Fahrenhype 9/11 Reviews

Page 2 of 6
½ October 13, 2013
EXCELLENT DIARRHEA for those who want to deny TRUTHS around the manipulation of the US citizens & thus the military around how powerful conservative Elites control the money of all but a handful of nations. Their control mechanism in the US is the "federal reserve"
½ October 10, 2013
Could they at least try to hide the fact that neo-con=Jew?

But seriously, after viewing these two, I dont know what to believe. Michael Moore is obvious liar, but the other side is full of overzealousness and wide reaching generalizations as well. I think the truth that was in both of these films would make a nice 10 minute documentary.
December 12, 2012
This film is a rebuttal, with a few points of view. Do not expect catchy phrases or music tracks.
November 17, 2012

"What did the Romans ever do for us?"-MONTY PATHON'S LIFE OF BRIAN

First off I don't hate republicans, they fight for my right to bare arms, but this "doc" didn't change my opion of Bush one bit. I'm not going to name, names, but the dude who phraised the Pariot Act made me ill. I actually felt sick. Nice try, you mother fuckers. P.S. Liberial hating Ann Colter is smoking hot!
November 12, 2012
This movie serves only to give a different view on the Moore's documentary about 9/11 and the Bush Administration. But the movie loses my attention and credibility when it makes racist comments against Muslims and glorifies the war in the Middle East as a defence of America's freedom.
October 13, 2012
Proving Moore made a movie of fiction and not facts.
July 30, 2012
Not the slam dunk movie I thought it would be. Moore is an idiot and uses editing to create a narrative that has little or no basis in reality. Moore is really an entertainer making movies for the left at which they can express their distaste for Bush. But he is NOT a documentarian in any way shape manner or form and I am tired of him passing himself off as one. I thought I would be getting a debunking of Moore's shoddy work; instead I got a defense of the Bush Doctrine. It was mildly informative at best. Not enough facts and "presenting the case" in my opinion.
July 16, 2012
Shows how much of an idiot Moore is. The sad part is that there are alot of Moore's out there in the world who would rather believe in his fairy tales than observe and see the truth. Case in point is the joker who said it wasn't as entertaining. Truth isn't about entertainment. It's about observation and analyzing the data.
March 14, 2008
A movie that shows the truth of just how far Michael Moore will go to spread his lies.
November 10, 2010
As I saw it, Farenheit 911 (Michael Moore, 2004) was a movie arguing that the War in Iraq is just about validating George W. Bush's Presidency. The film makes this case by showing evidence that we undertook the war for dubious reasons.

Farenhype 911 argues that Michael Moore hates America, and does this by arguing that the War in Iraq was justified.

See the difference?

That's why I didn't care for it.

This movie is just a rebuttal to Farenheit 911. It doesn't stand alone as a documentary, and for that reason, I found it pointless.

The worst thing, to me, about Farenheit was that it started this whole "dueling ideologies" approach to documentary filmmaking. Documentaries have always had a point of view, but now they're used specifically for political argument. I remember a magazine cover describing Farenheit as "a new kind of political weapon." And I found that sad, because I thought it was supposed to be a movie. This whole mindset throws that whole documentary form out the window and focuses on nothing but content. CROSSFIRE or THE MCGLAUGHLIN GROUP: THE MOVIE.

But let's try to talk about Farenhype 911 itself. It starts where Farenheit starts, with the election, saying this time that it was certified - get over it. Then it goes to September 11th, again like Farenheit, and says that Bush was at the school for five minutes, not seven (ooh!), and has the principal saying how great Bush is. Then it continues jumping from scene to scene in Farenheit, showing how Moore doctored footage and used things out of context to make his point. My question? WHO CARES?

Nobody in their right mind would see Farenheit 911 as objective fact - Michael Moore, notorious Liberal, is IN the damn film! So why do we need another film to refute it?

I can see the other side wanting to get their voice heard. That's why we have talk radio and shows like the aforementioned "Crossfire" or "Hannity & Combs". Why bring this into filmmaking?

The final message of Farenhype 911? Bush is great; Moore stinks.

