, underprivileged tier of society. He ends his film by confronting a number of congressmen who voted for the war but who seem reluctant to send their own children over to do the actual fighting. Actually, there is so much going on in this film that it becomes virtually impossible to convey even half of it in a short review such as this one.

As with his previous films, Moore once again proves himself the master of facile irony, pointing out, in darkly humorous fashion, the absurd inconsistencies and blatant hypocrisies that abound in the world around us. These moments are what keep Moore's films from becoming dry-as-dust jeremiads against what he sees as a corrupt system. He makes us laugh even when we know we should be crying, but this is the way a polemicist reaches his audience. And no one understands that better than Michael Moore.

Is the film "fair," "balanced," "nonpartisan" in its approach? Absolutely not. Does it need to be? Well, I can certainly see where people of the opposite political persuasion might find themselves wanting to yell back at the screen or lob a few well chosen projectiles where they feel it would do the most good. And that's fine too. After all, it's a free country and the Bush supporters have every right to launch their own rebuttal against this film if they so choose. I would truly love to see it. But until that time both liberals and conservatives will have to be content with kicking the set every time "Fahrenheit 9/11" is appearing on the screen. The funny thing is that they'll be doing so for entirely different reasons.

The TV guide described this film as "an examination of President Bush's policies in Iraq," but it's not really an examination. It's more like a vivisection.

Anyway, it lives up to its reputation as an inflammatory piece of propaganda. It's probably Michael Moore's least witty, least egocentric, most preachy, and most angry film so far.

As propaganda it's not perfect. Too much time is spent on a grieving family in Flint, Michigan. The married couple who lost their son is perfect for engaging our sympathies, large and of mixed race, and the mother's patriotism is shown as unshaken. When she hangs up the flag she never lets it touch the ground and she is proud that she has a military family, and yet there is so much time spent with her that it borders on tastelessness. She carries so much moral authority that we don't need to see much of her.

And Moore uses the usual ironic techniques to puff up the already obvious phoniness of the big business types dining on huge trays of Vorspeise and drinking wine and boasting about how much money there is to be made out of the oil fields, alternating with shots of bloodied bodies.

And his argument is, as in Bowling for Columbine, confused. Yes, the Bush family is close to the Saudi power brokers, but was the war really just about oil? Moore may be misunderestimating the dimensions of Bush's ego. It is GLAMOROUS to be a war president and Bush has reveled in it. (That faux warrior's jump suit, etc.) To be sure, oil probably has something to do with it, what with Halliburton's involvement and all. Does anyone really believe that we would be in Iraq today if, instead of sitting on top of the world's second largest oil reserves, its chief source of income were its jute crop?

That's just about all the weaknesses I'd like to point out. It's a powerful film. Moore is known for his delicate touch in arranging and editing the events we see, so I doubt that the class of poor high schoolers he interviews in Flint were chosen at random. It's probably theater. But is it any different from the audiences that were so carefully screened and assembled for Bush's "town hall meetings" while he was touring the country pitching his plan to revamp Social Security?

This is a real punch in the snot locker for Bush and his supporters. (Not that it will change anyone's mind.) It's probably underhanded and full of indemonstrable insinuations. But I don't care. Bush deserves it. He's got Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Novack, and all of Fox News and much of the rest of the media on his side, plus an able team of media manipulators. Who've the REST of the country got? Al Franken?

And I'm perfectly willing to disregard the likelihood of legerdemain anyway. I no longer care if this administration is in bed with the Saudis or if oil were the chief reason for the invasion of Iraq. (One general uses the word "invasion" in a speech and immediately corrects it to "liberation.") Moore's message comes across as both intact and honorable. The last words of his narration are "wars should never be fought unless they are absolutely necessary." Hear, hear, Mike, our lumpy proletarian.

Call it propaganda if you wish; it's still good. Now that the 2004 election is over, it's history instead of politics. Fifty years from now it will be the primary image that people will have of the administration of 'Dubya', and it won't be a flattering picture.

