I saw the film this weekend and recommend it to anyone on either end of the political spectrum. It provides much food for thought and presents images of war and its surrounding issues that are too easily glossed over by network TV. Of course, it's good to keep in mind that this movie is "slanted" and "opinionated," and Michael Moore makes no apologies for that. This is why I believe to responsibly ingest this film and other films like it, it's good to get greater context by reading a range of commentary about the film.
I've searched article after article trying to get even-tempered reviews of the film from both sides, but it seems that even professionally compensated writers can't put together anything better than a diatribe.
Many naysayers are attacking the character of the filmmaker and the intelligence of filmgoers over the actual content of the film.
A typical example of the diatribes out there:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=39206
This quote in particular really bugged me:
"But I will note the one undeniable benefit of the movie's success. It provides a handy reference to the intelligence of the person who sees it. If you encounter anyone speaking in tones even remotely approaching respect for the movie, you have proof positive that the speaker is a fool, not to be trusted on any point, for he or she has given testimony as to their ignorance of basic facts and of an inability to detect even elephant-sized inconsistencies in argument and story line."
To Hewitt's credit, he has real content at the end of his article, but you have to wade through so much vitriol to find it.
On the other side of Hewitt's article, this is probably the classiest review I've found so far:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...?oneclick=true
I've searched article after article trying to get even-tempered reviews of the film from both sides, but it seems that even professionally compensated writers can't put together anything better than a diatribe.
Many naysayers are attacking the character of the filmmaker and the intelligence of filmgoers over the actual content of the film.
A typical example of the diatribes out there:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=39206
This quote in particular really bugged me:
"But I will note the one undeniable benefit of the movie's success. It provides a handy reference to the intelligence of the person who sees it. If you encounter anyone speaking in tones even remotely approaching respect for the movie, you have proof positive that the speaker is a fool, not to be trusted on any point, for he or she has given testimony as to their ignorance of basic facts and of an inability to detect even elephant-sized inconsistencies in argument and story line."
To Hewitt's credit, he has real content at the end of his article, but you have to wade through so much vitriol to find it.
On the other side of Hewitt's article, this is probably the classiest review I've found so far:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...?oneclick=true
Comment