Local paper reviews for 9/11 all seem to think some facts are doubtful!

[trumad]

I've read several reviews in the local fishraps that litter the state of Florida. They all pretty much have the standard line that say that some of what what Moore is saying is perhaps doubtful. BUT not one has pointed out what fact is doubtful and not one has refuted any of it.

These are scripted reviews for reviewers who haven't a clue to the political world.

[G_j]

1. "some facts are doubtful"

now if they had only said that about Bush before going to war...

[SEpatriot]

4. "Some facts...."

This is the coordinated reply effort by the corporate media. They don't want to come out too hard against the film and seem partisan, but they won't lodge specific complaints. Just watch how this, or some variation of this theme, will permeate the press in the next few days. They will say it enough to the point where it will become standard "mainstream" thought that subtly undercuts the impact of the film.

[Philostopher]

2. I just went up and read the review in my local paper.

The Dayton Daily News review uses words like 'partisan' and 'incendiary' -- but never once does the reviewer (a local guy, and a veteran entertainment reporter for the paper) insinuate that the fact-checking is in any way lacking. The only complaint he had about it was that Moore broke the otherwise brisk pace for a few (mostly comic relief) 'set pieces' that were sort of vanity-oriented. I was glad they had a local reviewer handle it instead of printing a canned AP review, as they sometimes will for a 'big movie' -- the local reviewers are often better than the AP ones.

Edit: not entirely incidentally, the music reviewer who wrote the critique of the new Beastie Boys disc also gave it a good review, though she said it probably won't stand the test of time as well as some because there's so much current-event-oriented material. Nothing about it being irrelevant or inappropriate, though.

[Vickers]

3. Wait...they claimed some stuff wasn't true, but didn't point it out?

And they didn't have supporting evidence to back up their claims? And they didn't point folks to sources where they can check this for themselves?

Am I to believe that you are accusing a Florida newspaper of lazy journalism?!?!?!?!

:crazy:

Florida Vickers

[noonwitch]

5. The Detroit Free Press gave it a lukewarm review

2 out of 4 stars. I don't remember what they gave "Bowling For Columbine", but they raved over "Roger and Me". Of course, they were a different paper in the "Roger and Me" days, before the strike and the joint operating agreement.
I'm going to go see it tomorrow, if possible.

[trumad]

6. Read this Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel review and you'll see what I mean

http://www.southflorida.com/events/sfl-sh911jun25,0,702254.story?coll=sfe-guide-4promos

[pinniped]

9. I can't think of a better way to send the message to congresscritters.

Who the hell do they think are fighting and dying over there for oil?

T101s and T1000s?

------
When he takes to the streets of Washington, D.C., awkwardly accompanied by a disillusioned Marine, to try to shame congressmen into enlisting their children in the military, it's nothing but sheer overkill. There are better, subtler and more respectable ways to condemn the actions of the Bush administration than Moore's hyperbolic hysteria.
------

[pinniped]

7. SF Chronicle writer said Moore's asssertions are supported...

by record.

A few snippets:

Based on that single viewing, and after separating out what is clearly presented as Moore's opinion from what is stated as fact, it seems safe to say that central assertions of fact in "Fahrenheit 9/11" are supported by the public record.
------
Moore is on firm ground in arguing that the Bushes, like many prominent Texas families with oil interests, have profited handsomely from their relationships with prominent Saudis, including members of the royal family and of the large and fabulously wealthy bin Laden clan, which has insisted it long ago disowned Osama.
------
Moore says that instead of focusing on al Qaeda, the president spent 42 percent of his first eight months in office on vacation. The figure came not from a conspiracy-hungry Web site but from a calculation by the Washington Post.
------

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/06/24/MNGSC7B3L21.DTL

[G_j]

8. according to these stories..

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/entertainmentstorydisplay.cfm?storyID=3574793&thesection=entertainment&thesubsection=film&thesecondsubsection=general

Fahrenheit 9/11 scores high marks from critics

25.06.2004 1.00pm
LOS ANGELES - After blistering the box office in its inaugural New York launch, Michael Moore's anti-Bush documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 opens across the United States on Friday with most reviewers giving it high marks as brilliantly provocative but unflinchingly partisan.

