LATEST NEWS

i'd hardly call what michael moore does "fearless filmmaking" wouldn't it be more courageous for someone to stand up for the bush administration? wouldn't that have more critical opposition than moore, who just spits out whatever democrats want to hear?

Whatever, Karl! Politics aside, Moore is a ballsy filmmaker. Like him or hate him--his movies do challenge us to think. It's bad ass to have someone like Moore tellin it like it REALLY is!! Some peeps just can't handle the truth!! I'd like to see what Moore is cookin!

Moore is nothing more than white trash. His films are not documentary's they are liberal propoganda. And Tax man, i'm not going to get into a political debate since this is about movies, but I have to say you have no clue what you are talking about.

btw ajaronis, Bush is on his way out and having Moore blow the cover of what's going on will only generate more thought provoking discussions and big box office. Bitch about it all you want, give Moore all the publicity you want. After all, he's the one laughing his ass all the way to the bank!!! This is my point of view and you don't have to like it. :p

ok ok maybe bush was a bad example but it is true that ONE side of politics gets more attention and it would be more courageous to be a champion for the side almost every major news station (really all of them but fox, who has pretty much the exact opposite problem) has a bias against. (i'm talknig about the right, by the way) and while MRmoore does make controversial films, they really aren't challenging, they just make people who like him nod their heads and people who hate him hate him even more.

While Michael Moore doesn't present the right wing view in his movies, you have to admit, he presents nothing but straight facts. He commits no slander and tells no lies when giving his view in his films. Bush may be on his way out but it will at least show what kind of douchbag we voted into office and the horrible things he did while he was there. Americans need to wake up, Bush has done absolutely NOTHING to improve the state of our country and they need to see the things he has done to us. This film may open the eyes of the many narrow-minded fools in our country.

Moore HAS to present factual information. You don't think there aren't right-wing nut cases waiting in the wings for Moore to screw up so they can sue him for defamation or slander? You'd better believe Moore has a legal team protecting him six ways from Sunday and making sure what's presented in his films can be referenced by external sources and is factual. No filmmaker let alone a studio would be stupid enough to open themselves to the liability of a lawsuit by being reckless. It's one thing to say you don't agree with his *interpretation* of the facts. Similar, for example, to how I don't agree with Fox News' interpretation of the facts. But to call him a liar is straight-up ignorant and wrong.

AMEN Huckpaletos!!! I am interested in seeing this movie since Fahrenheit 9/11 was when I first started to love Moore's work. How can anyone support President Bush when about 82% or more people polled think that this country is going down the wrong path. President Bush and his father are the worst Presidents that this country has seen. Its a shame we impeached Bill Clinton when Bush should have been impeached for his lies.

If not the Bush-master, then WHO? Moore is biased, that's why he's entertaining. Everyone is biased, Karl. Even Jesus, and God knows he did (and still does some great work all around). Since the theme is shifting let me state my mind, mmkay? I think a major mistake was electing Bush a second time, it kinda showed everybody that 'Yes. It IS possible to be that stupid'. Back then (2004) there were enough reasons to... I don't know... choose a Canadian (!!) to do your Presidents job. He'd have done it better and his speeches would be much funnier, with the 'aboots' and all that. And around this man, this G.W.Bush, a whole fad was created, a fad of disrespect of your leaders and peers, a fad that makes it cool being 'against the system', a fad that suddenly made everyone in the blue states smarter than the red ones and vice versa, a fad that was all about stating high and loud that we over here are better than those guys over there. And ultimately that's what led your great country and it's leader to become some kind of sad joke. And yes I'm looking at you Michael Moores, Jon Stewarts and Bill O'Reillys of this nation, that made a business out of throwing steaming piles of feces on eachother. Clinton humped an intern and he was almost booted out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, do you see how this doesn't look right? *hand gesture that suggest weights in a scale* Seriously, it's not even funny anymore. If there's one thing I learned about history is that we always pay for our bad decisions and not wanting to sound like the reaper, your time will come. I just hope we get to see the ending of LOST before it all goes to hell Cheers everyone.

Expelled didn't do it just right when it comes to film making, not enough distinction between the three issues (ID, creationism, strict darwinism) and not a real definite message, but over all it was an eye opening film, and i can only hope that the movie cast enough light on the subject of scientific and social silencing to get people thinking. (maybe even DOING)

The information in "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" was "enlightening?" You're aware that this is the film that tied the theory of evolution to the Holocaust, right?

Michael Moore's last film was not the big success he was hoping for, so he has to go back to what he does best...maligning republicans and the Bush administration with what he calls 'documentary flimmaking.' I won't go back over his creative editing in "Fahrenheit 9/11" because I'm sure you've heard it all before. But the fact that this guy won an Oscar for his work is still rather sickening to me. He is no documentarian.

the film did address social darwinism, which is exactly what hitler's ideology was. So don't try to tell people the movie said "evolution caused the holocaust" you're smarter than that and you know you're twisting what they said.

