This rebuttal to Fahrenheit 9/11 does a good job at exposing lies and half-truths in the Michael Moore blockbuster. But it's neither as lively nor as informative as it could have been. The most intriguing segments include interviews with subjects who feel they were misused by the left-of-center Moore. That includes a proud soldier whose image was sneakily included to promote Moore's anti-war message and the teacher whose class President George W. Bush was with when the 9/11 terrorist attacks occurred. More political are segments with the likes of former Clinton adviser Dick Morris and actor Ron Silver, who want everyone to know what's good about America and the Bush administration. Like Fahrenheit 9/11, it's a movie with a mission. And like Moore's films, it ain't perfect. If you're looking for a much better viewpoint opposing that of Moore, check out Michael Moore Hates America.
108 Reviews
Beware of documentaries promising the truth...
poochiedontsurf15 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
It is extremely unfortunate, given the spurious nature of Moore's movie, that far from being a fair and balanced appraisal of Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11 and the complex circumstances surrounding the global political situation post-9/11, Fahrenhype 9/11 in effect is attempting to do the same thing, only for a conservative audience.
As a rebuttal on a factual level, it works extremely well, pays attention to commonly used techniques by Moore that emotionally lead an audience in a particular direction, and brings up the interesting notion that all presidencies, all parties, are and have been just as bad as each other when it come to questionable political and business practices. Unfortunately, the audience also falls victim to the same kind of techniques that Peterson lambastes Moore for using: cuts, edits, camera angles, music, emotive characterisation, giving partial information: for anyone reasonably well informed about the global political climate, many of the 'facts' are easily challenged, and many film students will be able to distinguish the same techniques in use.
Fahrenhype does lay to rest many myths about the Bush presidency's modus operandi, and pays particular attention to a series of failures over the years preceding the current administration, but unfortunately, most of the blame goes on Clinton and pays little attention to the catalogue of errors and mistakes made in the Reagan and Bush Snr. eras.
Such is the partisan nature of this documentary.
As mentioned, it does work well as a rebuttal, but only during the first half of the film: the second is littered with mere opinion pandering to a particular audience, rather than any notions of a fair and balanced appraisal. It perceives an anti-war or questioning viewpoint on recent US Middle Eastern policy as inherently wrong and dangerous, and steps well away from the line dividing fact and opinion (Ann Coulter manages to make "liberal" rhyme with "scum" more than once).
It has a set audience: and for this audience it will do its job. However, for those of us wanting a balance of fact and the art of documentary making and an honest, non-partisan view of the current war between different ends of the political spectrum in the United States at the moment, you'd do better watching Mike Wilson's Michael Moore Hates America instead.
Like Fahrenheit, Fahrenhype is catering to a particular audience. It won't change your mind because the way it has been presented presumes it's already been made up.
As a rebuttal on a factual level, it works extremely well, pays attention to commonly used techniques by Moore that emotionally lead an audience in a particular direction, and brings up the interesting notion that all presidencies, all parties, are and have been just as bad as each other when it come to questionable political and business practices. Unfortunately, the audience also falls victim to the same kind of techniques that Peterson lambastes Moore for using: cuts, edits, camera angles, music, emotive characterisation, giving partial information: for anyone reasonably well informed about the global political climate, many of the 'facts' are easily challenged, and many film students will be able to distinguish the same techniques in use.
Fahrenhype does lay to rest many myths about the Bush presidency's modus operandi, and pays particular attention to a series of failures over the years preceding the current administration, but unfortunately, most of the blame goes on Clinton and pays little attention to the catalogue of errors and mistakes made in the Reagan and Bush Snr. eras.
Such is the partisan nature of this documentary.
As mentioned, it does work well as a rebuttal, but only during the first half of the film: the second is littered with mere opinion pandering to a particular audience, rather than any notions of a fair and balanced appraisal. It perceives an anti-war or questioning viewpoint on recent US Middle Eastern policy as inherently wrong and dangerous, and steps well away from the line dividing fact and opinion (Ann Coulter manages to make "liberal" rhyme with "scum" more than once).
It has a set audience: and for this audience it will do its job. However, for those of us wanting a balance of fact and the art of documentary making and an honest, non-partisan view of the current war between different ends of the political spectrum in the United States at the moment, you'd do better watching Mike Wilson's Michael Moore Hates America instead.
Like Fahrenheit, Fahrenhype is catering to a particular audience. It won't change your mind because the way it has been presented presumes it's already been made up.
Anti-Moore websites have more info than this movie
Ddey6514 February 2005
When I heard that Michael Moore was making Fahrenheit 9/11, the pseudo-documentary slandering President George W. Bush over his foreign policy in reaction to the 9/11 attacks, I knew I should avoid it. However I also realized that an organized boycott would simply work to his advantage. Still, I am so glad I didn't see Michael Moore's overly-hyped propaganda piece in a movie theater, because if I had it would've taken at least two or three ushers to throw me out of the theater for yelling back at every lie his crock-umentary suggests. Michael Moore wants the world to believe Americans are complete idiots. If they believe his movie is the truth, he's right. They'd be better off with this straight-to-video rebuttal. Anyone who dismisses this video as "Bush-propaganda," "Neocon propaganda," or "Republican propaganda," is overlooking the fact that a liberal Democrat like former New York City Mayor Ed Koch is interviewed denouncing Moore's highly-praised propaganda piece, and that Ron Silver, who supported Al Gore in 2000 narrates it. The claims that Bush "stole" the election is a lie. He simply didn't win the "popular" vote. The same has gone for Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, and even John F. Kennedy's election was considered to be clouded with suspicion by those who didn't like him. FDR, too had relations with the Saudi royal family as did many other Presidents, a fact which is used to disprove the Bush family's ties to Saudi Arabia and the Carlyle Group are part of some phantom cabal designed to destroy people's lives and get rich off their despair. It also tells viewers what Bush REALLY did in August 2001, which you can easily find out go to the White House's official website and looking up Bush's schedule for that month. America didn't "make" Osama Bin Laden. He made himself, and volunteered to kick the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. There have been plenty of members of the Mujahadeen who wanted nothing to do with people like Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omar. Oil has NOTHING to do with why we're at war in either Afghanistan OR Iraq. Terrorism DOES, because both Mullah Omar and Saddam Hussein supported terrorism. The facts that the Bush family has ties to Saudi Arabia, and the wealthy Bin Laden family, and that 15 of the 19 radical islamists who carried out 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia also means NOTHING!! The four others were from Egypt, Yemen, Lebanon, and the United Arab Emirates. Where's the Bush connection there? Using the same "logic" that Moore and the rest of the left use, ALL Americans and Canadians are guilty of the failed 1981 military coup in Dominica, simply because ten white supremacists from both countries were involved.
Are there problems with this movie? You bet. One of them is the fact that it includes the list of 59 Deciets of F-9/11 by Dave Kopel which claims that the Iraqi press advocated attacks on the United States, but provides no concrete evidence that liberals can deny. Another is the failure to use side-by-side comparisons between the footage of Reagan-era Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam Hussein with Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin from 40 years earlier. It also contains former Clinton adviser Dick Morris, who claims that Clinton snubbed offers by Sudan to take Osama Bin Laden into custody three times. I've heard this before but I've recently had my doubts about that accusation. And even if it were true, who in their right mind would trust a genocidal Islamic dictatorship like Sudan? What is true is that he passed up a chance to catch him during a planned CIA-Pakistani coup in Afghanistan, and Clinton himself regretted not doing so. All of this evidence and more could've been used in the bonus features this DVD is lacking. So while it's not devoid of facts, Fahren-hype 9/11 does tend to pass up the opportunity to use many others.