Did I really need to watch a film to tell me that?
½ November 10, 2010
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]The counter-balance to Michael Moore's highly-successful and critically acclaimed "documentary?"[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]No. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Is it as entertaining as Michael Moore's movie? [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]No.[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]But hey, nonetheless, with stellar interviews from people such as Anne Coulter (puke), Zel Miller and Ron Silver doing some really weird soliloquy's in Central Park, this movie does provide a fair and relatively balanced analysis of Michael Moore's movie. And yes, I use the word "movie" and not "documentary."[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]This movie suffers from many flaws--one of which being that it tries to follow Moore's movie to closely in structure and style--but there are some "nuggets" to take home.[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Watching Moore's movie, there were many things I knew were flat out wrong or simply lies, so it is good to have someone put it down in pictures since apparently people are more easliy swayed by images as opposed to logic.[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]For example, in Moore's movie, he eludes to the fact that then Governor Bush met with the Taliban in Texas. Not true. As Governor, yes, the Taliban did visit Texas. But this was under the Presidency of Bill Clinton and they never visited with Bush (Bush wouldn't do it). In fact, it was a visit organized by the State Department so the Governor of Texas wouldn't have even had any say in the visit in the first place.[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Also, the Carlyle Group, those evil war-mongering bastard connected to the Bush family--well, they were funded and originally started by anti-Bush billionaire George Soros. Funny how Moore never mentions that.[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Also, Moore shows a clip in the beginning of his movie of a newspaper article that says, "Recount Shows Gore Won Election." Despte that fact that CNN, Washington Post and NY Times all concluded that Bush did in fact win Florida in 2000, Moore uses a clip from the "Letters to the Editor" section of a small-town paper, increase the font of the headline, reorganizes it to make it look like a news story, and changes the date from December 5, 2000 to December 19, 2000.[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Ah yes, a [i]documentary[/i], right?[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]I don't pretend to take this movie as gospel. That would be hypocritical. Slamming one sides spin only to endorse the other.[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]But it proves a point: Michael Moore is a disingenious slime ball who manipulated the American people just as much as Dubya did. Although, I know, people didn't die.[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]But the world we live in is manipulated by other people's perceptions. I just wish that more people would supposedly saw through George Bush would have seen through Michael Moore.[/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]p.s. Is it just me, or does Ron Silver sound creepily similar to Christopher Walken in this movie?[/size][/font]
November 10, 2010
Not only a Republican must see but an American must see. Fahrenhype 9/11 brings up every anti-Bush, anti-American point and stomps it with the [b][i][u]TRUTH.[/u][/i][/b] Its nothing short of a 10!
½ November 10, 2010
[size=5][b]FahrenHYPE 9/11

[/b][/size]The world is being divided into two kinds of people -- Michael Moore people and Ann Coulter people. Well maybe not quite to those extremes ... yet, but you wouldn't know that from turning on the television or visiting your local arthouse theater. As of Tuesday, October 5th, we've finally heard from both sides on the subject of 9/11, terrorism, George Bush, and of course, each other. FahrenHYPE 9/11 went straight to video, strategically released on the same day as FahrenHEIT 9/11. "Hype" was constructed as the answer, rebuttal, and condemnation of Michael Moore's record-breaking Fahrenheit 9/11.

I'll be comparing both films often in this review, so to make it easier for you (and me), going forward I will refer to Fahrenheit 9/11 as HEIT and Fahrenhype 9/11 as HYPE.

HYPE begins by challenging HEIT about Bush's reaction during the tragic events of September 11th. As those of you who watched HEIT may remember, the president spent that time in a classroom reading with and to the children. After the second plane crashed into the World Trade Center, a Bush staffer approached him during his photo op and whispered in the president's ear. Instead of reacting with alarm, the president reacted with silence and continued with the photo op. Michael Moore basically used this footage to accuse Bush of reacting inappropriately and not presidential. He even counted the minutes for dramatic and comic effect. HYPE disputes the timetable used in HEIT, and even interviews the teacher who presided over the classroom that day. She had a completely different take on the story -- one favorable to the president. HYPE draws attention to a slow nod that Bush made during the reading, which was supposedly a gesture of acknowledgement towards one of his associates outside of the scene. Afterwards he made a short speech about the day's events and urged people to remain calm. While this doesn't completely discredit Moore's film, it does cast doubt on the way he presents his information, suggesting that he may be manipulating and exagerrating situations in order to lure viewers towards his viewpoint. Michael Moore, dishonest? Nah!

