sbudach

Yes, Michael Moore has an agenda. However, every documentary does. Believe it or not folks, but a documentary does not just show reality, it also interprets it. Remember the experts that Ken Burns shows in all of his documentaries? He used them to interpret the facts of the Civil War, Jazz, and Baseball, among others. The Ken Burn's agenda just wasn't as controversial as Michael Moore's.

The point of a documentary is for those who see it to start making their own judgments. If you don't agree with Michael Moore's interpretation of the why's of the Iraq war, what is the right interpretation? Can you use the facts or find more facts to come up with a different interpretation? I would call that highly unlikely, but I would like to see the interpretation.

This documentary set out to answer the question "Why is the US in Iraq?" I can tell you I have asked that question a lot and I found no good reason. Michael Moore has done the same thing, just to a larger audience. While you might disagree with his assessment that it was strictly for money, it is hard to support a different view after seeing this movie. You would be hard pressed to find any evidence linking Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Why? Because it doesn't exist. No matter how much Bush railed for a link, even he had to admit it wasn't there.

I guess I would like to see a Republican version of events. I just can't imagine what it would use as evidence. How can you refute the 7 minutes of inactivity of Mr. Bush in the Florida classroom on 9/11? How can you refute the fact that planes were loaded up with Bin Laden relatives on 9/13? How can you call the "coalition of the willing" a coalition if it includes countries that send no troops? These are the facts folks. Michael Moore interpreted them to slam the Bush administration. I was saying the same thing before this movie. However, I reach a small audience since I don't make movies. Thanks to Michael Moore for making this film. Maybe some of the clueless, like Britney Spears, will wake up and start questioning what is going on out there. Because, Ms. Spears, in America, we are allowed to question the president. He isn't God, he is a human being.

So, pro-Iraq war people, give me your interpretation. Why? Why are we there? Why don't we have Osama Bin Laden? Why?

While I did smirk at the first hour or so of this movie, I just couldn't get beyond the monster coming out of the toilet. I wasn't offended by the religous jabs; I actually thought it was funny. It appears that those making comments are either totally for this movie or completely against it. I am on the fence. I liked some of what I saw. Angels wearing ragtag clothes and having personalities was funny. George Carlin with the new version of Jesus was also a smirk drawing scene. However, the Jay guy is not all that funny. After a few hundred times, F*** loses the humor. And the devil-types reminded me of the TV show Buffy. There just wasn't enough of a movie to keep me watching past the crap monster. For those of you with stronger stomachs than me, good for you!

I go to see a movie when I step into a theater, not special effects. That is what The Fellowship of the Ring was all about--special effects. There was a story being developed for the first half of the movie. The ring's history, the party for Bilbo, and even the hunt by the ghosts on horses were scenes telling a story. The trip of nine beings on an endless hike with fight after fight after fight was not a movie--it was the director bringing a classic book to life with special effects. The book is a classic, no doubt. For those of us who haven't read it, the movie should stand on its own. It didn't do that in my opinion. I wanted to know who the new adventurers were, what was their story. Why were there so many things attacking the adventurers if the evil wasn't unleashed until the last fight scene. As for an ending, of course that wasn't an ending. Obviously there are two more installments coming. I'll just take the quick summary please. Wake me when the Return to the King is over.