Defenders of Moore's movie have claimed that F-9/11 is not anti-American, but anti-Bush, and/or anti-Conservative. Moore's own words prove otherwise. After the 9/11 attacks Moore condemned stockbrokers in New York City for going back to work and trying to put the economy back on track. In Bowling for Columbine, as well as other occasions, he condemned America for fighting communist expansion in the third world, something which both Democrats and Republicans did during the cold war. None of these sound "anti-Bush" to me. I bought myself a copy of the 9/11 Commission's Report and have read other books and articles on the September 11 attacks, and I use them as guides to contradict the propaganda Moore and other 9/11 revisionists want us to believe. I've also added this movie, and you should too. But if you want to defeat historical revisionists like Moore, be sure to add more info to your arsenal than this.
Are there problems with this movie? You bet. One of them is the fact that it includes the list of 59 Deciets of F-9/11 by Dave Kopel which claims that the Iraqi press advocated attacks on the United States, but provides no concrete evidence that liberals can deny. Another is the failure to use side-by-side comparisons between the footage of Reagan-era Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam Hussein with Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin from 40 years earlier. It also contains former Clinton adviser Dick Morris, who claims that Clinton snubbed offers by Sudan to take Osama Bin Laden into custody three times. I've heard this before but I've recently had my doubts about that accusation. And even if it were true, who in their right mind would trust a genocidal Islamic dictatorship like Sudan? What is true is that he passed up a chance to catch him during a planned CIA-Pakistani coup in Afghanistan, and Clinton himself regretted not doing so. All of this evidence and more could've been used in the bonus features this DVD is lacking. So while it's not devoid of facts, Fahren-hype 9/11 does tend to pass up the opportunity to use many others.
Defenders of Moore's movie have claimed that F-9/11 is not anti-American, but anti-Bush, and/or anti-Conservative. Moore's own words prove otherwise. After the 9/11 attacks Moore condemned stockbrokers in New York City for going back to work and trying to put the economy back on track. In Bowling for Columbine, as well as other occasions, he condemned America for fighting communist expansion in the third world, something which both Democrats and Republicans did during the cold war. None of these sound "anti-Bush" to me. I bought myself a copy of the 9/11 Commission's Report and have read other books and articles on the September 11 attacks, and I use them as guides to contradict the propaganda Moore and other 9/11 revisionists want us to believe. I've also added this movie, and you should too. But if you want to defeat historical revisionists like Moore, be sure to add more info to your arsenal than this.
Dismantles Moore's Fiction
lighthousej18 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I'll begin by saying I have no party affiliation, I decide on each issue independently. I've also marked this comment as containing a spoiler just to be safe. I'm too unsure about IMDb's threshold between a comment with and without a spoiler but I didn't go into details.
Fahrenhype 9/11 clears the air that Michael Moore got dirty with Fahrenheit 9/11. This movie isn't pro-Democrat, and it's not really anti-Michael Moore because it doesn't attack him personally, it only attacks Michael's views put forth in his movie. This distinction is one of the best features of the movie overall, it has no agenda except to fix inconsistencies between Moore's points in Fahrenheit 9/11 and the truth.
In the movie, Moore presents everything in a very special way to illicit the maximum response and he has admitted that this movie is made to change the viewers mind. Once you realize that, you also realize that this movie ceases to become a documentary and it transforms into the textbook definition of propaganda, a work of art specifically tailored to change the minds of the target audience.
Fahrenhype 9/11 has people that were in Fahrenheit 9/11 expressing outrage about how they were portrayed and taken out of context. People include a mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, a wounded solider from Iraq that lost his arms in an accident and the Oregon State Trooper. They said in Fahrenhype 9/11 that if they knew they'd be in a piece of liberal propaganda, that they never would have agreed to it.
I am glad this movie was made because people spent the time and effort to refute the unsupported claims by Moore with authoritative facts from political documents and individuals and finally set the record straight. Every person that watched Fahrenheit 9/11 should watch this movie too so you hear both sides of the issues.
Fahrenhype 9/11 clears the air that Michael Moore got dirty with Fahrenheit 9/11. This movie isn't pro-Democrat, and it's not really anti-Michael Moore because it doesn't attack him personally, it only attacks Michael's views put forth in his movie. This distinction is one of the best features of the movie overall, it has no agenda except to fix inconsistencies between Moore's points in Fahrenheit 9/11 and the truth.
In the movie, Moore presents everything in a very special way to illicit the maximum response and he has admitted that this movie is made to change the viewers mind. Once you realize that, you also realize that this movie ceases to become a documentary and it transforms into the textbook definition of propaganda, a work of art specifically tailored to change the minds of the target audience.
Fahrenhype 9/11 has people that were in Fahrenheit 9/11 expressing outrage about how they were portrayed and taken out of context. People include a mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, a wounded solider from Iraq that lost his arms in an accident and the Oregon State Trooper. They said in Fahrenhype 9/11 that if they knew they'd be in a piece of liberal propaganda, that they never would have agreed to it.
I am glad this movie was made because people spent the time and effort to refute the unsupported claims by Moore with authoritative facts from political documents and individuals and finally set the record straight. Every person that watched Fahrenheit 9/11 should watch this movie too so you hear both sides of the issues.
Uses every debate fallacy in the book, all to no avail
imdb-479827 October 2004
If you can't discredit the facts, discredit the source. Nit pick tiny little things. I was really hoping for a cogent, intelligent response to F9/11 because that movie really moved me. I like to see both sides of the issue, and if this is the best they have on that movie, then my position is solidified.
Not to mention that they used Hitler and the Nazi's (with accompanying stock footage) in comparisons to Al Qaeda, Saddam, and finally, Michael Moore himself. Heard of Godwin's Law, anyone?
I am thoroughly disappointed in this picture, that ignores glaring lies and untruths, talks out of both sides of mouths at the same time, and really just uses small insignificant facts to try and impugn Moore's film.
All in all, it was pretty boring. Ann Coulter is generally good for a laugh, but not here. If you want truth, look elsewhere. What a shame.
Not to mention that they used Hitler and the Nazi's (with accompanying stock footage) in comparisons to Al Qaeda, Saddam, and finally, Michael Moore himself. Heard of Godwin's Law, anyone?
I am thoroughly disappointed in this picture, that ignores glaring lies and untruths, talks out of both sides of mouths at the same time, and really just uses small insignificant facts to try and impugn Moore's film.
All in all, it was pretty boring. Ann Coulter is generally good for a laugh, but not here. If you want truth, look elsewhere. What a shame.
Pity it wasn't serious work...
LorienTheFirstOne31 October 2004
Just watched this, full of anxiety to see if things "are not as they were presented by Moore" or not.
Instead , i see a bunch of people talking, no proof, and more Moore-bashing ,than Bush-supporting (which should make you think).
I've read some of the "lies" on the internet about Moore's film, and i've read tha facts on Moore's site. And honestly, Moore provides far more support and credibility to his words. Just go check it out.
