NINE out of TEN Film Reviewers for Daily Papers LIKE FAHRENHEIT 911!

[LittleApple81]

One Group That's Not Polarized: 9 out of 10 Film Reviewers for Daily Papers Back 'Fahrenheit'
By E & P Staff
Published: June 27, 2004

NEW YORK They like Mike. While the country as a whole appears split, along political lines, over the controversial Michael Moore documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11," movie reviewers at U.S. daily newspapers are not. An E & P survey of 54 daily papers that ran reviews, in "red" and "blue" states alike, finds that 48 gave the film a positive nod, with only 6 abstaining, a 90% favorable rating.

The six in the "anti" camp were: Detroit Free Press, Denver Rocky Mountain News, San Jose Mercury-News, New York Post, South Florida Sun-Sentinel and the Charlotte Observer.

Among the "pro" crowd were reviewers from moderate to conservative papers such as the Boston Herald, Los Angeles Daily News, Dallas Morning News, San Diego Union-Tribune and Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Many of the positive reviews expressed reservations but overall weighed in on the plus side. Among the few negatives, Pheobe Flowers in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel called the film "hyperbolic hysteria," and Lawrence Toppmann in the Charlotte Observer observed that Moore "rakes muck like nobody else, but almost as much of it stick to him as to his subject."

But they were drowned out by praise, not only from some of the expected big city papers but from smaller towns. Bob Allen of the Denton Record Chronicle in Texas referred to "Maestro Moore." Philip Martin in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette called the film "tough and true," while James Sanford in the Kalamazoo Gazette found it to be a "skillfully" directed "two-hour indictment."

a little more at link:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000553027

[Fenris]

1. FIlm reviewers a traitors and liberals!

;)

[LittleApple81]

3. or, like Ann Coulter would say: Traitorests!! (from spoof cited in DU

yesterday... the worst part of the Ann Coulter spoof was that it was indistinguishable from her normal ravings.)

[Eloriel]

2. Beautiful. Thank you! n/t

[KittyWampus]

4. NY Post- Rabid Right Wing Tabloid

equivalent to Fox News.

Impossible that it would give anything less than negative review.

[Cha]

6. Denver Rocky Mountain News is

a ritewing rag and I'll bet investigating those other papers will turn up the same.

[Cha]

5. This if Awesome! And I don't know if you've seen

this review..but, it's Amazing! And a direct finger at the media..

From the "Las Vegas Mercury" Four and 1/2 Stars!

snips~
Burning Bush: Fahrenheit 9/11 is a timely exposé of Dubya's perfidy and the media's subservience..
Where, indeed, is the question that informs every frame of Fahrenheit 9/11, an appalling and timely exposé of the connections, machinations, and financial dealings of the Bush administration. But as shocking as these are, the movie's most devastating indictment is reserved implicitly for our mainstream news media, whose indolence, subservience and cowardice appear immeasurable. As one horrifying image follows another, and each revelation is superseded by one even more disturbing, the deficiencies of the fourth estate cannot be ignored. Why is it left to Moore to present us with an uncensored copy of Bush's military records, and disclose coherently the highly suspect actions of Dubya's relatives in the 2000 election debacle? And how does Moore manage to embed his own camera crews in Iraq--obtaining footage of civilian casualties and abuse of Iraqi prisoners well before Abu Ghraib--while our networks feed us the pre-digested pablum prepared by the White House?

These questions are answered, after a fashion, by a brutal montage of televisual pandering and bias disguised as patriotism. But Fahrenheit 9/11 is only indirectly an anti-press polemic; drawing its title from the 1953 Ray Bradbury novel Fahrenheit 451--the temperature at which paper ignites--about a totalitarian society where books are illegal, the movie is an ambitious and earnest attempt to connect the dots of a story that begins with the 2000 election (and the disenfranchisement of thousands of black Floridians) and ends with the carnage in Iraq. More linear and less scattershot than any of Moore's previous films, Fahrenheit 9/11 examines the behavior of the Bush White House in the wake of the terrorist attacks and the influence of Saudi money on that behavior. Though 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, Bush refuses to investigate Saudi funding of al-Qaeda and speedily evacuates 24 members of the bin Laden family--long-term contributors to Bush's financial adventures--from the U.S. without questioning them. He even enjoys, two days after the towers fall, a congenial dinner with family friend and Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar (nickname: "Bandar Bush").

As a documentarian, Moore is no Frederick Wiseman, or even Errol Morris. But he possesses an unerring media sensibility and an unassuming, populist style aimed directly at those weary of unrelieved punditry. Coated with humor and propelled by a non-threatening intelligence, Moore's political barbs are all the more deadly, his influence on the upcoming election possibly as profound as the Bush family (and Disney) seem to fear. Either way, Fahrenheit 9/11 is a searing, startling piece of filmmaking and a heartfelt portrait of runaway greed and unfettered political arrogance.end snips~

Much more on Moore..
http://www.lasvegasmercury.com/2004/MERC-Jun-24-Thu-2004/24162082.html

[LittleApple81]

7. Wow...I hope this type of review makes undecided voters go an watch it.n/t

[Still_Loves_John]

8. I wonder how most reviewers are politically?

It would be interesting to see how this percentage relates to a right/left percentage.