The true test of a documentary film is that one can learn something from it without falling asleep. This is a keeper. We see Dubya as a glory-seeking chickenhawk more intent on enriching his cronies than on seeking to act in accordance with reality. We see his war as his glory, and others' tragedy, whether of Iraqi civilians or Americans killed or wounded in action. We see Dubya's war as a rich man's war and a poor man's fight. We see that the military recruiters can find plenty of cannon fodder from the places like Flint, ravaged by industrial ruin (fitting allusion to "Roger & Me"), but few from the still well-off suburbs.

We see the depersonalization of the enemy as a tank crew takes delight in an obscenity-laced rap song "Die, m-----f-----" while firing at the enemy. We heard of little of this during the first Gulf War, waged honorably under the elder Bush.

We see the clever methods of media manipulation of the '43' administration -- Bush and Cheney contradicting each other on the sort of responses that Americans should have toward terrorism. "Be brave", says Bush; "be scared", says Cheney. Confusion makes people scared to oppose those who supposedly know better than we do.

I chose to not watch this film until after the 2004 elections. I had seen smears that it is all propaganda, full of lies, unpatriotic, and disrespectful of our brave soldiers. The real disrespect goes to those who least deserve respect -- the Bush administration.

First, let me tell you that I am a self-proclaimed Liberal Democrat. Bearing that in mind, I am going to try to be as bipartisan as is possible when examining content of this nature. Fahrenheit 9/11 opens with a surreal, yet somehow familiar, image: a Gore victory party. Thus begins part one of Fahrenheit 9/11, which shall be called "Election 2000." Moore presents lots of rarely-seen footage of the congress floor, etc., thus providing a convincing argument that Bush did not, in fact, win Election 2000 legitimately. Part one continues for 30 minutes, setting up the bulk of the film, which shall be called "The Bush Presidency: Parts I and II." It's interesting that Moore devotes 30 minutes to the mere exposition of his film, which has nothing to do with what the Bush administration has done with Dubya in office. However, these 30 minutes set up the idea in the viewer's mind that Bush is an illegitimate president who should never have been in office. The film then begins its opening sequence, which plays on how much of the presidency is just show. While the film is more of a series of arguments against Bush (sort of a film version of his book, "Dude, Where's My Country?"), these arguments are strung together in such a way that anyone who sees this movie loses every shred of doubt that Bush should not be president. The Bush presidency section of the film is divided into two parts: pre-and immediate post-9/ 11, and the War in Iraq, the latter being the most powerful part of the film. The bottom line: this film leaves many indelible images in the viewer's mind ("Most people call you the elite, but I call you my base"), and eliminates any notion that Bush is the right man for the job. 9/10

Right up front I'll make my positions clear.

This film is clearly a personal grudge fight, in addition to a cry for national sanity in an insane situation.

Re. Michael Moore; I loved ROGER AND ME, and was less, but still moderately impressed with BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE. I'm made a bit uneasy by Moore's style of "ambush journalism". Roger Smith had it coming, and the tactic (the only one possible in dealing with him) showed his true shallowness, arrogance, greed and cunning. However, Moore came off as a bit of a bully versus Charleton Heston when using the same tactics; that interview showed a frail old man who came to a battle of wits while hopelessly and totally unarmed... an ironic posture for the spokesperson of the NRA.

Re. George W. Bush; I didn't vote for him and I was utterly disgusted by the fraudulent election of 2000, wherein The Supremes circumvented the electoral process and installed a Caesar by fiat. Mr. Bush is clearly intellectually unequipped to handle the job and too ethically challenged to be trusted in office. Once he was actually in power and SOME of his policies were exposed for all to see, my attitude changed somewhat. I felt (and still feel) that the old Roman penalty for corrupt public officials should be immediately applied, but with a slight modification; Bush should be tied and sewn into a sack with a half dozen or so rabid weasels, and the sack tossed into a fast flowing river with plenty of rocks.

That having been said...

