Unless you presented us with just the best bits and the rest sucks?

Its a contender for the worst film of all time.

Some reviews:

"Sophomoric, classless humor with C-grade actors" IMDB

"Avoid this trash at all costs " : IMDB

"Moore's ridiculous tribute to Cuban health care in "Sicko" is far funnier than anything in this desperately laughless farce from David Zucker " : New york Post

"Cheap shots and mean spirits abound, as do celebrity cameos, But it

Isaw it last night and there's a lot more funniness!

My my some papers have quite a herd of sacred cows

I thought it was rofl funny

I love how a fat slob who's arrogant and deceptive is trying to point out Amerikan problems. I tend to think more along the lines that dishonest arrogant fat slobs are our problem.

I'll be interested to see if it was done well. From the previews all I know is that the accidental shooting of what's-his-name and his subsequent falling looks like a really stupid joke. That doesn't even make any sense. We'll see!

Haha, the commercials for that movie were funny but you guys seem to like it too too much.

Ok, first of all - I like free of speech. And because of that it is ok for a fat slob who dropped out of college to try to point out American problems. Now, after this movie is  portrayed as the 'OH-WE-SHOW-YOU-MOORE' movie, it does not go well in hand with the idea of allowing everyone to speak their mind up. It would just create more confrontation. I heard someone on the radio talk how important it is to still get along with each other, who happened to be a Bush-and-Reagan-supporter.

Oh, so take that line trying to portray Paris Hilton as a Nazi supporter? Dude, what teh f. She is no spin-master. That would just make another cultural war within the States. Small-town against Hollywood. Do you really want it? After the confrontations with the science, confrontation with the free speech and confrontation between states where some are red and others are blue. 

I might have enjoyed the movie for the sarcasm, but it is not that good anymore.

>> I heard someone on the radio talk how important it is to still get along with each other, who happened to be a Bush-and-Reagan-supporter. <<

Fine.  All we disagree about is "Who gets to make the decisions?"

Oh, so take that line trying to portray Paris Hilton as a Nazi supporter? Dude, what teh f. She is no spin-master. <<

That WAS Paris Hilton.  We checked the credits.

>>That would just make another cultural war within the States. Small-town against Hollywood. Do you really want it? After the confrontations with the science, confrontation with the free speech and confrontation between states where some are red and others are blue.  <<

Actually the strength of constitutional democracy over other social systems is democracy recognizes confrontation and dispute are part of the human condition and limits the effects of losing an argument.

No she was in a scene satirizing Hollywood support for propaganda politics in the Reisenthal mode

Kemp, I was still talking about the movie

Ok, I do have a problem with the labelling that the movie promotes. We all use branding to brand people, but I cannot use liberal and 'anti-American' as synonyms. I just can't. Ok, some of the people that stand on the right might not go under the common version of being patriotic. I do not want to confuse an individual with a political movement though. The claim that if someone is liberal, then that person is against 4th of July is... hmmm.... it does not make sense to me.

Without a proper identification and care against such branding, words like 'Nazi' will be said; and in my opinion this word is stronger than another N-word.

But I have something more important to say here. Now, I have seen a poster that used to say: "War cannot solve anything... except fascism, slavery and communism." Well, this appeared to make sense to me. But I have been thinking more and more about it. The 'How to lie with statistics'-book actually started making sense. 
The civil war in the USA was waged under the notion that it would abolish slavery. It caused so much destruction and the atrocities that it caused are taught as 'The war of Northern agression' within some of the States that lost. While the slavery was abolished and some of the biggest problems started going away, there is still currently some racial tensions caused by it. It took National Guards to have mixed schools. And even now mixed schools are not doing well.

But let me get back to the War of Northern agression. I have heard that 'The battle that is truly won is the won which is not fought.' The civil war might have started the slavery abolishment, it was not the end. It caused a great lot of suffering and atrocities. Even as it achieved its ultimate goal, it was not 'truly won.' The 'not-fought' version would have required a lot of political backing decades before the war actually started, which was just as hard as winning battles. Was it not that the construction of a railway allowed slavery to spread to the new states? Had it been stopped then, the civil war might have been averted. (im saying might because I doubt that was the only cause)

I also remember the saying that 'The true warrior deals with a problem before it emerges.' Thus, we want to deal with a problem before it actually becomes a problem. I think that is one of the reasons that Iran is such an issue - because we have to deal with it before it is a problem.

And now, how come if someone is guided by 'the battle that is truly won is the one that is not fought,' which would imply non-military components to waging battles, then that person is likely to be called 'liberal' and consequently 'anti-american.' This is not anyone in the movie, this could be a military officer that would advocate against military strikes.

My point is: there are a few more ghosts they have to visit before it becomes as good movie as you say it is.

Then this movie is about Moore, not about liberals. Moore is a 'liberal', but a 'liberal' is not Moore.

And not everyone that wants to avoid confrontation wants to avoid it at any cost. The Iraq example is that the actual war took like a month, and now it is in the political stage. This part is where the forces got bogged down since this part is kind of hard.

Haha, I thought that movie was a parody done by Moore when I first saw the commercials because it was just so much out there.

When the Democrat party puts moore on the stage for its convention, it becomes hard to argue they aren't on the same page.