Also , what bothers me a lot, is that people are missing the point. In many levels. The point I got from Moore's film was that it is highly probable that powerful men are constructing bigger lies than what i though ! The point wasn't if, the damn plane full of Saudis left on 14th or 13th !
Also,I didn't perceive ANY disrespect towards soldiers from Moore's film, like this film attempts to convince. The disrespect was towards the people who sent the young men to such wars.
I'm not republican and i'm not democrat. I'm a person who thinks and filters what he hears.
Its not easy to know what really happened and what not. But for sure, a government that has upset the whole globe, cannot be believed just because "there' republicans". And neither can the media controlled by them.
Just keep an open mind, read all you can, THEN form an opinion.
Instead , i see a bunch of people talking, no proof, and more Moore-bashing ,than Bush-supporting (which should make you think).
I've read some of the "lies" on the internet about Moore's film, and i've read tha facts on Moore's site. And honestly, Moore provides far more support and credibility to his words. Just go check it out.
Also , what bothers me a lot, is that people are missing the point. In many levels. The point I got from Moore's film was that it is highly probable that powerful men are constructing bigger lies than what i though ! The point wasn't if, the damn plane full of Saudis left on 14th or 13th !
Also,I didn't perceive ANY disrespect towards soldiers from Moore's film, like this film attempts to convince. The disrespect was towards the people who sent the young men to such wars.
I'm not republican and i'm not democrat. I'm a person who thinks and filters what he hears.
Its not easy to know what really happened and what not. But for sure, a government that has upset the whole globe, cannot be believed just because "there' republicans". And neither can the media controlled by them.
Just keep an open mind, read all you can, THEN form an opinion.
Interesting...
joelmbain18 March 2005
I have now watched both Fahrenheit 9/11 and Fahrenhype 9/11 and it is evident that both films, in my opinion contain biases that influence largely the desired end of the film.
The problem with contrasting the two films is the discussion of who has the burden of proof? Many reviewers state that Fahrenhype 9/11 has no proof to disprove the accusations and conclusions of Fahrenheit 9/11, but Fahrenheit is lacking the clear, solid proof to justify Moore's speculation of the Bush administration's activities. Who has the burden of proof? Is it the producers of Fahrenhype 9/11 who are trying to refute Moore's film or is it Michael Moore who speculates about the various alleged lies of the Bush administration? Neither film clearly proves their opinion, but instead gives usually shaky evidence, although both at times have critically thought out premises of their arguments.
After watching Fahrenheit 9/11, I must admit I felt largely like there was a much more concerted effort on Moore's part to get me to believe what he believes about the Bush administration, perhaps Moore feels some urgency for people to examine the actions of President Bush. With Fahrenhype 9/11, I can't say I felt the same pressure to believe what they are preaching.
Both films are effective in that they both raise discussion about the known facts and what we know about the surrounding events. Neither, however, are give good enough grounds to truly influence one's political doctrine. Both films prey on the viewer's naiveness and they both challenge the viewer to question what is being told to them, whether it is the US Government speaking or it is Michael Moore.
The problem with contrasting the two films is the discussion of who has the burden of proof? Many reviewers state that Fahrenhype 9/11 has no proof to disprove the accusations and conclusions of Fahrenheit 9/11, but Fahrenheit is lacking the clear, solid proof to justify Moore's speculation of the Bush administration's activities. Who has the burden of proof? Is it the producers of Fahrenhype 9/11 who are trying to refute Moore's film or is it Michael Moore who speculates about the various alleged lies of the Bush administration? Neither film clearly proves their opinion, but instead gives usually shaky evidence, although both at times have critically thought out premises of their arguments.
After watching Fahrenheit 9/11, I must admit I felt largely like there was a much more concerted effort on Moore's part to get me to believe what he believes about the Bush administration, perhaps Moore feels some urgency for people to examine the actions of President Bush. With Fahrenhype 9/11, I can't say I felt the same pressure to believe what they are preaching.
Both films are effective in that they both raise discussion about the known facts and what we know about the surrounding events. Neither, however, are give good enough grounds to truly influence one's political doctrine. Both films prey on the viewer's naiveness and they both challenge the viewer to question what is being told to them, whether it is the US Government speaking or it is Michael Moore.
Part 4.
Anonymous_Maxine11 November 2004
As Ron Silver states, given enough stock footage of Michael Moore, you could make him look like an anorexic right-winger. As an editor myself, I can tell you without a doubt that this is absolutely true.
So why then does the movie resort to exactly the same tactics that it condemns? Are we to assume that Ann Coulter had a hand in the script? That would certainly lead to a satisfactory conclusion, since the first chapter of her vicious book Slander is concerned with savagely attacking liberals for resorting to such childish tactics as name calling, and the remaining 200 pages or so are concerned with calling liberals every name imaginable. Coulter's hypocrisy is counterbalanced only by its immediacy, as is also the case with much of the material in this movie.
It does go to great lengths to defend the Patriot Act, which is highly unpopular with organizations like the American Civil Liberties Act, which in turn is highly unpopular with conservatives in general. Fahrenhype states a couple of cases in which the Patriot Act was effective, countering an assertion that Moore did not make, that its costs outweighed the benefits. Moore's sequence on the Patriot Act was centered on the shocking revelation that the Act itself was not even read before it was passed.
I'm reminded of something Homer Simpson once said, 'Wait a minute, I don't sign anything until I read it or someone gives me the gist of it.' Let me just tell you right now, that statement is MUCH funnier coming from Homer Simpson than it is coming from high level government officials.
But that's just a detail, a little fact to be ignored. Let's just present a case illustrating what the Patriot Act was designed for and hope that people forget the reduction of civil liberties that it entails, the ways that it has been and continues to be abused, and the fact that John Kerry has stated he has no plans to dismantle it, only to restructure it to prevent its wholesale abuse.
By far the funniest part of the movie is unintentionally funny but is absolutely hilarious and also because of the juxtaposition of images, just like Moore's juxtaposition of dancing kids and marriage ceremonies with falling bombs. There's a scene where a man says that it is arrogantly mean-spirited to say that Bush wanted a reason to invade Iraq even before the 9/11 attacks. This is hilarious because immediately after this ludicrous statement is made, it cuts to Ann Coulter, quite possibly the most arrogant and mean-spirited person in news, entertainment, political commentary, or publishing on any side of the political spectrum. I almost fell out of my chair laughing. A movie featuring Ann Coulter calling someone ELSE mean-spirited. That's like Michael Savage calling someone other than himself a racist.
Another example of a botched attack is Fahrenhype's attack of Moore's outrageous claim that Saddam Hussein never attacked or threatened to attack this country. On the other hand, Hussein DID try to have Bush Sr. assassinated (note: he tried to kill Clinton, too), but this movie is so inept that it cites as evidence threats against America that took place AFTER Bush invaded Iraq (see below).