While saying Moore's latest work can fairly be classified as propaganda, critics generally praised the film as an artfully rendered critique of US president George W Bush, his war on terror and the US-led invasion of Iraq.

"Unabashedly partisan, wearing its determination to bring about political change on its sleeve, 'Fahrenheit' can be nit-picked and second-guessed, but it can't be ignored," wrote Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times.

"It is propaganda, no doubt about it, but propaganda is most effective when it has elements of truth, and too much here is taken from the record not to have a devastating effect on viewers," Turan added. "Anyone who is the least bit open to Moore's theses will come away impressed."

In a similar vein, New York Times critic A O Scott calls Moore "a credit to the republic" and writes of the movie: "It is worth seeing, debating and thinking about, regardless of your political allegiances."
..more..
-------
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0623-11.htm

June 23, 2004 by Agence France Presse

Warm Critical Reception for 'Fahrenheit 9/11'


NEW YORK - US critics gave a warm welcome to Michael Moore's caustic documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11," praising the movie's scathing humor while voicing some reservations over the director's methods.

The reviews came as rival political activists stood poised to either boycott the film or turn out in droves for its national opening Friday, with liberal group MoveOn.org turning to the Internet to rally its troops.

"Informative, provocative, frightening, compelling, funny, manipulative and, most of all, entertaining," read USA Today's gushing review of Moore's polemic against the war in Iraq and the administration of President George W. Bush.

"Fahrenheit 9/11 is the year's must-see film," the national daily said, while questioning whether the unabashed bias of the documentary would actually change minds in an already polarized US electorate.

..more..

[Renew Deal]

10. Pump out some LTE

Challenge them on it.

[cureautismnow]

11. Orlando Slantinel Review Gives it 4 Stars (Out of 4)

Surprisingly, the review itself does not try to point out any factual inaccuracies or "1/2 truths." An adjoining column, which puts F911 in the context of other politically motivated documentaries, does suggest that time will tell if any errors of fact are present in the film.

In a couple of hours, I'll find out for myself if MM does indeed have all his factual ducks in a row. :-)

[trumad]

13. Actually it doesn't...

More like 3 and 1/2 out of 5.. This is the dude that compares lying shit Limbaugh to Moore...

Plus the beat writer says this at the end...
"It is difficult to tell who's telling the truth these days. The right wingers are in constant throes with the left and neither seems to have any credibility because each is so incredibly slanted to one extreme or the other."

I say horseshit to that....
http://www.orlandocitybeat.com/citybeat/movies/ocb-movies-faranheit062504.story

[cureautismnow]

14. That's Not the Orlando Slantinel Review by Jay Boyar

His review is 4 out of 4.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/search/dispatcher.front?Query=fahrenheit&target=article&x=5&y=5

I had never even heard of the online rag that you reference.

Edited for typo...

[trumad]

15. Well then the Slantenel is split personalty.

The online rag that I mention is the Orlando Senitinel and it's in todays addition. Click on entertainment and there it is, right smack dab in the middle. I'm glad to see Boyer like it though..

[cureautismnow]

18. Agreed on Split Personalities.

The online review by that hack for "Orlandocitybeat" is nowhere to be found in the hard copy newspaper that I have now in my hands. Perhaps, that "reviewer" is a wannabe critic for Faux finetuning his "skills."

[trumad]

16. Oh and BTW:

Boyers not 4 out of 4...he's 4 out of 5..FYI

[cureautismnow]

19. Correct. Boyar is 4 of 5. Michael Wilmington is 4 of 4.

On the online search of the OS, I cited Michael Wilmington's review, which is not even in the hard copy newspaper. (He's a "Tribune Movie Critic." Perhaps, Chicagoans received his review in hard copy?) Odd. Anyway, Boyar's article appears as the 2nd entry.

Yes, Boyar does give 5 stars to movies such as Harry Potter and the POA. :eyes:

[cap]

12. this is done so that Moore's "War Room" can't respond.

my advise... mail the fishraps to Moore and let his boys chew on these rags. They can ask "what exactly is doubtful".

It sounds like these papers have a syndicated column. They are all on the same talking point.

[porphyrian]

17. C'mon, Movie Critics Are Mostly Whores

If they could make movies, they would. Instead, they talk about other peoples' movies. As one of the lowest people on the newspaper racket totem pole, they say whatever will maintain their job security, not what the average person would think.