Most of HYPE is of this nature. They call certain facts that Michael Moore used in HEIT into question. Everything from the Carlyle Group connections, the pipeline contract in Afghanistan, to the headline showing that the 2000 election recount was in favor of Al Gore. HYPE does cast a great deal of doubt on Michael Moore's honesty, and rightfully so. Michael Moore is no stranger to dissent, having been accused of fudging the facts on most of his films, especially Roger & Me and Bowling for Columbine. Sometimes Moore does use images irresponsibly. Sometimes he does outright lie. We know this, but Moore claimed from the get-go that all of his recent film was 100% defendible truth. He even spent enormous resources to put together a fact check team that published sources and responses to allegations of falsehoods. While many of his claims may be technically true, he is quite guilty of misleading his viewers. When reading his "Facts in Fahrenheit 9/11" published on his website, you can tell that many of his defenses are mere technicalities.

HYPE points out many instances of where Michael Moore misrepresented images in order to present his truth. One example is when Moore shows children playing in Iraq, and then follows with images of destruction from American bombing. By doing this, he was trying to manipulate people into thinking that average citizens in Iraq led a peaceful life. Most Americans understand that this was definitely not the case. It is this journalistic irresponsibility that HYPE partially uncovers and this also happens to be when the film is at its best.

Another effective way the film discredits Moore is by interviewing people who appeared in his movie. Several people give the full story behind their appearance, mostly unaware that they would show up in a Michael Moore movie. All of them went on record saying that they did not condone Moore's message and did not appreciate being used to propogate his ideals (or lies, as they seem to believe). There was one lady in particular who was not only resentful, but subject to severe emotional pain because the funeral of her child was shown in his film. It would be one thing if she agreed with the intent, but she made it very clear that her son would not have died for Michael Moore.

While many of HYPE's counterarguments are effective and do cast doubt on Moore's methods, others fall short. One example is a scene where five recruiters are interviewed, a couple of which seem like they may have had a couple drinks on the set. They claim that the way recruiters are portrayed in Fahrenheit 9/11 is not how they were trained to do their jobs. They condemn that sequence and the entire film in general, making no secret of their political allegiance. Their argument is ineffective because we saw recruiters doing exactly that in Moore's film. This bunch may not choose to recruit in that manner, but obviously some do, hopefully a minority.

The panelists are also unreliable and implausible. Dick Morris just blames everything on the Clintons as he's been doing for the past near decade. People like David Frum (author of The Right Man) and Ann Coulter (author of Slander and Treason) just pile on the rhetoric, but don't add much other than their names to the film. Even those who offer something to the film undermine their own credibility by showing their politics. Dave Kopel who published the 59 Deceipts of Fahrenheit 9/11 online makes some valid points, but also makes some personal attacks which makes me question the motive behind his research. Is it to present the truth or to shed Michael Moore in a negative light?

If that weren't enough, this film spends way too much time preaching. There are far too many sentimental moments, too many speeches about American solidarity and appeals for patriotism. In this respect, the rhetoric kills the film. Sure, it discredits a lot of the facts in 9/11, but what about everything it doesn't mention? Trust me, there was a lot of meat in HEIT, much of which was not USDA grade A. By becoming preachy, the filmmakers stray from their ultimate goal, to refute HEIT. Why waste such valuable film time on bumper sticker material?

Most of all, what HYPE lacks is the same tool that makes Michael Moore such a successful filmmkaer -- a sense of humor. Michael Moore is liberal with the truth (pun intended), but so are the pundits in HYPE, if not to the same degree. While there will always be some dopes out there, I think that most discerning filmgoers do not flock to Moore for his unwavering and unbiased truth. Of course not! They enjoy watching him poke fun at Roger Smith, Charlton Heston, or George W. Bush. And why not use his own medicine? There's plenty of fun to be had at the expense of Mr. Moore. People respond better to parodies, and projects such as Team America or even that Fellowship 9/11 short on iFilm have already succeeded where HYPE fails. Isn't it ironic that the subject of Michael Moore's anger, George Bush himself, gets the best line in FahrenHYPE 9/11.

A wise man by the name of Chuck D once said: "don't Believe the Hype." In this case, you can believe it, but you won't enjoy it.

[size=5][b]Score: 5/10[/b][/size]
½ November 10, 2010
Farhrenhype 9/11 is an important film that places into context Michael Moore's disaster of a documentary as well as the war this country is facing. This is a movie that everyone should see before voting on November 2. Great movie.
½ November 10, 2010
Note: This, like the Team America entry, is an article written for my college newspaper...so it will read as if it is tailored for that audience.

Several weeks ago while reviewing "The Hunting of the President," I mused that I wanted to see a documentary with a conservative point of view to balance all the liberal documentaries out there.