Karl has a good point, Tom Brazelton. Throwing out an entire thesis simply because you don't believe or understand one fact presented in it is not an honest critique. As for your comment that the theory of evolution does not employ murder, I wish you would expound for those budding social Darwinists out there who might be reading this so that they might not get any ideas. After all, Darwin's theory is all about survival of the fittest. Those who adapt, survive; those who don't either die or get EATEN by the fittest (or, indeed, murdered as evidenced by Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, etc.). Furthermore, it's safe to assume Darwin understood his own theory when he wrote about highly evolved races of humans exterminating less-evolved races (unless, of course, you're suggesting Darwin DIDN'T know what he was talking about, in which case we should reconsider why we take him so seriously about anything he said). I understand your objection to the Stein film, though I sense your objection comes more from dogmatic assertion than informed opinion. While Stein makes many good points that deserved to be discussed, his flagrant appeal to emotion ala Micheal Moore did not serve the film's thesis well. Yes, I'm getting in Stein's face for being a propogandist as much as Moore's. Those who blindly champion one and sneer at the other are hypocrites.

"Like him or not, Michael Moore's films definitely don't go unnoticed. Even SiCKO from last summer was pretty damn good. Not everyone may agree with his filmmaking techniques, but at least he presents factual information." I nearly fell out of my chair laughing at that last sentence. Alex Billington, you've got it completely backwards. His films are fascinatingly terrific. He knows just what to say and show in his films to get you enthralled. From the disgust you feel when Moore walks out of a bank with a gun after simply opening an account, to the anger you feel when Charlton Heston (R.I.P.) defiantly lashes out against the town that recently had a gun-related tragedy, to the moment when everyone in the audience shook their heads in shame when they saw Cuban hospitals giving better care than ours. But these scenes are not what they appear to be. Moore is a master magician that does what he wants with the truth and everybody believes it as 100% total fact. Alex, what you have backwards is that his filming is excellent, but they are certainly not facts. They are half truths that are spun just the way Moore wants and the rest of the truth is hidden behind a curtain because Moore knows it would only screw with his message. You don't hear about Moore going through a couple months of background checks to get his gun from the bank, which actually doesn't give out the guns anyway. A gun vault downtown does that, but Moore INSISTED on getting the gun AT the bank, after his background checks. You don't notice that Heston's speech is actually chopped up bits from various other speeches to make him look cold hearted. He never raised his gun and said "from my cold dead hands!" in that town. And the speech that Heston really made gets cut off here, "The mayor sent me a letter saying don't come here, we don't want you here. Don't come here? We're already here!". What he said before that statement was, "Don't come here. That's offensive. It's also absurd because we live here. There are thousands of NRA members in Denver, and tens upon tens of thousands in the state of Colorado. NRA members labor in Denver's factories, they populate Denver's faculties, run Denver corporations, play on Colorado sports teams, work in media across the Front Range, parent and teach and coach Denver's children, attend Denver's churches and proudly represent Denver in uniform on the world's oceans and in the skies over Kosovo at this very moment. NRA members are in city hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surly among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students at Columbine." Moore also failed to mention that legally the NRA could not cancel a convention without notifying every NRA member in the world. Yeah, it's a law. Moore didn't say anything about that, did he? He also didn't mention that Heston cancelled all activities and most of the rest of the convention out of respect for what happened at the town. He simply had the meeting as mandated by law and left. What about the cuban hospitals? The hospitals you saw in Sicko! was for the upper class and elite. The government of Cuba gladly helped Moore in his propaganda. A vast majority of Cuba's population aren't allowed anywhere near those hospitals. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm not saying they are bad movies. I actually enjoy every bit of them. Sicko! was a lot better and attempting to show SOMETHING factual, allowing other people to speak for themselves. I just wish he made an attempt at talking about the health care that America already provides, like medicare and medicaid. This new movie will certainly be entertaining. But factual? Please. I don't like Bush, I don't like our current healthcare system, and I am not a Republican. But I know BS when I see it. And Moore's movies have truck loads of BS.

Uh, what's the point? We already know he hates Bush. Can't Moore do something more socially relevant than more Bush bashing? He's spent so many hours of his life attacking Bush, Moore seems to be obsessed with him. Talk about beating a dead horse! In fact, the horse is so beaten it's probably a pile of meaty pulp! And I don't much like Moore as a filmmaker. I agree with Moore, but I think he's a lousy, lousy documentary filmmaker. Flashy filmmaking =/= good filmmaking. Most of the theses he presents are oversimplified, and clearly aimed for the more feeble minded who can't form their own opinions and rely on Moore to tell them what to think. There's so many more better documentary directors... Errol Morris, D.A. Pennebaker, Emile de Antonio... heck, even filmmakers who aren't full time documentary makers are far superior...Jean-Luc Godard and Martin Scorsese. I love how Godard bashed Moore. You know something's wrong with Moore when he gets bashed by a Bush-hating Marxist!