'He's not happy that he's occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either!' -President George W. Bush, in reference to Saddam Hussein
One guy stupidly uses a nest of copperhead snakes, which are immensely poisonous, as a ludicrous example of Bush's and Kerry's alleged strategies for conducting a war on terror. He uses one of the weakest attacks imaginable in all of debate, which is to twist the other side's position so badly that it is entirely unrecognizable. This is generally an attack used by religious extremists to attack the Evolution. He foolishly says that he didn't go ask the City Council or his wife to ask permission to kill the garter snakes, he just lopped their heads off with a ho because his grandchildren and great-grandchildren play in the area and a single snake bite would kill any one of them. The only way this analogy could be compared to Iraq is if, rather than using a ho to kill the snakes, he used a stick of dynamite, and in addition to killing the garter snakes, he also accidentally killed a dozen or so innocent bystanders, at least one of his grandchildren, injured his wife, lost at least two appendages himself (arm or leg) but not more than three, ignored the loud requests of his neighbors to use a ho rather than a stick of dynamite, and angered all of the copperhead snakes in the area to the point where they decided that their reason for existence was to get revenge against him and anyone who looks like him. THEN you have an apt analogy.
It's really sad to see a movie come out with the purported purpose of setting the record straight, of revealing what they believe is the propaganda of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, and succeed in doing nothing more than creating a whole film full of propaganda themselves. It truly is telling this movie features a political cartoon that shows Michael Moore standing in front of the burning World Trade Center, trying to cover it up and telling people 'There's nothing to see here.' I assume we are meant to believe that these people watched and studied Fahrenheit 9/11 and therefore know what's in it. So how is it that they so completely missed the scene where Moore played the audio of the planes hitting the World Trade Center, as well as footage of the horrified faces of New Yorkers looking up in horror as the towers collapsed? Are they maybe attacking him for just playing the AUDIO of the attacks and not actually SHOWING the footage? Do they think that he hoped people in the audience wouldn't know what was going on? The lack of any basis for attack here is indeed unsettling.
Then again, Fahrenhype also suggests that Michael Moore's film tries to knock our liberty and claim that we don't have any, which is a curious claim because Fahrenheit 9/11 has absolutely NOTHING to do with liberty or our supposed lack of it under Bush's administration. Nothing. It's about the corruption of that administration and the badly botched war or terror and the even worse handling of and reason for the war in Iraq. Among the countless others, this is one of the best illustrations of how wrong this movie is.
This is not, however, to say that Michael Moore's film is right and to be taken as gospel. In fact, after they finish making this idiotic claim, the film cuts back to Gwen Tose-Rigell, Principal of Booker Elementary, who proposes the question, does it have to take a catastrophe 'in order for us to do some introspection and make America the great country that it was destined to be?'
That's a great question, Mrs. Tose-Rigell, and a good one to submit to the president, because introspection, even the most fleeting moment's thought about why we are so hated in the world, is the one thing that George W. Bush will not even consider.
So why then does the movie resort to exactly the same tactics that it condemns? Are we to assume that Ann Coulter had a hand in the script? That would certainly lead to a satisfactory conclusion, since the first chapter of her vicious book Slander is concerned with savagely attacking liberals for resorting to such childish tactics as name calling, and the remaining 200 pages or so are concerned with calling liberals every name imaginable. Coulter's hypocrisy is counterbalanced only by its immediacy, as is also the case with much of the material in this movie.
It does go to great lengths to defend the Patriot Act, which is highly unpopular with organizations like the American Civil Liberties Act, which in turn is highly unpopular with conservatives in general. Fahrenhype states a couple of cases in which the Patriot Act was effective, countering an assertion that Moore did not make, that its costs outweighed the benefits. Moore's sequence on the Patriot Act was centered on the shocking revelation that the Act itself was not even read before it was passed.
I'm reminded of something Homer Simpson once said, 'Wait a minute, I don't sign anything until I read it or someone gives me the gist of it.' Let me just tell you right now, that statement is MUCH funnier coming from Homer Simpson than it is coming from high level government officials.
But that's just a detail, a little fact to be ignored. Let's just present a case illustrating what the Patriot Act was designed for and hope that people forget the reduction of civil liberties that it entails, the ways that it has been and continues to be abused, and the fact that John Kerry has stated he has no plans to dismantle it, only to restructure it to prevent its wholesale abuse.
By far the funniest part of the movie is unintentionally funny but is absolutely hilarious and also because of the juxtaposition of images, just like Moore's juxtaposition of dancing kids and marriage ceremonies with falling bombs. There's a scene where a man says that it is arrogantly mean-spirited to say that Bush wanted a reason to invade Iraq even before the 9/11 attacks. This is hilarious because immediately after this ludicrous statement is made, it cuts to Ann Coulter, quite possibly the most arrogant and mean-spirited person in news, entertainment, political commentary, or publishing on any side of the political spectrum. I almost fell out of my chair laughing. A movie featuring Ann Coulter calling someone ELSE mean-spirited. That's like Michael Savage calling someone other than himself a racist.
Another example of a botched attack is Fahrenhype's attack of Moore's outrageous claim that Saddam Hussein never attacked or threatened to attack this country. On the other hand, Hussein DID try to have Bush Sr. assassinated (note: he tried to kill Clinton, too), but this movie is so inept that it cites as evidence threats against America that took place AFTER Bush invaded Iraq (see below).
'He's not happy that he's occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either!' -President George W. Bush, in reference to Saddam Hussein
One guy stupidly uses a nest of copperhead snakes, which are immensely poisonous, as a ludicrous example of Bush's and Kerry's alleged strategies for conducting a war on terror. He uses one of the weakest attacks imaginable in all of debate, which is to twist the other side's position so badly that it is entirely unrecognizable. This is generally an attack used by religious extremists to attack the Evolution. He foolishly says that he didn't go ask the City Council or his wife to ask permission to kill the garter snakes, he just lopped their heads off with a ho because his grandchildren and great-grandchildren play in the area and a single snake bite would kill any one of them. The only way this analogy could be compared to Iraq is if, rather than using a ho to kill the snakes, he used a stick of dynamite, and in addition to killing the garter snakes, he also accidentally killed a dozen or so innocent bystanders, at least one of his grandchildren, injured his wife, lost at least two appendages himself (arm or leg) but not more than three, ignored the loud requests of his neighbors to use a ho rather than a stick of dynamite, and angered all of the copperhead snakes in the area to the point where they decided that their reason for existence was to get revenge against him and anyone who looks like him. THEN you have an apt analogy.
It's really sad to see a movie come out with the purported purpose of setting the record straight, of revealing what they believe is the propaganda of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, and succeed in doing nothing more than creating a whole film full of propaganda themselves. It truly is telling this movie features a political cartoon that shows Michael Moore standing in front of the burning World Trade Center, trying to cover it up and telling people 'There's nothing to see here.' I assume we are meant to believe that these people watched and studied Fahrenheit 9/11 and therefore know what's in it. So how is it that they so completely missed the scene where Moore played the audio of the planes hitting the World Trade Center, as well as footage of the horrified faces of New Yorkers looking up in horror as the towers collapsed? Are they maybe attacking him for just playing the AUDIO of the attacks and not actually SHOWING the footage? Do they think that he hoped people in the audience wouldn't know what was going on? The lack of any basis for attack here is indeed unsettling.
Then again, Fahrenhype also suggests that Michael Moore's film tries to knock our liberty and claim that we don't have any, which is a curious claim because Fahrenheit 9/11 has absolutely NOTHING to do with liberty or our supposed lack of it under Bush's administration. Nothing. It's about the corruption of that administration and the badly botched war or terror and the even worse handling of and reason for the war in Iraq. Among the countless others, this is one of the best illustrations of how wrong this movie is.