I resisted the powerful urge to see this film on the opening weekend; long waiting lines and crowds are tiresome (I had my fill of that in the service), and I don't have the patience to deal with a hoard of clueless Yuppies and the collection of Bush supporter protesters in front of the theater that had been promised by local groups. I therefore waited until a noon showing on Monday... surely the crowds and brouhaha would have slacked off by then.

Imagine my surprise when, arriving early, I drove into a crammed parking lot, and found myself in a waiting line anyway... at NOON on a workday!

As for the film itself... I expected no huge surprises from it's content, and I didn't get any. Moore has produced a solid, workmanlike documentary. It expressed the maker's Point of View (as any other documentary does), and presented the facts of the situation at hand clearly and pointedly.

What struck me even more than the film was the audience there to watch it.

In the period between taking my seat and the start of the showing, I noticed something very odd... something I've never seen in a movie theater before.

Headed up the aisle to choose a seat... an elderly man with a walker. Then, another... and a third. Now, one with a cane. Next, assisted by a Lady (apparently his wife), a man struggling up the aisle pulling an oxygen cylinder on a small cart to feed a nasal cannula. Then a relatively young woman struggled up the aisle with a cast on her leg and crutches... and finally, installed at the head of an entrance aisle by an usher, was a man in a wheelchair.

That's when the importance of this film struck me full force.

For these people, going to a movie theater is a major hassle, an expedition that requires logistical support, planning, and a whole lot of effort. Despite all of that, these people obviously felt that THIS film was WORTH the effort. After the fight to get this film distributed, these people were NOT going to let it pass them by.

During the showing... there were few demonstrations or catcalls; this audience was intently watching and listening. As the credits came up, there was applause... not a roaring ovation; it was scattered and in some cases tentative... but applause nonetheless.

When I was leaving the auditorium I was deeply disturbed and made uncomfortable by what I'd just seen and heard, both on the screen and in the audience... and for the 2:15 showing, there was ANOTHER long line waiting to get in.

Maybe the long lines and crowds are saying something that Mr. Bush should be paying attention to.

This administration has held pitifully few press conferences, and they've seen no need for openness with their constituency. Instead, they've tried every way they can to close off information sources and manipulate the media. That policy is what made the huge crowds for FAHRENHEIT 9/11... people DO care about their country and it's actions, and they'll get ANY information about it they can find, and get it anywhere they can.

I see.no reason to doubt the.premise of this documentary. The attack by AlQueda ,using mostly Saudis, is a fact. Saudi Arabia was a necessary ally of the US at the time. Its oil was necessary for the functioning of western society. The govt of SA does fund fundamentalist Islam. The Bush oil ties are obvious. Iraq was attacked because the Neo Cons felt it was a danger to Israel and US oil interests. It had nothing to do with 9-11. The war was sold with lies and distortions. As usual the average Iraqui and US soldiers families pay the price. Bush 2 was probably the worst Potus ever. Good on u MM.

Whatever pushed the notorious self promoter Michael Moore to drastically reduce his screen time (in comparison to his other films) in Fahrenheit 911, it was a wise choice. As far as I'm concerned he could/should have reduced that screen time even further, but in spite of the weaker sections of the film (where he plays an interviewer who makes his interviewee points for them and feeds his subjects their lines) this is still a brilliant and powerful film. Even some of the questionable paths Moore follows are thought provoking, though not necessarily in the way he might have intended.

The most powerful areas in the film for me are the talking heads from various area's of government who, without being pushed, matter of factly state some observations that we rarely if ever heard on national TV networks during the build up and first year of the Iraq invasion. Most of these points made have become more and more obvious by events in the world as time has gone by, and will likely help this film garner positive recognition for years in spite of it's potential to be a quickly dated documentary.

The Lipscomb section of the film was generally well handled and might have the biggest impact on non-partisan viewers. Especially powerful here was the confrontation before the blinders-wearing woman accusing Lipscomb of making up the story about her killed son in the military in order to make a political message (though of course, she could have accused Moore of this).