Well, Proud American, please reread my comments without your dogmatic outrage and you'll see that I never said Hitler was the end result of Darwinism. I even stated that not all strict Darwinists come to the same conclusions as Hitler. Did you read that or were you too busy bashing anyone who might have a different opinion than you? Since every evolutionist is NOT going to become Hitler, it follows that not every follower of Jesus is going to join the KKK. As you can see, my prideful little friend, the weak analogy isn't mine but yours. But since you brought it up, let's run with it. Consider the ministry of Jesus who taught "love thy neighbor." Clearly, those who use his name to promote racial hate aren't following his teachings. Therefore, the KKK should be condemned for dehumanizing acts done in Christ's name. But, Darwin HIMSELF wrote that the most evolved race would wipe out the less evolved races. So when Hitler, Stalin and Mao kill more people in the twentieth century alone than in all of human history and cite Darwin specifically in their reasoning, we can see it's not quite the same thing. Now, having said all that, I must repeat in caps with high hopes that I will not be misinterpreted again: BELIEF IN DARWIN'S THEORY WILL NOT MAKE ONE A HITLER. I'll say it again because, regretably some unjustifyably proud people

Egad! It posted before I finished composing! My bad.

Firstly, which part of my comment was filled with "dogmatic outrage?" I really want you to point this out, as I cannot find it for the life of me. My comment was calm, I made no personal attacks against you, yet you do so unto me. I did no bashing of any kind in my comment, I merely questioned your position and the quality of your argument. You sir, are the one bashing, without reason. You could have simply answered my question, but alas, no. None of your arguments were misconstrued in my reasoning. If you believe such, it is your fault for not making yourself clear enough. I quote the passage I referred to: "History records that Hitler believed Darwin when he stated that one superior race would eventually kill off all inferior races and usher in an era of peace. While not everyone who is a strict Darwinist will come to the same conclusions that Hitler did, there is no doubt Darwinian thought contributed to Hitler's dehumanizing regime." No where in my previous comment did I claim that you believed that anyone who believes in darwin's theory will become a hitler, so I am unsure of why you are attacking me on that point. You say yourself, there is no doubt Darwinian thought contributed to Hitler's dehumanizing regime, yet when I present an eerily similar analogy, you reject it. Your argument against my similar analogy is not sound, especially since the quote of "love thy neighbor" is hardly the most vicious quote you will find surrounding Jesus in the bible, whereas with Darwin, you only speak of a piece of his theory that seems most gruesome; hardly a moderate stance on the situation. You can no more reject my analogy than you can your own. In conclusion, The Last Moderate, save personal attacks for someone who is not presenting anything to the debate. As your name implies, you should be glad that I am questioning your argument, yet you go up-in-arms at the faintest sound of a differing opinion. I value your opinion, yet you only seem to value those that are similar to your own. I am not being arrogant or prideful with questions, yet you accuse me of such. When you can speak like an adult I will, perhaps, correspond with you again, but upon finishing this lengthy comment, I realize it will not do much good, sadly. Cheers to all.

Proud American, Perhaps I did get a little hot and I hope you will forgive me on that matter. Perhaps I was taking my disgust with another poster who wrongly implied I'm a Bush supporter simply because I found EXPELLED complelling. I assumed you were making similar implications and that was wrong of me to make such an assumtion. People react from their guts rather than their heads when dealing with Moore or Stein. Perhaps I did the same in responding to you. That said: --- "As far as Hitler citing Social Darwinism as a reason for the Holocaust, Darwin did not create nor endorse social darwinism. A similar analogy would be to put some blame on Jesus for the actions of the Klu Klux Klan..." Please reread that sentence. Note where you wrote "Darwin did not create nor endorse social darwinism." Did I, in any of my previous posts, say that he did? If there was any danger of that implication in my previous posts, did I not clarify? You say it's my fault for not making myself clear enough but, seriously, after reviewing my posts, I don't know how anyone paying attention could miss it. I suppose this is where I lost my temper. But I digress. The point I was trying to make is that we need to question our presuppositions. Most people have heard of Darwin and Jesus but don't know anything about them other than what someone with an agenda has spouted over and over again. And, when you bring up an easily verifiable fact that goes against the propaganda, you get labled and slandered. This is why I stopped arguing over the Internet a long time ago. Why I allowed myself this time to do it again I'll never know. But I did and, due to the spirit of this forum, I misinterpreted your valid attempt to engage in this conversation. Proud American, while I find the arguments as you presented them faulty, you are right in implying that I acted like a child. My apologies. I shall bow out. Peace. P.S. Thank you, for making me laugh, tommyturner. I peed my pants!