This is not, however, to say that Michael Moore's film is right and to be taken as gospel. In fact, after they finish making this idiotic claim, the film cuts back to Gwen Tose-Rigell, Principal of Booker Elementary, who proposes the question, does it have to take a catastrophe 'in order for us to do some introspection and make America the great country that it was destined to be?'
That's a great question, Mrs. Tose-Rigell, and a good one to submit to the president, because introspection, even the most fleeting moment's thought about why we are so hated in the world, is the one thing that George W. Bush will not even consider.
A compelling movie showing the deception of Michael Moore
sweeperback44 March 2006
For a long while, i was undecided. I liked bush, didn't like bush, yadda yadda yadda.
I saw Fahrenheight 9/11 and thought "hmm. wow. thats... really bad." and i KNEW that this couldn't be true.
About a month ago i saw Fahrenhype 9/11 and my suspicions were true.
Rearraging articles, cutting video, and bringing images together in a way not showing the real truth is what Michael Moore did throughout the entire movie. Its funny how in "Bowling For Columbine" he never blamed Republicans on gun control ONCE! he explained how the media is mostly responsible.
Then, a market becomes available for people who walk around wearing "FUCK BUSH!" pins. oh joy! So thats all he did. Michael more used horrible manners to deceive the public in showing Fahrenhight 9/11. He capatilized off the growing "hate" for Bush and made a movie. The mass media is liberal, and he just used that as an advantage. Its funny how he was criticizing the same media in his last movie. All he wanted is money.
I knew I was in for a real treat when i found Fahrenhype 9/11, and every suspicion and doubt came true. Michael Moore is childish, foolish, and uses corruption and other horrible means to get a point across to the public - a completely false point - so he can make some money.
Great movie, highly recommend for democrats/republicans/independent/whatever.
I saw Fahrenheight 9/11 and thought "hmm. wow. thats... really bad." and i KNEW that this couldn't be true.
About a month ago i saw Fahrenhype 9/11 and my suspicions were true.
Rearraging articles, cutting video, and bringing images together in a way not showing the real truth is what Michael Moore did throughout the entire movie. Its funny how in "Bowling For Columbine" he never blamed Republicans on gun control ONCE! he explained how the media is mostly responsible.
Then, a market becomes available for people who walk around wearing "FUCK BUSH!" pins. oh joy! So thats all he did. Michael more used horrible manners to deceive the public in showing Fahrenhight 9/11. He capatilized off the growing "hate" for Bush and made a movie. The mass media is liberal, and he just used that as an advantage. Its funny how he was criticizing the same media in his last movie. All he wanted is money.
I knew I was in for a real treat when i found Fahrenhype 9/11, and every suspicion and doubt came true. Michael Moore is childish, foolish, and uses corruption and other horrible means to get a point across to the public - a completely false point - so he can make some money.
Great movie, highly recommend for democrats/republicans/independent/whatever.
An effective counter to Moore's polemic propaganda
daveshubcaps-17 April 2005
Let's drop the polarized nonsense and tell the truth about this movie and it's counterpart. Neither of these are worth consideration of either a 10 or a 1. All that is is further extension of the partisan nonsense we continue to find ourselves embroiled in.
Now, as for this flick. Is it entertaining? To a certain degree, it is. Zell Miller's analogy of the copperhead snake under the porch is simply wonderful, and Ron Silver is as witty as they come. However, a movie like this is not meant as entertainment.
Is it well made? For being a low budget documentary, it comes across rather well.
Here's the most important question: Is it effective in getting it's point across. I have to answer emphatically, yes! It has been well documented, not only by this movie but elsewhere (Dave Kopel's 59 Deceits in F9/11 web page is the most comprehensive I've seen), that Micheal Moore uses "truth" and "facts" in such a manner as to present a misleading picture. This movie goes a long way in deconstructing Moore's methods, and supplying the context Moore often leaves out.
Do I think it's the greatest movie ever? Sorry, that place will forever be held in my mind by Star Wars. But I do think that it is an effective little documentary that acts as a counter to Moore's polemic propaganda.
7/10
Now, as for this flick. Is it entertaining? To a certain degree, it is. Zell Miller's analogy of the copperhead snake under the porch is simply wonderful, and Ron Silver is as witty as they come. However, a movie like this is not meant as entertainment.
Is it well made? For being a low budget documentary, it comes across rather well.
Here's the most important question: Is it effective in getting it's point across. I have to answer emphatically, yes! It has been well documented, not only by this movie but elsewhere (Dave Kopel's 59 Deceits in F9/11 web page is the most comprehensive I've seen), that Micheal Moore uses "truth" and "facts" in such a manner as to present a misleading picture. This movie goes a long way in deconstructing Moore's methods, and supplying the context Moore often leaves out.
Do I think it's the greatest movie ever? Sorry, that place will forever be held in my mind by Star Wars. But I do think that it is an effective little documentary that acts as a counter to Moore's polemic propaganda.
7/10
Childish counter-attack
revuedude12 March 2008
This film really is more about attacking "liberalism" than it is about attacking Michael Moore. Granted they do go after him, but it quickly degenerates into something else. It also takes Moore's ridiculous tongue-in-cheek satirical style and turns it into something much more deplorable. Moore surely knows how to mock, and to slant things, but he does not play nearly as fast and loose with the truth as the makers of this film. And the minute I saw Ann Coulter I knew where it was really coming from. I mean, really, does anyone actually believe the horrible trash that she spews? Youtube her and you'll quickly discover how hateful this woman really is.
A pretty fair rebuttal to Fahrenheit 911
LiberalConservative15 February 2006
OK...I admit it, this film was not as polished as a Michael Moore documentary. However, anyone who rates Fahrenheit as high and rates Fahrenhype as low, is not being fair. They're probably the same people who rail against Bush as a liar, but when Michael does it, it's no big deal.
When I watched Fahrenheit I was upset to learn of "secret" ties between the Bush's and the Bin Laden's of Saudi Arabia. I was upset to learn of the pipeline through Afghanistan, but I was more upset (when watching Fahrenhype) to learn that Michael got his facts wrong.
Fahrenhype uncovers blatant falsehoods on a "somewhat" point by point comparison to Fahrenheit. I appreciate investigative journalism...our free press is a wonderful thing. However, Michael Moore's is not investigative journalism...it is a nothing more than political propaganda. Fahrenhype is, at the very least, a competent rebuttal to his film.
Obviously there is a convervative slant to Fahrenhype. Obviously there are statements made that liberals will not agree with, but if you want to balance Michael's viewpoint, you should definitely watch this film.
When I watched Fahrenheit I was upset to learn of "secret" ties between the Bush's and the Bin Laden's of Saudi Arabia. I was upset to learn of the pipeline through Afghanistan, but I was more upset (when watching Fahrenhype) to learn that Michael got his facts wrong.
Fahrenhype uncovers blatant falsehoods on a "somewhat" point by point comparison to Fahrenheit. I appreciate investigative journalism...our free press is a wonderful thing. However, Michael Moore's is not investigative journalism...it is a nothing more than political propaganda. Fahrenhype is, at the very least, a competent rebuttal to his film.
