Overall Score: 9/10
Review: They’ve always said that threes a charm. That’s definitely the case with Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11. Fahrenheit 9/11 is Moore’s third mainstream documentary (Roger and Me and Bowling for Columbine were his first two), and it is now the #1 grossing documentary of all time and it may even sway the election! Michael Moore undoubtedly hit the nail on the head with Fahrenheit 9/11, while leaving some un-necessaries out (like actual footage of the day), while inserting other necessaries (like footage of Iraq). First off, let me go by saying that this is by far my favorite document of Moore’s and my favorite documentary of all time. The way that Michael handled the actual 9/11 footage was amazing, showing no real carnage or bloodshed, yet showing the grief and sorrow that came with it. I was struck harder than if somebody threw a sack of potatoes straight for my head. It brought me back to that horrible day, while not pushing me over the edge, just getting me to remember how horrible over-the-edge was. Right after it, he brought us to a sunny golf resort, showing Bush almost slacking, and not fulfilling his job. I personally loved Bush’s amusing commentary every once in a while, such as when Moore said that he had to be doing something on his ranch. They immediately played a clip of Bush saying, “Well, I’m going to play a round of golf today, and later I’m going to go back and I’m going to have a meeting. Oh? What will we be discussing? Well, ummm, we’ll be discussing, well you’ll see.”
Moore’s display of Iraq, while being quite disturbing, gave me a very real look into and proved what I thought I already knew all about. While the clip of the boy who’s arm was gnawed, or the clip of the boy flinching with gauze on his head made my stomach churn and my face turn away, it was not because of the gruesomeness of the whole thing, but the fact that the very country I lived in was actually responsible for this. One noticeable difference between Fahrenheit 9/11 and Moore’s other two documentaries is that he is not actually on screen as much, but rather providing commentary on many, many video clips. There were only about three or four times that Moore was on camera in the manner he would be on in Bowling for Columbine, Roger and Me, and even his TV show, The Awful Truth. Another extremely noticeable difference (if you were even paying attention), is that this movie not only fits in with our times (the election period and the war), but it has a logical order of events, unlike the first of the three documentaries. In his first two, he explained the situation, and then went around and interviewed people and made interesting tid-bits here and there, but with barely any sequence (to no fault of his own, it would be impossible to make a sequence on those topics). The fact that Michael made an order of events in this movie is the reason that it separates it from all of his other documentaries.
Now, undoubtedly there’s a HUGE amount of controversy surrounding this movie, either you love it or you hate it, and the same goes for Moore himself. Many republicans say that this movie is “repetitive [and] saturated with Moore posing questions in voiceover and cutting to shots of Bush stumbling on answers…” and that Moore looks to emotion rather than fact, such as “a mother in tears blaming Bush for her son's death or Bush announcing the Iraq invasion intercut with idyllic shots of children flying kites in Iraq.” Others even say he’s only in it for the money. I, myself being a HUGE liberal, admit that this movie can be deceptive at times, such as just inserting clips of Bush staring off into space after Mike asks a question. But the bottom line is that about 95% of what’s in that movie are hard facts. Senators did not read the Patriot Act before voting, people die by getting hit by our bombs, our brave men and women die because of a war that is only in existence today because Bush had a score to settle and some oil to win. Iraq wasn’t any better off before the war then they are now. The only difference is that then they had Saddam Hussein to thank and now they have Saddam Hussein and the war. The fact that republicans’ main argument is that Moore puts in clips of Bush spacing out after questions is beyond me. Moore does this for both comic relief and trying to convey a message in a way the viewer will like. And the fact is, the majority of parents who have lost children DO blame Bush. This woman was a republican before losing her son, and praised the war. Now she scolds it and is a liberal. Why is that? Because her son died in an unjust war! Oh, and by the way, the children flying the kites? That was to show that deep down inside the majority of the people there are just like you and me, yet they are also getting bombed.
Long in the short is, republicans, you should just shut your mouths because you know that Moore is displaying facts here, and even if 75% of his stuff was false, that 25% would be enough to declare Bush a horrible man! With great directing, GREAT soundtrack, chilling reality, and a nice dose of comic relief, Farenheit 9/11 is the movie to see.