That bit of film will be a slap in the face for Moore haters who refuse to consider that they may have been duped in the race to war by their leaders under the guise of being protected from terrorism.

This film is flawed but still an important work, and likely a relief for much of the world that worries the USA is sliding towards becoming a dangerous rogue nation behind extremist Neocon pied pipers.

As a 9/11 family member,I was invited to a small private screening of this movie before it's "official" opening in Cannes. This movie deserves to be seen, no matter what Disney says. Michael Moore does a fantastic job of exposing abuses within the Bush administration. It's amazing that the coziness of the Bushes and the Saudis had never been reported on in this much detail before. ("liberal media" my eye) Conservatives will not like this movie, but they should watch it anyway. Even if you disagree with Micheal Moore's politics, this movie will make you think long and hard about the direction the country is moving in. If you aren't concerned, you very well should be. There are some truly funny moments, and some very touching moments as well. Watch it with an open mind and form your own opinion, but watch it.Personally I think Fahrenheit 9/11 delivers a very important message that needs to be heard.

Academy Award winning director and writer Michael Moore gives us a visual and auditory treat as we look at the lies and deception of the Bush Administration and their handling of the events post 9/11, including the theft of our personal liberties with The Patriot Act.

There is nothing new here to those who pay attention to what is going on in America. Political columnists like the late Molly Ivins and others have kept us abreast of the machinations of the Bush family. We know how George Bush has benefited with his relationships to the Saudis and seeing them get special treatment was no surprise. We know that Crogress doesn't read what they vote on, and many of us knew that the Patriot Act was written prior to 9/11.

But, what Moore does is wrap everything up in a nice neat package that is easy for the uninformed to digest and learn. He is a master at using humor to make a political point. This film should be watched every year on his birthday.

Besides that, we get to see again just what a twit Britney Spears is.

It's been about an hour since I left the theater where I saw Fahrenheit 9/11, and the Green Day song "Walking Contradiction" is going through my head, because that's what the Bush administration is. I'm going to try to stick to the movie in this review, although I didn't do a good job of that in my Bowling for Columbine review. I'm not a huge Michael Moore fan. He's often too extreme and close-minded, but that doesn't mean I wasn't up and cheering (philosophically speaking) during his controversial Oscar acceptance speech at the 2003 Oscars. I see his point more times than not, and often agree with him. If he makes up facts, so what? He conveys them in a persuasive manner and gets his point across. And, come on-even though the GOP lies day in and day out, Moore can't make up a few facts without being publicly scrutinized? Fair and balanced my ass.

Fahrenheit 9/11, a play on Ray Bradbury's novel Fahrenheit 451, is about an hour and twenty minutes of bashing George W. Bush, half an hour of why the "war" in Iraq sucks, and then something to tie it all together. I never liked Bush and never will, and Moore does a good job of running his face in the mud where it belongs. Moore thinks that he's bringing up some long-hidden facts about Bush, when they aren't, but like everyone, Bush has skeletons in the closet, and they're gleeful put out here. There's a few omittances of facts here and there-such as the real reason why Bush waited seven minutes to take action after the 9/11 attacks, but still, his face is priceless! I don't mean to sound hateful towards 9/11, but it shows how much of a limp fish Bush actually is. I find it hard to believe that people can defend this clown-well, besides big business. Moore's first few minutes are about Gore losing the election, and it made me very angry-none of the political events that occurred from January 20, 2001 until now would not have occurred if Bush hadn't meddled around in other people's business.

Moore loves drawing up connections, and he does that left and right here. Some are quite farfetched (it's like he's playing six degrees of the bin Ladens). He also seems to demonize most Middle-Easterns and the entire bin Laden family. While they're not perfect (hell, they appear to be pretty evil in the movie), they're not as bad as black sheep Osama. But that doesn't nullify the movie in general (see, I'm trying to stay on topic). The movie is jaw-dropping. Fahrenheit 9/11's a powerful piece of celluloid. Call it a documentary, call it leftist propaganda, call it what you will, you cannot deny the absurdity of the American government. It all stems from Moore's seemingly smaller ego. He pushed his (not all that attractive) mug in every frame of Bowling, but here he shows restraint and more maturity. You see his face a scarce few times, and his so-called outrageous stunts are kept to a necessary minimum. This new type of Moore appears to show more maturity and is more appealing to the people.

