A nonsensically unsubstantiated act of character assassination.
Are you sure you actually watched it?
Aug 29 - 04:22 PM
Yeah, that's true. So why did you gave Fahrenheit 9/11 a B+? They are both clearly nonsensical and unsubstantiated acts of character assassination.
So many of you critics just have blatant double standards with these kinds of films.
Aug 29 - 05:10 PM
What do you expect from a liberal? I have liberal friends who suffer from the same hypocrisy of their double standards. If it was a hatchet job about a Republican, I'm sure he would give it a glowing review.
Aug 29 - 08:57 PM
I'd bet the farm that you are just as bias.
Aug 30 - 04:14 PM
Well, you just lost that farm. I'm a registered Independent and I hate the hypocrisy that comes from people in both parties. I see both right and wrong from both sides of the aisle and it annoys the hell out of me when I hear any ignorant and biased remarks. When I confront friends who say things like that, I point out the hypocrisy in what they just said, it usually shuts them up. We're surrounded by hypocrisy and we need to get beyond it if we're to succeed in getting things done in this country. The thing is, I fear we never will.
Aug 30 - 10:11 PM
Then don't play the liberal card as if you are a conservative. Just sayin'.
Sep 3 - 02:19 PM
Good point. I went back, out of curiosity, to see how these critics reviewed Farenheit 911. All the critics who gave this film a bad review, gave Fahrenheit a positive one. It's pretty sad that we don't have objective, unbiased, unpolarized critics when it comes to reviewing documentaries of a political nature.
Aug 30 - 12:08 AM
Well, the thing is y'all wanna call this guy "liberal" when he is right. This movie IS a mess, passing off rhetoric as if it is fact without evidence. I guess the difference between guys like Michael Moore & this guy is that I can easily find evidence that can substantiate the claims made in a Michael Moore film (before you call me a "liberal", I should say that I am neither a liberal or a conservative. Both parties have forgotten that they're job is to serve the American people, and not rich Lobbyists).
This film is filled with so much sentiment and rhetoric and empty conjecture, that in the end of it all, one wonders if it can even be called a "documentary".
Aug 30 - 03:17 PM
What's "Entertainment Weekly"? I thought the only place you could find those were at Great Clips and Oil Change places.
Aug 30 - 11:39 PM
"...that I can easily find evidence that can substantiate the claims made in a Michael Moore film..."
And that's where you fail the measure of intellectual honesty.
Aug 31 - 09:14 AM
I am a liberal film critic. I understand good versus not so good filmmaking. I've seen both and I'd say that based on filmmaking quality, an F for this and a B+ for Moore's film is about right.
Now of course I love Moore's message and loath this film's message. It's the old preaching to the choir thing. And I fully understand a conservative critic reversing that equation. What would disqualify him or her in my mind as a "film critic" would be if he or she honestly reversed the above letter grades for filmmaking.
And, yes, one certainly could and I certainly have given high marks for filmmaking to films with messages I dislike in the past--Birth of a Nation, Triumph of the Will, Juno. It has simply been my experience that liberals make far better filmmakers--and artists in general--than conservatives.
Sep 1 - 02:22 PM
But he didn't even comment on the film-making. If you read the full review, which is only a single paragraph, he pretty much just calls it "unsubstantiated character assassination" without a single comment on filming style. I found 2016 and Fahrenheit 9/11 equally deceptive pieces of nonsense, and I'd give both of them terrible reviews for their baseless claims, misleading facts and borderline propaganda.
Both were filmed fairly well. On a filming basis I'd give 9/11 a B, and this film maybe a C. But I would give them both an F from a moral standpoint.
Sep 6 - 02:17 AM
funny how so many liberals just poo-poo anyone who disagrees with them. did you watch it? did you read the book? or do you just get disgruntled because someone disagrees with your idealistic sophomoric ideas? it was not character assassination. and which point exactly is unsubstantiated? give me your sources. oh, and you are being fooled if you still believe this imposter. wake up.
Aug 29 - 06:37 PM
Marion Riley Bulette
Baloney, this is quitge substantiated.
Aug 29 - 07:40 PM
Baloney, this is quite substantiated.
Aug 29 - 07:41 PM
Eye opening. I encourage everyone to see it.
