Fahrenheit 9/11 vs Fahrenhype 9/11

Im not sure if too many of you have seen Fahrenhype 9/11. But I have seen both. What are your opinions on both of these movies? Are you for the Republican Version (Fahrenhype 9/11)? Or are you much rather for Michael Moors' Fahrenheit 9/11? What do you think of the deal with Bush being buddy buddy with the Royal Family, and the whole deal with not being able to help out Haliburton so Cheney and Bush could reserve their oil? Which version do ya'll agree with? Please share any and all opinions.

I agree with the Fahrenhype version of events.

Michael Moore and Ann Coulter live on different sides of the same coin.

(And that would be a Celebrity Death Match people would pay to see, I'm sure)

With 'Heit9/11, Moore had a great opportunity to portray some important matters, and shed some light on facts many people just don't know...unfortunately, he went way, way overboard, jumped off of the old Cliff of Objectivity and drowned in his own mire of hyperbole.

I watched it with a few friends, who are all, without exception, Moore fans, and Bush non-fans; it took four tries at watching the movie because people were switching it off, disgusted, saying "Oh come ON...that's not exactly the truth....".

Again, Moore had a great chance at making a critical documentary. He failed miserably.

And that's actually quite a shame.

Michael Moore to me is a blowhard.

I have read every one of his books (Out of a Library).. saw Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11. Gone to his site a few times.

Then I seen Fahrenhype 9/11, readed both books that espose him, checked several web sites that are anti-moore.

If Moore was so concerned about "truth", then he is a filmmaker that does a very poor job. IN Bowling for Columbine I saw so many "untruths" that it was comical.. yet Moore has Millions of fans.

But this guy who says he is from Flynnt.. (He actually was from a rich suburb) and is a "average" guy who is for the little people.. Is a VERY rich filmmaker who lives in NYC in a very expensive condo. His speaking engagements are for less than 60 mins, yet he gets a minimum of $60k per event.

"Yup" he sure is a average joe just trying to do his thing.

I believe in the Fahrenhype 9/11 version of events. Only because of Moores past "untruths" that have been exposed.

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
With 'Heit9/11, Moore had a great opportunity to portray some important matters, and shed some light on facts many people just don't know...unfortunately, he went way, way overboard, jumped off of the old Cliff of Objectivity and drowned in his own mire of hyperbole.

Wow... That's beautiful, man!

I don't know that MM was ever trying to be truly objective. It's been pretty clear to me that he has always had an agenda and wasn't even trying to show 'both sides'. He has strong opinions and his films convey them.

I like Michael Moore. Now, that doesn't (by any means) mean that I believe everything he says or worship him, as some of his 'followers' do. I think he's got guts. I think he stands up and says what he believes in the face of much criticism. It's just a trait I admire. I like that he has the courage to stand up to the NRA and the government and say, "You guys suck"! I like that about a guy.

I saw F-9/11 and enjoyed it and realized it was a totally one-sided view of events. It didn't cause me to feel any differently about this presidency or 9/11 than I did before.

I know better than to base my views on a movie by a biased source.

I never did see 'hype-9/11' I've heard enough MM slamming for a lifetime.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I've heard enough MM slamming for a lifetime.

Fahrenhype isn't Moore slamming, it's just exposing his lies and deceptions, it's nothing personal.

Fahrenhype isn't Moore slamming, it's just exposing his lies and deceptions, it's nothing personal.

Now I dont believe everything Moore says, and alot of the things he said in his movie were biased I admit, but to say that Fahrenhype exposes Moore's lies is complete crap.

Fahrenhype is JUST as biased as Fahrenheit, and lies just as much. Not to mention that the interviewees were all from one side. How is that Fair and Balanced?

Neither of them on their own can be used as substantial evidence to discredit the other. They are both wrong. My advice is to watch both, take the key points and research them for yourself! To believe one or the other is to let yourself be hooped by the ever growing noose of propaganda.


PS. Favourite part of Fahrenhype 9/11: One of the arguments was that France, Germany, and Russia had beed outright bribbed by the Iraqis and that France should be discredited. Whats funny about this is that at the end of the movie Morris surveys the Manhattan skyline and points to the spot where the twin towers once stood and calls it the "symbol of loss," but then he points to the Statue of Liberty in the harbor and says its the "symbol of hope." (Even though the statue was a gift from France)

Can someone please list some errors from the Michael Moore movie? I always hear people talk about how nonfactual it is, but I've never really heard why.

Someone got a list for me?

Saw both, Feit made me wonder, Fype made me laugh so hard milk shot out my nose and I can't remember the last time I drank milk. It was funnier then Fox News. At least Fox News admits that sometimes they are voicing the opinion of the host. Fype? They really believe they were telling facts. Surprised they even got the date right with how messed up it was.

Surprised it wasn't titled Fype 8/14, The Day China Drove Trucks Into the Sears Tower and Lincoln Memorial

[edit on 4-6-2008 by HHH Is King]