Guest imported_Tesseract Posted November 30, 2002 Share Posted November 30, 2002 OK, maybe theres another thread about this. I saw it last night, its fresh as fuck, the direction and the editing is smart and in my opinion it hits the nail hard without being cheap. That dude has a great sense of humour and also proves he has the balls to actually backup what he sais. That film revealed to me things about america and gladly summed up a lot of my thoughts about your politics...I remember Kabar speaking highly of the NRA, i would really want to hear what he has to say about the film. Charlton Heston has the IQ of a square wheel, Canada is awesome or it appears to be so. And i wouldnt want to believe that Americans are like this but it appears that the majority is... btw, "Its a wonderfull world" by the Ramones sounds dope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest krie Posted November 30, 2002 Share Posted November 30, 2002 firsties :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kr430n5_666 Posted November 30, 2002 Share Posted November 30, 2002 I think of green fields; I muse With the greatest affection on every flower I have known from my infancy; hallelujah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sneak Posted November 30, 2002 Share Posted November 30, 2002 some ppl wanted me to go see it last night. i thought no id rather fuck the girl friend:crazy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.T Boy Posted November 30, 2002 Share Posted November 30, 2002 http://roundersound.com/finishedbooks/images/retardtothezoo1.jpg'> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BROWNer Posted November 30, 2002 Share Posted November 30, 2002 i saw it a bit back... its pretty good, but..IMO sometimes michael moore has a bad habit of coming off like he's giving you the inside scoop while glassing over the 'other side' of the story. he also leaves things up to the audience that i'm not sure should be left to them...example: in the film he talks about how many deaths by guns happen in a bunch of countries. he starts out with a few and you're just waiting for the US numbers, and then BOOM, there's the US figure, absurdly high. what he fails to mention is that the US population is much larger than most of the comparitive countries' populations. its an effective but misleading way of presenting a chunk of the whole. other than that i think he's pretty bang on with most of it. charlton heston is a scumbag and hopefully everyone that sees it will see him for what he is. i thought the stuff about him throwing gun rallies right after two massive tragedies was the lowest and even disgusting that he claims he had no knowledge of these events even happening. i think deep down he knew it was low. and throughout the movie i was really hoping he would shave that grotesquely sorry excuse of a beard off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_Tesseract Posted November 30, 2002 Share Posted November 30, 2002 Originally posted by BROWNer in the film he talks about how many deaths by guns happen in a bunch of countries. he starts out with a few and you're just waiting for the US numbers, and then BOOM, there's the US figure, absurdly high. what he fails to mention is that the US population is much larger than most of the comparitive countries' populations. its an effective but misleading way of presenting a chunk of the whole. I remember the numbers preety much and i have the impression that you can add all european countries and canada's population and still have significant smaller numbers...but in anyway i think its a detail that you speak off, in my opinion his data seem fair and well rounded to me...i'm not american so i might be missing stuff but i didnt have the feeling i'm being misleaded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BROWNer Posted November 30, 2002 Share Posted November 30, 2002 i mention that becuz, first, when i was watching it occured to me that he was not stating this, and secondly, after we left the theatre a group of adults behind us mentioned the figures but not the population difference. plus its a fairly large point in the movie, which is 'americans have a massively large gun death rate compared to every other civilized country'. even if its apparent to most, you shouldn't glass over that kind of stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukeofyork Posted November 30, 2002 Share Posted November 30, 2002 yall are funny.... bottom line, the world is not going to be a safer place if guns are banned.... think about it, if the police and army have all the firepower, whos going to keep them in check?? if guns are banned, only criminals can have guns....we cant keep drugs or illegal aliens out of our country, how are we going to keep guns out?? conceal carry permits are a blessing........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_Tesseract Posted November 30, 2002 Share Posted November 30, 2002 Brown, i kinda lost you there...dictionary help...'glass'? Choser..i dunno man, as not being american i dont really feel valid enough to speak...point is that in europe for example we aint got guns, the police does...there are other ways of 'checking'. Criminals have guns in europe but not many either...One thing i can say for sure: When guns are banned its harder to find them, top notch criminals may have so, but top notch criminals dont use them as a crackhead or an angry retarded teenager does. People here get stabbed and beaten, there is violence everywhere. But less guns=less deaths its to easy to kill. In the end i think its a matter of different culture, how you deal with things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Wiggum Posted November 30, 2002 Share Posted November 30, 2002 Originally posted by Tesseract btw, "Its a wonderfull world" by the Ramones sounds dope Not when you hear it three times every fucking day. I could sit and recite that entire movie for you right now. :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graffsurgeon Posted November 30, 2002 Share Posted November 30, 2002 selling biscuits would just increase an ill profit if they were banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_El Mamerro Posted November 30, 2002 Share Posted November 30, 2002 Originally posted by Tesseract Canada is awesome You had me until that part... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_Tesseract Posted November 30, 2002 Share Posted November 30, 2002 Canada is awesome or it appears to be so. I think the whole sentence does more justice:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kr430n5_666 Posted November 30, 2002 Share Posted November 30, 2002 http://www.pra.org/directory/m-5.jpg'> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faggotassguy Posted November 30, 2002 Share Posted November 30, 2002 . michael moore manipulates every thing in his docu. so that only he can look smart this takes away the credibility from some of the points he makes that are actually valid.... he puts people in positions where nothing they can do will allow them to really speak their mind, he decides who will be his villains and heroes. -did charlton heston shoot that little girl? -did the lady at kmart sell eric harris and dylan klebold their bullets -was the los angeles police man not just doing his job? michael moore is a self centered fat obnoxious egomaniac and you can really see that in his film. it's a documentary about guns but the last shot of the movie is him bowling a strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest socrates Posted November 30, 2002 Share Posted November 30, 2002 Originally posted by faggotassguy fat You had a valid argument until you brought the fact that he is fat into it. At that point you turned into a whiny 12 year old girl and you have lost all credibility in your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cracked Ass Posted November 30, 2002 Share Posted November 30, 2002 Originally posted by Tesseract Brown, i kinda lost you there...dictionary help...'glass'? He meant GLOSS...as in GLOSS over the stuff that would have weakened his argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BROWNer Posted November 30, 2002 Share Posted November 30, 2002 actually i did mean glass:dazed: but thanks for the correction mr. ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Dazzle Posted November 30, 2002 Share Posted November 30, 2002 I'm surprised they let it screen in the US..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faggotassguy Posted November 30, 2002 Share Posted November 30, 2002 Originally posted by socrates You had a valid argument until you brought the fact that he is fat into it. At that point you turned into a whiny 12 year old girl and you have lost all credibility in your argument. obese? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil_5panky Posted November 30, 2002 Share Posted November 30, 2002 yeah I saw it, overall i'd agree it was definately a good movie but i kinda feel what faggotass was saying about his presentation. In particular I disagree with the part where he's at Terry Nichols' tofu-farm and makes the guy out to be a moron for advocating armed resistance. Instead he mentions Gandhi? Shit, Gandhi was a nice person and all but in terms of improving the lives of india's people his pacifism didnt cut it. Indians are still pretty much slave labor for the west and their government has them in a nuclear cold war with Pakistan. Same goes for Martin Luther King--black people today are still just as segregated and in poverty, they form 70% of the prison population...so statistically speaking theyre no better off now then they were in his time. I really wanna smack these people who think they are undermining the system by doing "hunger strikes" and shit, dont they know that pacifism will never be enough to overthrow a violent regime? Anyways, the gun issue is where i part ways with most "liberals". As Moore himself admits, its not simply the fact that we have guns that makes us so violent--Canada has guns easily available too, but they arent nearly as violent. Americans are more violent because they live in a system where lots of people's basic needs arent being met, so you have all this anger and jealousy. That said, it's still a good movie... I especially liked that animated "US history" part. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty_habiT Posted November 30, 2002 Share Posted November 30, 2002 22th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest socrates Posted November 30, 2002 Share Posted November 30, 2002 Originally posted by faggotassguy obese? His weight has absolutely nothing to do with the movie he could be all the things that he listed but why did he include his weight problem? I guess margret thacher did nothing becuase she had a shitty hair cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TEARZ Posted December 2, 2002 Share Posted December 2, 2002 good topic there's a lot about michael moore that is problematic. i like him, but i admit this... my girl called... hold on, i'll write back later... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_Tesseract Posted December 2, 2002 Share Posted December 2, 2002 Re: good topic Originally posted by TEARZ there's a lot about michael moore that is problematic. i like him, but i admit this... my girl called... hold on, i'll write back later... Reply of the year:dazed: waiting.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TEARZ Posted December 3, 2002 Share Posted December 3, 2002 haha, that was a funny reply. i lost my train of thought.. i wonder why. ;) well, if you've seen roger & me, which is a really good film, you've probably heard a thing or two about how moore "stretched" the truth a little bit in a few places. his critics call him a propogandist, which is in many ways true, and i'm not sure that he would necessarily disagree. why i'm interested in seeing the new movie is because i heard that it marks a divergence from his old style of bash you over your head propoganda, however much i might agree with his sentiment... browner's criticisms don't surprise me at all, and thanks for pointing them out homie. i heard that his style in this film is much more reserved, and many reasons why many who have seen it have said that they have liked it was precisely because he left quite a bit up to the audience. i'm wondering browner where you felt he could have been more prescriptive... i think i remember my other point... there's been a whole lot of effort set forth by many people, almost entirely on the right, attempting to "expose" michael moore- some have done it with a degree of success. whereas many so called "objective" writers and film makers on the right go on untouched with the blatant right wing propoganda they spout out. if moore weren't a radical, and he's not even that far out, or if he were on the right, all this effort to shame his name would have never happened. i know he's not perfect- i don't see him as a god as many, but i know he's not a true fraud like "the industry" would have you believe... many of his cases of "fraudulence" are inconsequencial to the message of his work. it's just like bellesiles' book "arming america" which has been ruthlessly attacked, or conversely, like how bush wasn't tuched by enron, while the us govt spent billions trying to burn clinton at the stake because he caught a mic-check in the oval office... haha, hopefully i'll check in later with something more coherent. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BROWNer Posted December 3, 2002 Share Posted December 3, 2002 i might have read you wrong, but i was just pointing out that in the film, and the example i gave, he left out the fact that the US has a much larger population.. i'm sure alot of people saw through the omission, but like i said, a group of older adults behind us didn't pick that up, at least not immediately after the flick was done. *blah, i wrote a whole bunch of shit, but it's not coming out to well either.....maybe later. maybe not. overall i like moore. but i'm a heavy duty cynic of media and messages. it has to pass through the brown filter first.. which is a complex, convoluted and sometimes contradictory process. this and this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TEARZ Posted December 3, 2002 Share Posted December 3, 2002 no, i hear you on that... i was more asking where you felt he left too much to the audience... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TEARZ Posted December 3, 2002 Share Posted December 3, 2002 i realize that perhaps i sound like i don't like moore. in reality, i really do. i'm just aware of his shortcomings and i was trying to write as such... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.