I must admit that when the movie switched over to Iraq and the soldiers, it became a little less interesting. The point was proven, but some of it just seemed like it was padding for a 2 hour runtime. There is no pleasure greater than seeing Bush knocked down a peg (he's like a square peg in a round hole, actually), and Fahrenheit 9/11 fulfilled that need. The whole movie in general is amazing and a departure from what some people didn't like in Bowling. This is a dead-on attack of Bush, and if you're voting for him, you won't like the movie, because you think it's all lies. Hopefully you'll come around and just realizing you're lying to yourself.

My rating: 9/10

Rated R for violent and disturbing images and for language.

(which is always sold out) and I felt surprised how it is not propaganda at all, as its opponents say. Everything in this movie is just showed from the real. Never Michael Moore suggests some opinions to the audience. We take our deductions from what we see, not because M.M. says to us what is his opinion (anyway easy to understand). I grew up in Rome (Italy)watching American movies. America has always been my dream and my myth. I came to live here 8 years ago,I invested here all my money, I love America and its people.When I started to ask to my American friends how a kind of a such disastrous and embarrassing president can even hope to be reelected, somebody asked me: "Why you are so anti American?" . In Italy we are used to bad politicians since 2,000 years and when I say bad I mean able to anything. I don't think that a person who don't like a negative bad president is against the country but in favor of the country. I'm not democratic and not republican and for sure not communist as I'm a paying guest, but what this movie says, for me is nothing new. I already have been listening Mr. Bush to lie about the Weapons of Mass Destruction and all the rest. I can see everyday that Iraqi people don't feel Americans as liberators but invaders for oil reason. Anything we have been watching in this movie we have been already watching on TV, but not focusing it. Everybody between us have had the occasion to read,before watching this movie, that the "Halliburton", the company with billions dollars of interests in Iraq, is owned by the vice president Cheney .Anyway this documentary is very very interesting as it is able to resume in 2 hours a good part of the acting of the more powerful man on the planet. I liked that, with so serious theme, this movie is very often funny and makes you laughing . A must to see.

It's always funny to read the comments of the Bush fans on this movie or anything Mr. Moore is doing. No wonder these people love a president who's actively ignoring the truth and twisting the facts as much as this one.

"If you are into hate, this is your movie" OK, so Mr. Bush, who started a war without a reason (lying about connections between Saddam and Osama, WMD and so on), is so much into love?? Also I find the comments of the Michael Moore haters much more filled with loath than the peace loving people's comments. But that's typical behaviors from these people. Look at FOX, the "un-biased" media! It's always the other one's fault! These people ignore the truth and their own state of mind. We should feel sorry for them.

"Michael Moore makes his point: He doesn't like Mr. Bush as a person. This is getting boring!" Let's see: About 98 % of the comments on Mr. Moore's work refer not to his work, but to his weight: "He is fat and dumb!" OK, so this is fair??

"Michael Moore makes a lot of money" It's great how much these people care about some million dollars this man makes, who obviously is not interested (yet) in just being rich. There was even a site on his homepage: "Spend Mike's tax cut for a good thing". And it's quite disturbing that the same people don't care AT ALL about the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS of taxmoney being spent by their administration for a war that was not necessary, for the benefit of Halliburton & Co, nice move Mr. Cheney!

"Michael Moore makes propaganda" This is my favourite. OK, so everything Mr. Bush and his preachers on FOX news is telling is nothing but the sweet and pure truth?? It's hard to imagine that anyone can be ignorant and stupid enough to believe that! Most of the comments have been written in 2004. Much more facts we do know today, how the administration fixed the facts to fit THEIR propaganda. And remember how George landed on that ship they had to turn around before so you couldn't see in was in the harbour? The fake plastic turkey at the first war Thanksgiving? You people make fools out of yourselves, really.