Obviously there is a convervative slant to Fahrenhype. Obviously there are statements made that liberals will not agree with, but if you want to balance Michael's viewpoint, you should definitely watch this film.
and now, the REST of the story
jssoprano10 October 2006
This film DOES debunk the fanatical Moore's propaganda film in which he tries to show a link between Al Quaida and President Bush. In Farenhype 9/11 they even show some actual people used in Moore's film, giving their true side of the story, and stating that they were taken completely out of context by Moore. A soldier states how the information he gave in Moore's film was twisted into making you believe something totally untrue. I believe that if you watch Farenheit 9/11 and are moved by it and believe it to be factual, then you must watch Farenhype 9/11 to move you back and set you straight. Farenheit was well made but crafted as a smear campaign to guide people not to vote for President Bush. The timing of the movie was perfect. But Farenhype 9/11 gives the other side of the story so people can judge for themselves. Just like Fox News does, they report both sides, you decide.
Thrown together in a rush.
Nirvanabreed5944-130 October 2004
This movie has made me appreciate Michael Moore with a new fervor. Not because of his political views, but because he knows how to make an interesting film. This film loses focus 10 minutes in to the film and jumps around from there on. About half of the movie is irrelevant to the rest of the movie.
I enjoy documentaries and wasn't expecting as much comedy as one of Moore's, but I expected some interesting points to be made. There weren't. There was nothing that jumps out at you, or any revelations to be made. This movie would have been more effective as a 10 page report.
The points made to discredit Moore have no effect at all. There's an entire segment on the fact that he changed the format of a newspaper article that flashes by the screen, that no one would read.
Most of the movie isn't even about discrediting Moore, as most would lead you to believe. It's about saying how great of a leader President Bush is. Not in conjuction with disproving Michael Moore's statements, but getting off the point completely. Which would be great if that's how it was advertised. I'm all for positive campaigning instead of just discrediting the other guy. But stay focused. Michael Moore didn't say how great any of the democrats were in Fahrenheit, because it would take away from making his points about Bush.
Basically, the movie was made to discredit Michael Moore. This, like most attacks on a movie, just add to the money the movie makes. Don't watch this movie unless you feel the need to sit through an hour and a half of bad film-making. The reason why Moore's films are so popular is because they entertain, not just the political aspects. I seriously hope that the conservatives can get someone who can actually make a good film while making a point next time.
I enjoy documentaries and wasn't expecting as much comedy as one of Moore's, but I expected some interesting points to be made. There weren't. There was nothing that jumps out at you, or any revelations to be made. This movie would have been more effective as a 10 page report.
The points made to discredit Moore have no effect at all. There's an entire segment on the fact that he changed the format of a newspaper article that flashes by the screen, that no one would read.
Most of the movie isn't even about discrediting Moore, as most would lead you to believe. It's about saying how great of a leader President Bush is. Not in conjuction with disproving Michael Moore's statements, but getting off the point completely. Which would be great if that's how it was advertised. I'm all for positive campaigning instead of just discrediting the other guy. But stay focused. Michael Moore didn't say how great any of the democrats were in Fahrenheit, because it would take away from making his points about Bush.
Basically, the movie was made to discredit Michael Moore. This, like most attacks on a movie, just add to the money the movie makes. Don't watch this movie unless you feel the need to sit through an hour and a half of bad film-making. The reason why Moore's films are so popular is because they entertain, not just the political aspects. I seriously hope that the conservatives can get someone who can actually make a good film while making a point next time.
Debunks F 9/11 in a fashion of Non-Partisanship for the most part.
impropriety22 October 2004
This film is basically the film adaptation of the Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 911.
The star of the show, Dick Morris... Is someone I can take as truthful... As he actually worked for the Clinton administration as a head executive. Morris and a few Neo Cons like Ann Coulter and a appearance by myself, Zell Miller... Make commentaries on what information Moore had and apply it to what had actually happened.
The coverage of the myths is pretty solid... Except for the Patriot Act... Which they cover the benefits and not the downfalls of it.
But other than that... They basically debunk Moore's lies with a lot of credibility.
I have seen Liberals commenting on this stating that it is stupid, and untrue... I wonder how many of those same people even questioned Moore's conclusions on a lot of things.
The star of the show, Dick Morris... Is someone I can take as truthful... As he actually worked for the Clinton administration as a head executive. Morris and a few Neo Cons like Ann Coulter and a appearance by myself, Zell Miller... Make commentaries on what information Moore had and apply it to what had actually happened.
The coverage of the myths is pretty solid... Except for the Patriot Act... Which they cover the benefits and not the downfalls of it.
But other than that... They basically debunk Moore's lies with a lot of credibility.
I have seen Liberals commenting on this stating that it is stupid, and untrue... I wonder how many of those same people even questioned Moore's conclusions on a lot of things.
Might be good for some in 2004, but a total failure in todays time
kevin95518 March 2010
In 2004 someone got angry on Michael Moore and made this movie as a rebuttal to Fahrenheit 9/11. I understand that makers of this film were too concentrated in proving Fahrenheit 9/11 as fraudulent in its message.
Well its 2010, wake up fellas and see around yourself. You cant sell Lies forever (specially when they are told in a stupid way).
This is a cheap publicity documentary which faded with time whereas the Original Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 still delivers the right message.
Avoid it.
Well its 2010, wake up fellas and see around yourself. You cant sell Lies forever (specially when they are told in a stupid way).
This is a cheap publicity documentary which faded with time whereas the Original Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 still delivers the right message.
Avoid it.
Fighting lies with lies
Tvduijn1 November 2004
"if you lose faith in yourself, in you own country, in the USA, you have undermined the only really consistent force for good in the world"
This arrogant ending of the movie sais everything, where Moore interviewed a small amounth of people against bush and the war, in this movie they just interview a few pro-bush/war people, it sais NOTHING about the truth simply because there radical sides. And as citizen of the Netherlands I see it as an insult that they call the USA the only force for good. Thanks for you appreciation to other country's that joined the war in Iraq and have fought in dozens of other conflicts for the UN.
This arrogant ending of the movie sais everything, where Moore interviewed a small amounth of people against bush and the war, in this movie they just interview a few pro-bush/war people, it sais NOTHING about the truth simply because there radical sides. And as citizen of the Netherlands I see it as an insult that they call the USA the only force for good. Thanks for you appreciation to other country's that joined the war in Iraq and have fought in dozens of other conflicts for the UN.
Must-See for Fahrenheit 9/11 Fans
ynhockey20 April 2005
At first when I started watching this movie (after having seen Fahrenheit), I thought it was quite boring and offered absolutely no proof for its claims.
Then the pace picked up and became more convincing. The climax came when interviewees from Fahrenheit talked about how the things they said in Fahrenheit were taken out of context, and about how they never even suspected they were going to be in an anti-Bush film.
A documentary can show archived footage, documents, etc. to prove its point (like Fahrenheit did), but in the end, all of it isn't so difficult to manipulate and it's possible to make a convincing documentary where 90% of the information is a big lie (i.e. Jenin Jenin). However, when you see people from the actual movie saying they meant completely different things, this is solid proof that cannot be faked or manipulated.
Therefore, if I were to watch just the first half of each film, Fahrenheit would be so much better. With the second half though, this movie, Fahrenhype 9/11, convinced me much better.
A must-see for everyone who has seen (and enjoyed) Fahrenheit 9/11 - so you aren't left with just a one-sided argument.
Then the pace picked up and became more convincing. The climax came when interviewees from Fahrenheit talked about how the things they said in Fahrenheit were taken out of context, and about how they never even suspected they were going to be in an anti-Bush film.