Aug 29 - 08:54 PM
Soooo.... once again anything that's not in line with the liberal agenda is criticized.
Aug 29 - 09:34 PM
Because it is easier to write trash than sit down with an open mind and watch it.
Aug 29 - 10:00 PM
Leo Cotnoir Jr.
This guy gave Saw VII a positive review. He is beyond worthless.
Aug 30 - 06:04 AM
As if any critic from Entertainment Weekly is credible. Just another liberal rag. Don't like it when the spotlight is on liberals.
Aug 30 - 08:42 AM
Shove the liberal card up your ass, Ed.
Sep 3 - 02:20 PM
I would think this film would be a good barometer of the intellectual honesty of the critic. Take their reviews of Michael Moore's films, compare them critically for phrases like 'unsubstantiated', and post the names of those critics who can't see farther than their ballot.
Aug 30 - 12:16 PM
A nonsensically unsubstantiated act of character assassination that 87% of common people felt was "Fresh".
Hmmmm... that makes me question your aptitude as a film reviewer. I do not, however, question your political affiliation.
Aug 30 - 02:20 PM
It's not 87% of "common people" it's 87% of people who saw and or felt the need to rate the movie. This tells us very little, however, because it goes without question that the type of people who would go to see this movie in the first place are most likely going to agree with it.
Aug 31 - 08:00 AM
By common people, I mean those not paid to review films. There are a few "good" negative reviews and some "poor" positive reviews. What separates good from poor is whether or not the film was reviewed, or the subject matter. If you base your like or dislike of this film solely on the subject matter, it is partisan politics. If you are reviewing the "film" itself, then it is an honest review.
Was it shot well? Was it quality audio? Was there flow? Did it give the impression of being well researched (even if you don't like to hear the specific data collected)?
It becomes nearly impossible to speak of D'Souza without comparing him to Michael Moore. From a film-making standpoint, 2016 is more refined, better edited, much better audio, and includes the testimony of experts. Moore utilized humor to a better degree, absurdity to illustrate absurdity, and a raw, guerrilla like filming style.
Both have now produced quality films, yet Michael Moore rates much higher than D'Souza. If you read the reviews (negative and positive) you see it is the subject matter praised/criticized... not the film itself.
Aug 31 - 11:51 AM
Just a quick example. AVATAR was a "tree-hugging, evil military committing genocide on the poor little natives" movie by James Cameron, who is left of Lenin... If I were to sit and attempt to discuss the same subject matter around the dinner table, I'd probably vomit(I'm sick to death of people labeling themselves as victims. People don't feel sorry for you, they just hate you and wind up having disdain for real victims not crying wolf... but that is neither here nor there).
However, I thought the film itself was phenomenal and I saw it 4 times in the theater and several times after on Blu-Ray.
Aug 31 - 12:00 PM
It's a much better movie if you are inflicted with something called obama derangement syndrome. If someone develops a cure for that, they will be a billionaire.
Sep 2 - 11:22 PM
They're trying to put the truth out there. You should be praising the makers for doing this.
Aug 30 - 02:34 PM
Great, now in addition to the boatload of bs about how Hollywood is run by rich liberals, so no movie with a message even in the liberal ballpark should be considered, we have to hear about how all critics are evil liberals too.
It couldn't POSSIBLY be because the filmmakers here a relying on petty propaganda! I mean, what film with a conservative message featuring Dinesh D'Souza titled "Michael Moore Hates America" has ever gotten good reviews? There's no way this doesn't at least deserves a better rating than Michael Moore's films since, after all, Moore's are on the liberals' side.
In fact, this only proves the movie is right! Yeah! Now anyone who won't say that Obama is secretly some kind of neo-communist trying to turn the United States into Kenya is officially a liberal satanist with no sense of fairness!
Aug 30 - 04:54 PM
The movie was largely a presentation of biographical facts and quotations from Obama's own writings. So, when you call it a "nonsensically unsubstantiated act of character assasination," I can only assume that you're a unobjective, politically-oriented hack qua critic.
Aug 30 - 06:10 PM
Facts can spin
Aug 31 - 08:35 AM
And if they spin leftwards the guy loves them. So the critic is presumably merely spin-biased.