About the film: I found it a bit too long and complicated, and most of the facts I read in "Stupid white men". But it was still great to watch Mr. Bush, maybe the dumbest person ever to reign over a superpower. Thank god America seems to be waking up now, when just 37 % of the people support him.

Thank you, Mr. Moore, for keeping on the good work!

It should surprise no one that Bush supporters have widely attacked this film as "full of lies" and "not a documentary." Some have even inaccurately stated that Michael Moore "admitted" that it is not a documentary. In preface to my own comments of the film, I would like to set the record straight: documentaries OFTEN take sides, and Michael Moore has repeatedly said that Fahrenheit 9/11 IS a documentary, albeit one with a point of view. Also, please don't say that the film is full of lies (or that "half of this movie is probably incorrect," as one IMDB reviewer said) unless you are willing to show concrete examples.

My observations:

Fahrenheit 9/11 does an excellent job of pointing out some of the major problems with Bush's invasion of Iraq that have largely escaped (at least until recently) coverage in the mainstream media. Moore shows the Bush administration's efforts to create a connection in Americans' minds between the 9/11 attacks and Iraq, then plays them off against later statements by the same individuals that Iraq was never connected with those attacks. He demonstrates that much evidence countered White House claims of on-going weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in Iraq and how subsequent searches for WMD evidence vindicated the dissenters. In the most powerful part of his film, Moore speaks with the family of a soldier killed in Iraq, with the mother showing alternately grief and outrage over the death that need not have occurred. Moore also discusses how close friends of Bush have profited tremendously as a result of the invasion.

Another strong point of the film describes the poor White House performance on terrorism prior to 9/11 and poor response on 9/11. The White House failed to hold any meetings with their terrorism task force prior to the 9/11 attacks, failed to act against hijacked planes that remained in the air -- in one case, for hours -- after the initial impact on the World Trade Center, and allowed members of the bin Laden family to fly around the country in preparation to leave the United States during a time when all other civilian air traffic was grounded. Moore describes all of this and more.

Not everything in the film works, however. The first part of the film deals with the 2000 election debacle in Florida, describing the series of steps that disenfranchised voters and led to Bush's "victory." While the criticisms of the process in Florida are accurate and many viewers may be unaware of some of the details of the fiasco, this subject is quite separate from the main topic of the film and is better handled in columns and books by Greg Palast or in the documentary "Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election."

While closer to the point, Moore also misses the mark by focusing on the Carlyle Group: a corporate entity uniting George Bush, Sr. and others close to George W. Bush with Saudi Arabian oil interests. While the issue of the Carlyle Group merits scrutiny, the group does not have clear connections to 9/11 or to US response, and no policy statements from the group that would confirm suspicions were offered. A better case could be made in reference to the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), which Moore ignored entirely. PNAC's members fill the administrations upper echelon, and they have publicly available position papers arguing that the US should aggressively use its position as the world's only superpower to support US "interests" around the world.

Perhaps the most quintessentially Michael Moore section of the film deals with Moore approaching members of Congress and asking them to send their own children into battle in Iraq as a sign of good faith. The effort is met with predictable responses, as Congressmen alternatively express their incredulity or avoid Moore entirely. As entertaining as this and some other moments are, the film's best feature is Moore's maturation as a documentarian in the more serious, hard-hitting segments of the film.

Moore casts a wide net in Fahrenheit 9/11 -- at times too wide -- ending up with a film with far more hits than misses and provides much information not known to most Americans even today. Isn't that what a documentary should do?

