Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 finds U.S. distributor Globe and Mail Update Los Angeles — Michael Moore's award-winning documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 has picked up a U.S. distributor and will hit theatres June 25. The film will be released by a partnership of Lions Gate Films, IFC Films and the Fellowship Adventure Group, which was formed by Harvey and Bob Weinstein specifically to market Moore's film. Moore's film, which recently won the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival, criticizes President George W. Bush's response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and connects the Bush family with Osama bin Laden's. The Weinsteins, who run Miramax Films, bought the rights to the movie from the Walt Disney Co., which owns Miramax and refused to distribute Fahrenheit 9/11. The Weinstein brothers will personally finance and control distribution and marketing, they said Tuesday. "I am grateful to them now that everyone who wants to see it will now have the chance to do so," Moore said in a statement. "On behalf of my stellar cast — GW, Dick, Rummy, Condi and Wolfie — we thank this incredible coalition of the willing for bringing Fahrenheit 9/11 to the people." Disney chief executive Michael Eisner said the company "did not want a film in the middle of the political process" because he believed that theme park and entertainment consumers "do not look for us to take sides." In a settlement reached last week, the Weinsteins repaid their parent company for all costs of the film to date, estimated at around $6-million (U.S.). Any profits from the film's distribution that go to Miramax or Disney will be donated to charity. Link
I probably won't see it till Netflix gets it. If I am going to pay for a movie, it will be Harry Potter or Riddick.
Moore's lies, anger, and bitterness can only serve to confirm the independent voters' opinions of the negativity of the Democratic campaign and the foundation of anti-American sentiment and self-hate on which that same campaign is founded.
i don't begrudge Moore's right to make and distribute this film. but do you think people will actually take him seriously? do you think undecided voters will take this movie seriously? seems very oliver stoneish to me....which is really cartoonish.
No, comparing Moore to Oliver Stone is the most inappropriate comparison one can make. I respect Stone's filmmaking and storytelling abilities. He is well-researched, despite his partisanship. Moore is just a lying, angry liberal who wants to run a smear campaign. Moore depicts a picture that is intellectually dishonest and slanted to meet his own vindictive needs. He is a charlatan in the truest sense of the word. Mentioning him in the same breath as Stone is outrageous.
I do, simply because you can lead the people to believe what you want them to believe. Look how many people believe Saddam was behind 9/11!
fair enough....but i'm not sure that what was presented as "fact" is JFK is necessarily fact. or maybe it's half-truths, without telling the whole story.
You know you just described the right's campaign tactics, right? Just replace liberal with conservative and Moore with any angry Republican you want. But hey, what're you worried about? His occupation is entertainer, not world leader. Go actually see the movie so you can refute something specific. That's the liberal way.
"Speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities." - Christopher Hitchens on Michael Moore
I finally saw Bowling for Columbine and I really don't see the problem everyone had with it. The only point the guy was making is that for an indusrtialized country, we are very violent. Does anyone not agree with that. He didn't say we should get rid of guns. He's a member of the NRA. He just made the point we're violent, and he explored several reasons. As far as people saying he made Heston look like an ass, Heston did that himself, going to have a rally in Littleton, CO right after the tragedy. That was sick.
It's interesting that you sit here and say you don't see why people had a problem with Bowling for Columbine and then you a specific reason people have a problem with Bowling for Columbine. You say Heston looked like an ass for having a rally in Littleton right after the tragedy when, in fact, there was no rally in Littleton right after the shootings. There was an annual meeting required by law in Denver a few days after the shootings. Some of the things Moore shows as having been said there was footage from a sppech a year later in Charlotte, NC. Some of the footage was edited to take out important context. Fact is, you can make anyone look like a jerk with the right editing and a willingness to manipulate. That's the sort of thing that people have problems with. The points he's trying to make may all be valid, but the way he goes about making the points is not. If the points are valid, one should be able to use the truth to back up the points rather than making stuff up, which is what Michael Moore did in several instances in Bowling for Columbine. I'm glad his new film got a distributor. There was never any doubt that was going to happen, of course, but it's good to have it done.
While I don't want to get into it about his editing, Heston made himself look like an ass by aligning himself so vehemently with the NRA at or around a time when it was acting rather irrationally w/respect to columbine and denouncing federal agents as jack booted thugs. And his "cold dead hands" soundbites, which he indisputably said many times, were just plain creepy as hell to me, edited or not.
The "cold dead hands" was not said at Denver in the immediate aftermath of Columbine, though. Why is it creepy if he said it somewhere else at some other point? Yes, he has indisputably said it, just not at Denver like the film strongly implies. And that picture? Where's that from? Not the Denver meeting. If it's a still from the film, that's from the Charlotte rally a year after Columbine.
What's creepy is that you recognize his rally appearances based (from all I can see in the photo) on his choice of necktie!
Like I said, I don't particularly care where or when it was from. I thought he said it more than once, and that it was his trademark, but I could be wrong. In any context, that is a bizarrely paranoid thing to say. Do you think the government is literally going to try to come to take Charlton Heston's rifle away and he is going to die in a hail of bullets? Does he?