Aug 31 - 09:16 AM
Which can is the same that can be said of most of the people here. All I'm saying is you can't just be like see there are some facts in the film so clearly the narrative overlaid on them must be true. If you present and arrange facts correctly you can overlay any narrative you want.
Aug 31 - 04:01 PM
Biased idiot. I get EW magazine and i hate this guy's reviews. Typical liberal
Aug 30 - 06:25 PM
What's funny is that the ONLY thing that people can seem to do to try and refute the (valid) points made in these negative reviews is to call them a "liberal" as if that means anything, or somehow discredits the review.
Aug 30 - 07:23 PM
If much of the film is based on things Obama actually said how does it become "unsubstantiated act of character assassination"?
Aug 31 - 04:04 AM
It's more like making wild assumptions based on things Obama has written. And, the evidence isn't strong enough to support Dinesh's thesis statement based on the writings/sayings of Obama. It's more along the lines of someone drawing conclusions based very loosely on thinly-substantiated suspicions.
Aug 31 - 07:56 AM
Lewis outsources all intellectual authority (and honesty?) to "experts" while ingoring that 81% of 9,500+ people positively reviewed this film. Which is worth more Lewis? 22 critics from liberal-leaning papers or 9,500 people who saw and liked the film and found it credible?
Aug 31 - 11:58 AM
I believe my opinion is worth more than the 81% of people who actually saw it, and decided to go and rate it highly. Because, like a few of the "liberal" critics", conservatives seem to have their mind made up about the credibility of this movie long before they even saw it.
So, that doesn't matter to me, because I don't find it credible having seen it.
Aug 31 - 12:51 PM
And, 9,500 hardly represents a great majority in the grand scheme of things. DO you realize how many people go to the movies in a weekend? That margin is a small margin, and chances are that the "common people" have never even heard of this movie UNTIL this past weekend. And, the "common people" who did go and see it, well... They already knew they'd love it.
I'm not critiquing the politics, I'm critiquing the film. And, in my opinion, the film sucks, politics be damned. Taking away the politics, the movie is STILL paced weirdly, the storytelling is jagged and erratic, the conclusions feel too forced. It was clearly made by someone who does not understand narrative flow, story arcs, and basic things needed to make a film, even documentary films.
Aug 31 - 01:00 PM
hmm good question, lets look at it from a statistical standpoint, which is more valuable, a percentage taken from people see and rate a movie because that's what their job is or a percentage taken from a group of people who elected to see and rate a movie for no other reason then to see it. The majority of people who elect to see a political movie already agree with the political position so it isn't surprising that such a high percentage would say they like it
Aug 31 - 04:47 PM
That is a good point Stephen. But... paid/professional critics are just as capable as common folk of deciding beforehand that they will or will not like a movie. I'm sure there are some films that a critic is excited to go see AND get paid in the process. I'm also sure there are films they feel beforehand will be burdensome to sit through.
Look at all the professional reviews where people talk about being pleasantly surprised. You can't be surprised unless something exceeds your expectations. You can't have expectations unless you first expect.
If the common person can decide their like/dislike beforehand, so can a critic. They are not paid for their unbiased, factual statements. They are paid for their opinions.
Aug 31 - 11:49 PM
81% of the idiocracy loved it. Get it right.
Sep 3 - 02:22 PM
Christopher, how old are you?
Sep 4 - 01:21 PM
Also, if 81% of the audience liked the film are you saying they are too stupid to understand how this film totally unsubstantiated?
Aug 31 - 04:06 AM
Well, the audience for political message movies are usually just the people who already thought, or wanted to think, whatever was being preached in the first place.
Aug 31 - 01:02 PM
That's 81% of the idiocracy, yes!
You know what's kind of funny? I'm pretty sure that every single person who commented on this thread believes that Obama is a terrorist because, I mean he's not white. Well, every single person with that problem is white. All of you. And some of your pictures really look like they could be of a racist bigot.
I know that you're gonna get pissed off and try to assure everyone that you're not racist, you're just stating facts and blah blah blah...But the fact remains that if Obama happened to really be one of the really bad non-whites (like Middle Eastern and Terrorist and stuff), then black people would be pretty pissed off. You guys are racists. Sorry.
Aug 31 - 09:15 PM