My wish has been granted; prominent Republican Dick Morris and other conservative voices have put together "Fahrenhype 9/11," a pro-Bush rebuttal to Michael Moore?s controversial box-office smash "Fahrenheit 9/11."

"Fahrenhype," now available on DVD, is as sure in its purpose as Moore?s film was. Where Moore used the medium of cinema to discredit George W. Bush and his administration, "Fahrenhype" uses the same medium for opposite means; it aims to discredit Moore and justify the reasons the Bush administration had for going to war.

This column is not intended as an attempt to prove or disprove anything found in either film or to judge the policies of the Bush administration. Regardless of one?s political belief, the events of Sept. 11, its aftermath, and the war in Iraq affect all of us, and that will not change if the winner on Election Day is John Kerry or George W. Bush.

I don?t judge these films based on their politics, but rather on how well they present their case through the cinematic medium. With that said, I feel it is worth noting that unlike so many documentaries-liberal and conservative alike-that feature nothing but talking heads and are incredibly redundant, "Fahrenhype" is a movie. It plays like a movie, using editing effects and music to stir the emotions. It provides some laughs, even taking a shot at John Ashcroft for his eardrum-splitting rendition of "Let the Eagle Soar." It is not shy about using the same techniques that Michael Moore has perfected against him.

"Fahrenhype" presents its rebuttals to almost every section of "Fahrenheit 9/11" clearly and concisely, from the 2000 election to George W. Bush?s vacation time to the military?s recruiting policies. Along the way, the film features soldiers who are for the war and support the president, several Republican members of Congress, and prominent pro-Bush voices like Dick Morris, Sen. Zell Miller, and actor Ron Silver. Yet the film scores the most points when it features an Oregon state trooper who appeared in "Fahrenheit" and did not like the way he was portrayed in the film.

"Fahrenhype" isn't as good as Moore's film; when comparing the styles of Moore and "Fahrenhype" director Alan Peterson, it is obvious that Moore is the superior filmmaker. But Moore also had more time and resources to make his film; considering the limits placed on the filmmakers here, what they have accomplished is admirable from a purely technical standpoint if nothing else.

Overall, I only have one serious gripe about "Fahrenhype 9/11": Was it really necessary to include Ann Coulter among those offering their views? Her borderline psychotic "I-hate-everything-liberal" rants are rather tiresome, and while she doesn?t add anything of substance to the film, she does succeed in taking attention away from others like Morris and Miller, who make some of the strongest points in the movie.

In writing and speaking about "Fahrenheit 9/11," its supporters, and its detractors, I have tended to stay away from that ugly "p" word, propaganda. I realize that Moore?s film does fit the definition perfectly. However, so do television commercials, talk radio, the shout shows on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News, internet pop-up ads, and so on and so forth.

The reality is that we are confronted daily with propaganda, and that any type of communication that tries to sway our thoughts is propaganda (like right now, I?m writing propaganda). So if we hold "Fahrenheit 9/11" to that postulate, it becomes clear that "Fahrenhype 9/11" is also a similar type of propaganda, albeit aimed at a different audience with a different ideology.

The political muck in America today is so thick you can?t cut through it with a chainsaw. It?s full of stubborn, hardheaded people who are always right, no matter what. I?ve spoken with liberals who will view "Fahrenheit" but not "Fahrenhype," and I have spoken with conservatives who will take in this film but not cast an eye towards Moore?s. Both sides have then seen it fit to make judgments based on movies they haven?t watched and feel free to debate something when they have no idea what they?re talking about.

That kind of attitude is foolish, close-minded, and most of all, stupid. The solution is obvious: Fire up the DVD player, watch "Fahrenheit 9/11" and listen to Moore make his case. Then watch "Fahrenhype 9/11" and listen to the conservative rebuttal. Then, do the sometimes challenging task of wading through the murk and drawing one?s own conclusions. Considering that it is the duty of those in a free society to be well-informed, I don?t think it?s too much to ask.

And that's my two cents.
July 26, 2010
junk movie
waste of time
February 10, 2010
I can debunk these debunkers so easily, this film was bullshit
Super Reviewer
October 1, 2009
Oh, How so many will try make Michael moore, look bad, just cause he is using our first admendment to the full force. This movie is filled with analytical mbullsh*t!

"One Star out of Four" Be happy you got that Mister.

The End. No More Comments.
Page 2 of 6