You could either love Michael Moore or hate him. To me, he's just one of those regular guys who just wants to make the audience go furious at his documentaries. I actually like this documentary. For one reason, I don't really care who wins the election between Kerry and Bush because both don't have the decency to stand up for what they say. If I wanted between them to win, I would pick Bush only because he's experienced and I actually don't trust Kerry at all. What this documebtary stands out for, is that Moore is making Bush look bad. The scenes were hilarious like when they are making fun of Bush sometimes like the vacation scene and the 9/11 attack. The Iraq scenes with the soldiers were the best part of the whole thing because all of it is actually true and very realistic. Overall, a great documentary that has a lot of explaining to it and if your a die hard Bush fan, don't see it

Hedeen's outlook: 9/10 ***+ A-

OK, this is not actually a movie, its a documentary. Im not a USA inhabitant, but I saw the pain that September 11 caused. I was wanting to see this documentary for a long time, M.Moore is an excellent documentalist because he makes them from an outside point, he forgets the BS of being a fake patriot, and goes up to the power to defend the commoners, the cannon meat as politicians used to call them. The documentary is great, depicting a whole business hidden from many Americans while they were told that they were actually "freeing" Irak. The oil business. The movie shows both politicians and big companies debating the division of the oil income, and isn't that just great, a mother loses her children, a wife her husband, a son his father, and all that companies and the government that supposedly cared about you, the USA people, actually care about is money income and money income. Today was the first time I saw the documentary, I already new some things, mostly because living outside of the USA gives us more uncensored news. But, the whole deal between Bush and the Bin Laden, the promotion to government position of former employees, the participation of the Bin Ladens as contributors(share holders) of one of the companies that is "helping" the US corps, and the participation of the division of the oil of companies like DHL and, guess who, MicroSoft. Yes, the giant of information is making profit of every dead, injured, active soldier. I know that in the USA M.Moore is known as an anti American, but if defending the helpless is anti patriot in any country in the world, then we actually deserve to be wipe out of the earth. To the people that has family members in active service, or are planning to do some service, don't do it, you are not helping your country, your are helping corporations like Bush hidden business, DHL and MS to make profit out of your life and your comrades life.

The best way to start this review is to point out that there is NO SUCH THING AS UNBIASED DOCUMENTARY. The only unbiased documentary is one in which only footage is shown, nothing is edited, and there is no music or narration. I myself have never seen a documentary like this, and most likely, neither have you.

As for the movie itself, calling it a documentary would still not be entirely accurate. It's a cinematic declaration of war. Moore sheds his heavy involvement a la "Bowling for Columbine" and prefers to let the majority of the movie just be facts speaking for themselves. Outside of an interview or two, the Patriot Act reading, and asking the Congressman to sign their kids up for the war, he mostly stays behind the scenes, narrating the scenes.

And that's what makes this one so compelling. Where as Columbine was impressive mostly for the things Moore himself said and did, Fahrenheit is amazing for what simply happened. If Columbine was an attack, Fahrenheit is an all-out assault. The first half hour is arguably the most compelling, drawing ties between Saudi Arabia and the Bushes, the financial aspects of it all, the negligence and outright corruption that filled all events post-9/11.

There is no starkly new information here if you read a lot, but for the masses, there will be a lot of things on the underbelly of the administration that they have not seen before. Moore doesn't make any effort to balance his opinions, right from the get-go we see that he will be tearing Bush down piece by piece. And it does.

Naturally, Moore injects his humor in where needed to break up the heavy-handed subject matter. Occasionally he just needs to let Bush talk and that's that, but some segments (the bit on the Coalition of the Willing is priceless) are simply hilarious. And the movie ends with one of the most incredible Bush quotes of all time.

Simply said, go see this movie. 9/10, for a few parts that drew on too long. But in my small town, this is the first movie I've seen get the kind of ovation it did.

Before Moore made this film, he should've taken more time to do his homework. There were too many inaccuracies and controversy surrounding the truths he had. This film was less about 9/11 and more about the Bush administration and the War on Terror.

It's almost as if Moore, like Charlie Sheen is a 9/11 denier and believes in a conspiracy theory about the attacks. This film was very hyped in 2004 before it's release, but later faced harsh criticism. A film titled Fahrenhype 9/11 was later released to refute Moore''s facts and theories.

In 2018, Moore released a sequel titled Fahrenheit 11/9 about Donald Trump's presidency.