A documentary can show archived footage, documents, etc. to prove its point (like Fahrenheit did), but in the end, all of it isn't so difficult to manipulate and it's possible to make a convincing documentary where 90% of the information is a big lie (i.e. Jenin Jenin). However, when you see people from the actual movie saying they meant completely different things, this is solid proof that cannot be faked or manipulated.
Therefore, if I were to watch just the first half of each film, Fahrenheit would be so much better. With the second half though, this movie, Fahrenhype 9/11, convinced me much better.
A must-see for everyone who has seen (and enjoyed) Fahrenheit 9/11 - so you aren't left with just a one-sided argument.
what pitiful trash
Reno-0076 August 2008
Yes, yes a movie for all the righties who hate the fact that Mike Moore has exposed them for what they truly are. I like to see both sides of any issue and this is proof of how desperate the right wing in this country is to make people believe all of their trash. This had no concrete evidence and the fact that it was a hiccup direct to video crap, says it all. Moore's movie was a blockbuster second to the Passion of the Christ that year, and the Passion was a great film. When you have the likes of filthy liars like Dick Morris, Ann Coulter and that sad pathetic old man Zell Miller, well don't expect an "unbiased" opinion. This piece of yesterday's toilet paper was put together so shabbily that it reeks of a high school production, although I've seen those that would top this vomit any time. In the end it's a pathetic response that is just right wing propaganda trying to spin their story and hoping that any one with half a brain in their head will believe all the trash that was spewed out in this crappy DVD. And as I've read other reviews that the sheeple out there who have grass seed for brains are convinced that this is the truth. Fortunately for most Americans we don't buy into their line of thinking and they hate it. If you're a good ole George W. Bush guy that hates them darned libs, by all means, light some candles, break out a bottle of Dom and make an evening of it patting yourself on the back and continue to live in make believe land. But for the smart intellectual people who want to see the other side, you'd spend better time counting the clouds in the sky than watch this pitiful filth.
Outstanding!
FunInTheSun201627 March 2005
What else must be said! This film has people that are Democrats and did not vote for President Bush, yet they are against mike Moore. Really! Should we think about this more? You should not have to, nevertheless some people still think that this documentary is bogus and is all lies! How can you think that when Fahrenheit 9/11 blast President Bush for everything yet think that Moore is OK to say whatever he wants to say? Second Afghanistan had to be invaded to get the terrorist out of control. Remember what happen on Sept 11th? We could not let that go. Tell yourself what you like, I agree that President Bush has made some mistakes, but Moore tells you what he wants to tell, and that is not always the truth. He used soldiers without there OK! He used a funeral, a time to say things that a family should say to a lost one, in his film. How shallow is that? There are countless articles printed by major newspapers that show these facts!!
"You knew it was a lie, now you'll know why"
bigdanman487-16 November 2004
This couldn't be more true, it should say "you knew he was a lying anti- American, now you will know why". This movie is a 75 minute look at the lying and distortion of facts in the DOCUMENTARY (Incredible that a propaganda film can be labeled this) "Fahrenheit 911". Now, I would like all to know that i have seen Fahrenheit 911 twice, and I must admit I found it relatively entertaining. Moore does bring up some descent points, however, you must be able to sift through partial truths, and completely false statements. After viewing this movie in a theater on the day it came out, I left physically sick from seeing people stand and applaud, understanding that they must know nothing about politics or otherwise they would have been like I was, disgusted. I am so incredibly thankful that somebody brought out a film that lets the public know the truth behind a lie that makes America, Americans, and our brave military look like gun slinging, brutally violent, racists. Unfortunately the liberal media has barely even mentioned this film, so many do not know. Please see it yourself, and let everyone know about it.
Waste of time
spat-0682512 December 2018
Great movie with good guests
stefanlaakso20 December 2006
This movie is another great retort to Michael Moore's collection of ramblings.
It debunks several of Moore's presuppositions and incoherent ramblings.
The movie features many important politicians like Ed Koch (former NY Mayor), Zell Miller (Senator) as well as famous political commentators like Ann Coulter (my favorite)....and the very same teacher who was with the president on September the Eleventh. She helped to clear many kook misunderstandings about that morning.
The Most important part I think is the interview with the injured war veteran who also appeared on Moore's movie except in that case it was out of context and without his permission.
I recommend anyone see it and show it to others (if that is within the legal perimeters.)
It debunks several of Moore's presuppositions and incoherent ramblings.
The movie features many important politicians like Ed Koch (former NY Mayor), Zell Miller (Senator) as well as famous political commentators like Ann Coulter (my favorite)....and the very same teacher who was with the president on September the Eleventh. She helped to clear many kook misunderstandings about that morning.
The Most important part I think is the interview with the injured war veteran who also appeared on Moore's movie except in that case it was out of context and without his permission.
I recommend anyone see it and show it to others (if that is within the legal perimeters.)
Good attempt at refuting Moore's deception, but lacking somewhat in execution
sisson-117 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Comparing this film to Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, you can easily see that the producers of Fahrenhype 9/11 had neither adequate time nor money to produce a film on the scale of Fahrenheit in time for the 2004 election. While it is a decent effort at counteracting the misinformation in Moore's movie, it is slightly misguided, and will miss those voters motivated by emotion, for which Fahrenheit struck a strong chord. For this core audience, Moore dishes out anger and fear in abundance. The most effective way to reach these viewers is to turn that anger back at Moore by using his own evidence against him, and Fahrenhype misses that opportunity.
Fahrenhype is just over an hour long, and could have benefited greatly from a few more minutes spent in direct comparisons of Moore's version with the "real" story. This would have prevented the film from being boring to the voter who gets his news from Comedy Central. This is the type of person who, in another review on IMDb, referred to the legendary Zell Miller as some guy stupidly talking about snakes. That this particular review was also the highest ranked on IMDb as of this writing speaks volumes to the lack of political knowledge possessed by the average person watching these films. More takes full advantage of this ignorance. He manipulates factual evidence in a deceptive manner to lead the viewer to assume something that really isn't proved, most often by eliciting an emotional reaction. If the person watching Fahrenheit 9/11 has enough awareness of the events being portrayed they can spot the subterfuge, but Moore knows full well that most people won't see through his deception. This is the group that Fahrenhype needed to touch, but instead they reached elsewhere.
The tag line for Fahrenhype 9/11 reads, "You knew it was a lie now you'll know why." This indicates the film was aimed at the person who, while watching Fahrenheit 9/11, thought, "I know there's something wrong with this story, but I just can't quite put my finger it." These people who had the nagging suspicion that Moore was full of it were probably curious enough to do their own research and would have learned for themselves what Fahrenhype reveals. Therefore, Fahrenhype should have been targeted to the remaining viewers who just blindly believed Moore's story. Exposing the holes in Moore's twisted tale would destroy his credibility. However, simply bringing in another person to state the opposing position leads the viewer to assume it comes down to Moore's word against theirs. An elaborate conspiracy theory is much more interesting than a bunch of political commentators making political comments, especially when many of these viewers don't trust politicians to begin with. Fahrenhype further shoots itself in the foot by using the franticly sarcastic Ann Coulter as one of the voices of reason. Her statements are worthwhile, but her snide, arrogant manner is almost as annoying as Moore's conceited, condescending narration in Fahrenheit.