* Bad reviews because it shows how "needlessly divisive" our politics has become.  Cheer, libs, I will accept your surrender, you can unify behind me!  What's that?  You still think you're right and I'm wrong? Then shaddap about "division", cause you're it.

Lol, and one more thing. I just came back from jogging and I kept wondering about this phrase "They are the Minutemen--and they will WIN." Now, I wondered, what Moore tried to say was that the USA does not have the backing of the locals and in his mind the war played out to mean that it is an instanteneous loss.

I don't know too much about the facts of the war, but I believe that an important point was when the USA started hiring more local militia, and having the support of the 'Sons of Iraq' and 'The Awakening.' As the military was able to regain some of the trust of the locals and they sided against the extremists elements, things started turning. (well, it is not that simple... but that was a main point.) Thus the winning side would be the one which is able to acquire larger local support, with more local people that are ready to support one type of government over another. And the locals have finally turned from supporting anti-coalition forces to supporting coalition forces.

My point is that if you were to hear Moore's comments again, why don't you suggest something like: "Moore, it is the support of the locals that matters and this is precisely a major point that the military is meant to carry out, as well as the purely military operations. You must be referring to the nation-building part of the military intervention - thanks for highlighting this point of the US army.*"

Ok, got to read now, I do not agree with Moore and I will watch that movie, I hope it is well done. I put my spin on his comments just to highlight another interpretation that might work better.   

*one fact that I don't think some people know - a part of the operations are not just military; some involve building schools, handing out candy's, and other nation-building-kind-of-things.

"My point is that if you were to hear Moore's comments again, why don't you suggest something like: "Moore, it is the support of the locals that matters and this is precisely a major point that the military is meant to carry out, as well as the purely military operations. You must be referring to the nation-building part of the military intervention - thanks for highlighting this point of the US army.*"

Because that's not what he said.

"Wednesday, April 14th, 2004
Heads Up... from Michael Moore

Friends,

I have never seen a head so far up a Presidential ass (pardon my Falluja) than the one I saw last night at the "news conference" given by George W. Bush. He's still talking about finding "weapons of mass destruction" -- this time on Saddam's "turkey farm." Turkey indeed. Clearly the White House believes there are enough idiots in the 17 swing states who will buy this. I think they are in for a rude awakening.

I've been holed up for weeks in the editing room finishing my film ("Fahrenheit 911"). That's why you haven't heard from me lately. But after last night's Lyndon Johnson impersonation from the East Room -- essentially promising to send even more troops into the Iraq sinkhole -- I had to write you all a note.

First, can we stop the Orwellian language and start using the proper names for things? Those are not &#65533;contractors&#65533; in Iraq. They are not there to fix a roof or to pour concrete in a driveway. They are MERCENARIES and SOLDIERS OF FORTUNE. They are there for the money, and the money is very good if you live long enough to spend it.

Halliburton is not a "company" doing business in Iraq. It is a WAR PROFITEER, bilking millions from the pockets of average Americans. In past wars they would have been arrested -- or worse.

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush? You closed down a friggin' weekly newspaper, you great giver of freedom and democracy! Then all hell broke loose. The paper only had 10,000 readers! Why are you smirking?

One year after we wiped the face of the Saddam statue with our American flag before yanking him down, it is now too dangerous for a single media person to go to that square in Baghdad and file a report on the wonderful one-year anniversary celebration. Of course, there is no celebration, and those brave blow-dried "embeds" can't even leave the safety of the fort in downtown Baghdad. They never actually SEE what is taking place across Iraq (most of the pictures we see on TV are shot by Arab media and some Europeans). When you watch a report "from Iraq" what you are getting is the press release handed out by the U.S. occupation force and repeated to you as "news."

I currently have two cameramen/reporters doing work for me in Iraq for my movie (unbeknownst to the Army). They are talking to soldiers and gathering the true sentiment about what is really going on. They Fed Ex the footage back to me each week. That's right, Fed Ex. Who said we haven't brought freedom to Iraq! The funniest story my guys tell me is how when they fly into Baghdad, they don't have to show a passport or go through immigration. Why not? Because they have not traveled from a foreign country -- they're coming from America TO America, a place that is ours, a new American territory called Iraq.

There is a lot of talk amongst Bush's opponents that we should turn this war over to the United Nations. Why should the other countries of this world, countries who tried to talk us out of this folly, now have to clean up our mess? I oppose the U.N. or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens to extract us from our debacle. I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.

Until then, enjoy the "pacification" of Falluja, the "containment" of Sadr City, and the next Tet Offensive &#65533; oops, I mean, "terrorist attack by a small group of Baathist loyalists" (Hahaha! I love writing those words, Baathist loyalists, it makes me sound so Peter Jennings!) -- followed by a "news conference" where we will be told that we must "stay the course" because we are "winning the hearts and minds of the people."

I'll write again soon. Don't despair. Remember, the American people are not that stupid. Sure, we can be frightened into a war, but we always come around sooner or later -- and the one way this is NOT like Vietnam is that it hasn't taken the public four long years to figure out they were lied to.

Now if Bush would just quit speaking in public and giving me more free material for my movie, I can get back to work and get it done. I've got four weeks left 'til completion.

Yours,

Michael Moore"
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-04-14

I don't owe Mikey a rewrite so he doesn't look like a disloyal turd.