Celsius 41.11: The Temperature at Which the Brain... Begins to Die

"To describe it (Fahrenheit 9/11) as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious." What makes "free-thinkers" so convinced that they can't trust anyone of political sway except Michael Moore? That this man should be somehow exempt from the nature of leftist skepticism is grossly hypocritical--how can we believe that everyone has a corrupt capitalistic or political agenda except him? Leftist skepticism itself brandishes a highly learned attitude toward social stance, yet sponging ideas from user friendly informational mediums such as Moore documentaries is by no means an unbiased source. Furthermore, liberalism by description is supposed to define a spirit of tolerance--not the brand of embittered tolerance so common today, which both demands that everyone share its stance while contradicting its own sensibility. Neutrality that demands that everyone else be neutral is not true neutrality.

I find it interesting to read people spewing hate at liberals while talking about how liberals spew hate. September 11 should have been about togetherness and peace. Everyone in the world considered themselves Americans that day and felt our pain. Instead it has been distorted into something else. The United States has not been more divided or less respected in the world in my lifetime. People on the left and the right are at each other's throats. I do consider myself liberal, and I enjoyed this movie as a response to Fahrenheit 911. It is important for me to see what conservatives think. I do not feel degrading anyone's point of view is pertanent to this argument.

I am always a little suspicious when I see a movie or book title that is obviously a rip-off of a successful or well-known work. That said, this "movie" isn't too bad. Being a person that leans towards the right side of the aisle, this is not arousing any great negative emotion. The commentators are mainstream conservatives (no black-helicopter-warning kooks). Some of the points of view given are ones that have occurred to me, but have not received much mention in other media.

While F911 is the liberal equivalent of Falwell's "The Clinton Chronicles", C41.11 falls short of hysteria. That said, liberals are still going to hate it, because of the points of view given.

Worth the time to watch if someone loans it to you. I would probably not buy it.

If you're willing (gullible enough?) to buy into the Democratic propaganda machine, then you owe it to yourself to view the Republican's propaganda machine.

This film looks at Kerry's record, as well as delves into Michael Moore's history and addresses some of the blatant inconsistencies in Fahrenheit 9/11. This film is certainly biased, however they bring up interesting counter-points to Fahrenheit 9/11's arguments.

I encourage you to watch both movies and use your intelligence to discern what is fact and what is fiction. I'll leave that up to the viewer to decide, unlike the reviewer before me.

Disappointing, somewhat cheaply-made rebuke to the anti-Bush propaganda that led up to the 2004 U.S. presidential election, particularly Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. It's basically a series of remarks from right-leaning analysts, including writer Charles Krauthammer, spliced with footage exposing the savageness of some anti-war protesters and the bias of figures like Michael Moore. Given its release prior to the 2004 election, it also takes aim at that year's ultimately unsuccessful Democratic nominee for president, John Kerry. Other topics covered include the razor-close 2000 election and appropriate responses to the threat of terrorism.

There are interesting films to be made from the right of the political spectrum (Michael Moore Hates America, to name the best). But this quickie production is never as good as it could have been. It's neither terrible nor great. Polical hacks will enjoy it more than anyone, but the average viewer will likely find it a bore.