There are a few areas where Fahrenhype is effective, as with the footage of Bush in the classroom. Comparing the version shown here to the version in Fahrenheit, you can easily see how Moore used deceptive editing and speculative narration to give the moment an entirely different feel. The "have's and the have more's" segment is also well done, as Fahrenhype shows that Moore's selective editing reverses the actual meaning of Bush's statement. Several times in Fahrenhype, people who appeared in Fahrenheit 9/11 express their outrage at Moore's mischaracterization of their beliefs. Again, showing how Moore distorts the truth by using his own material against him works wonderfully, even for those who may not know much about the boring details.
The areas where this technique is not used are less effective. Moore's manipulation of the text in the Pantagraph is well illustrated, but it doesn't really address the larger issue of whether or not Gore won the recounts. A better approach would have been to point out that FOX put Florida in the Gore column along with everybody else, and CBS was the first network to move Florida to Bush, since Moore builds his case on a supposed link between FOX and Bush. They could have also revealed the truth about the opening scene where Gore is supposedly celebrating a victory in Florida, which actually took place at a rally before the polls opened. Again, without a direct revelation of the deception, the viewer is still allowed to cling to the possibility that Moore's "dream" could have happened, which leaves the "Bush stole the election" argument up in the air.
When Fahrenhype moves to the Patriot Act is when it falls the hardest. Great points are made about how the Act improves communication between government agencies, but Michael Moore's beef is with the loss of civil liberties, which Fahrenhype does nothing to address. Of course, Moore is guilty of this same blatant omission of facts many times over, but it would have helped the credibility of Fahrenhype had they not gone down this path at all. Although this film tries to take the high road, for this one moment it steps in the gutter.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is a twisted piece of dishonest, hateful, anti-American propaganda, which serves only to make Michael Moore richer while motivating our enemy to fight harder, resulting in a longer and bloodier conflict in Iraq. Fahrenheit tries to make Americans lose faith in our country and weaken our patriotism. On the other hand, Fahrenhype 9/11 is a straightforward, honest presentation of the facts aimed not so much at forcing the viewer to one conclusion, but rather to just make the viewer think. This film re-enforces the idea that our country is decent and good, strengthening our patriotism. Although the latter is far better for America and the future of the world, the result as a film is dull when compared to the far-fetched paranoia of Fahrenheit 9/11.
Fahrenhype is just over an hour long, and could have benefited greatly from a few more minutes spent in direct comparisons of Moore's version with the "real" story. This would have prevented the film from being boring to the voter who gets his news from Comedy Central. This is the type of person who, in another review on IMDb, referred to the legendary Zell Miller as some guy stupidly talking about snakes. That this particular review was also the highest ranked on IMDb as of this writing speaks volumes to the lack of political knowledge possessed by the average person watching these films. More takes full advantage of this ignorance. He manipulates factual evidence in a deceptive manner to lead the viewer to assume something that really isn't proved, most often by eliciting an emotional reaction. If the person watching Fahrenheit 9/11 has enough awareness of the events being portrayed they can spot the subterfuge, but Moore knows full well that most people won't see through his deception. This is the group that Fahrenhype needed to touch, but instead they reached elsewhere.
The tag line for Fahrenhype 9/11 reads, "You knew it was a lie now you'll know why." This indicates the film was aimed at the person who, while watching Fahrenheit 9/11, thought, "I know there's something wrong with this story, but I just can't quite put my finger it." These people who had the nagging suspicion that Moore was full of it were probably curious enough to do their own research and would have learned for themselves what Fahrenhype reveals. Therefore, Fahrenhype should have been targeted to the remaining viewers who just blindly believed Moore's story. Exposing the holes in Moore's twisted tale would destroy his credibility. However, simply bringing in another person to state the opposing position leads the viewer to assume it comes down to Moore's word against theirs. An elaborate conspiracy theory is much more interesting than a bunch of political commentators making political comments, especially when many of these viewers don't trust politicians to begin with. Fahrenhype further shoots itself in the foot by using the franticly sarcastic Ann Coulter as one of the voices of reason. Her statements are worthwhile, but her snide, arrogant manner is almost as annoying as Moore's conceited, condescending narration in Fahrenheit.
There are a few areas where Fahrenhype is effective, as with the footage of Bush in the classroom. Comparing the version shown here to the version in Fahrenheit, you can easily see how Moore used deceptive editing and speculative narration to give the moment an entirely different feel. The "have's and the have more's" segment is also well done, as Fahrenhype shows that Moore's selective editing reverses the actual meaning of Bush's statement. Several times in Fahrenhype, people who appeared in Fahrenheit 9/11 express their outrage at Moore's mischaracterization of their beliefs. Again, showing how Moore distorts the truth by using his own material against him works wonderfully, even for those who may not know much about the boring details.
The areas where this technique is not used are less effective. Moore's manipulation of the text in the Pantagraph is well illustrated, but it doesn't really address the larger issue of whether or not Gore won the recounts. A better approach would have been to point out that FOX put Florida in the Gore column along with everybody else, and CBS was the first network to move Florida to Bush, since Moore builds his case on a supposed link between FOX and Bush. They could have also revealed the truth about the opening scene where Gore is supposedly celebrating a victory in Florida, which actually took place at a rally before the polls opened. Again, without a direct revelation of the deception, the viewer is still allowed to cling to the possibility that Moore's "dream" could have happened, which leaves the "Bush stole the election" argument up in the air.
When Fahrenhype moves to the Patriot Act is when it falls the hardest. Great points are made about how the Act improves communication between government agencies, but Michael Moore's beef is with the loss of civil liberties, which Fahrenhype does nothing to address. Of course, Moore is guilty of this same blatant omission of facts many times over, but it would have helped the credibility of Fahrenhype had they not gone down this path at all. Although this film tries to take the high road, for this one moment it steps in the gutter.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is a twisted piece of dishonest, hateful, anti-American propaganda, which serves only to make Michael Moore richer while motivating our enemy to fight harder, resulting in a longer and bloodier conflict in Iraq. Fahrenheit tries to make Americans lose faith in our country and weaken our patriotism. On the other hand, Fahrenhype 9/11 is a straightforward, honest presentation of the facts aimed not so much at forcing the viewer to one conclusion, but rather to just make the viewer think. This film re-enforces the idea that our country is decent and good, strengthening our patriotism. Although the latter is far better for America and the future of the world, the result as a film is dull when compared to the far-fetched paranoia of Fahrenheit 9/11.
Propaganda GWB Mein Kampf
misterheck-173483 October 2017
This is the American Version of "Mein Kampf". Plain and simple! GOP supporters will love this because it doesn't challenge their core beliefs. A documentary should show you both sides but because this is propaganda and the audience for this are brain dead inbred morons that will not see how they are being played for fools. Not only by the GOP but but the church they willingly believe anything a man on a pulpit spews.
I dare anybody to this day IRAQ invasion was a good idea. That war was just a way for certain people to get rich.
Now our vets were lied too and this documentary just feeds the ignorant machine! When you son/daughter dies IN IRAQ blame the man who put them there. That is if you have any since.
I dare anybody to this day IRAQ invasion was a good idea. That war was just a way for certain people to get rich.
Now our vets were lied too and this documentary just feeds the ignorant machine! When you son/daughter dies IN IRAQ blame the man who put them there. That is if you have any since.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
