Saturday, May 12, 2007

Film review Spider-Man (played once again by Tobey Maguire) meets his alter-ego in "Spider-Man 3." (Um, Superman met his alter-ego in "Superman III." Does this mean that by the third superhero movie we're all out of ideas?)   Spider-Man 3 When I read the first reviews of "Spider-Man 3" I thought: "Great. Another 'X-Men III': too busy, too chaotic, not bothering to take the time to develop its new characters." But the problems with "Spider-Man 3" are nothing like that. "Spider-Man 3" is busy (except for the few times that it drags a bit), but director Sam Raimi makes sure that even the average American brain can keep up with the storyline, and only two new characters are introduced, the quasi-villain Sandman (a.k.a. Flint Marko, played by Thomas Haden Church) and the definitely villainous Venom (a.k.a. Eddie Brock, played by Topher Grace). (Well, there also is an animated black goo that comes from outer space and that amplifies its hosts' aggressive sides, but I don't know that I'd count it as a character.) The characters of Sandman and Venom aren't that complex and so it's not hard for Raimi to develop them, and only one major character is killed off in "Spider-Man 3" (I won't say who), so "S-M 3" is no "X-Men III," in which major characters are killed off right and left and in which cool new characters are introduced to us but are frustratingly underdeveloped. But "S-M 3" makes a mistake that "X-Men III" doesn't make, and that's looking back too much at its two predecessors. In retrospect you realize that you're in for it with "S-M 3" when the opening credits contain stills from "S-M" and "S-M 2." And the romance between Peter Parker/Spider-Man (played by Tobey Maguire) and Mary Jane Watson (played by Kirsten Dunst) -- which includes the love triangle completed by Harry Osborn (played by James Franco) -- is progressing so agonizingly slowly that while watching the new scenes of "S-M 3" you feel like you're still trapped in "S-M" and/or "S-M 2." It was time for Peter Parker/Spider-Man and Mary Jane to tie the knot in "S-M 2," and in "S-M 3" Mary Jane should be having little Spider-Babies already (would that be the pitter-patter of eight little feet? And would Mary Jane give live birth or create an egg sac? The imagination boggles). But Peter Parker still can't even pop the question in "S-M 3."  Speaking of Mary Jane, I'm surprised that the National Organization for Women hasn't boycotted "Spider-Man 3," because probably my biggest problem with the film is how it relegates women to the status of rather whiny, weak creatures who just want to be acknowledged for their (insignificant, non-heroic) contributions, too, and who are in perpetual need of rescue from men (whose contributions, of course, are significant and are not only heroic, but are superheroic). Mary Jane's main role in "S-M 3" is to whine about how Peter Parker doesn't notice her troubles and concerns and to need to be rescued by Spider-Man when the baddies capture her in order to attract and then, they plan, to kill Spider-Man. A new female character, Gwen Stacy (played by Bryce Dallas Howard), has it even worse than Mary Jane: Her main role in "Spider-Man 3" is only to serve to make Mary Jane jealous when Spider-Man first rescues her and then gives her the same upside-down kiss that he once gave Mary Jane. I realize that Spider-Man was created when that's all that most women did in most superhero comics: Serve as the love interest to give the male superhero a human side (and a pain in the ass) and to be used by his nemeses as ready bait by their abduction (which is never difficult). But in this day and age, couldn't Raimi give a major female character something more interesting to do than to be in need of being rescued when she isn't too busy pouting that the superhero didn't notice that she had such a shitty day? What's Cat Woman doing these days? She wasn't killed off at the end of the second "Batman" flick. She kicks ass. She doesn't doesn't depend upon men for her sense of self-worth and well-being, so she doesn't pout that they don't notice this or that, and she certainly isn't need of being rescued. (Oh, yeah -- Batman is DC Comics and Spider-Man is Marvel Comics... Oh, well...) All of this said, "Spider-Man 3" aims primarily to entertain, and it does that; its mission is accomplished. And, as I said, my worst fear, which was that "S-M 3" would be too busy and too chaotic, was not realized; "S-M 3" is easy to follow. But I didn't know, going into "S-M 3," how much it would rely on "S-M" and "S-M 2," and so I didn't know that watching "S-M 3" is way too much like watching either of its two predecessors. I give director Raimi props for injecting genuinely touching scenes into "Spider-Man 3." Peter Parker/Spider-Man comes to tears several times in "S-M 3" (usually over the prospect of losing Mary Jane) and it's good to see that the superhero has a heart. But unfortunately, these heartfelt scenes are tanished by pseudo-emotive, preachy scenes, such as how the film ends with Peter Parker/Spider-Man lecturing us, a la Dr. Phil or some other charlatan, on how we are the product of our choices, blah blah blah.     And as cute as Tobey Maguire can be, and as much range as he has, from the tearfully sensitive Boy Scout Peter Parker to the over-the-top-cocky alter-ego that the black goo from outer space creates in Peter Parker/Spider-Man (the extraterrestrial goo later creates Spider-Man's nemesis Venom), after "Spider-Man 3" I'm all spidered out. And when a movie pokes fun at the movie merchandising that its predecessors inspired, including Halloween costumes and stuffed superheroes -- as "Spider-Man 3" does -- isn't it time to stop? Will there be a "Spider-Man 4"? Truth be told, after "Spider-Man 3," I don't much care. My grade: B- P.S. I couldn't help but notice in "Spider-Man 3" that the subplot in which Flint Marko's/Sandman's motivation for his dastardly deeds is not greed, but is to obtain the money that his young, seriously ill daughter desperately needs in order to recover from her illness seems to pave the way for Michael Moore's documentary "Sicko" (which I've also seen as "SiCKO"), which is about the wealth -- er, health care industry in the United States, and which is slated for release late next month. Surely Flint Marko, were he a real person, might have been interviewed by Michael Moore for "Sicko." 1:27:29 PM    Comments []

Monday, October 04, 2004

Film review GOING UPRIVER A lot of people probably will dismiss the new documentary "Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry" as pro-Kerry propaganda and won't see it. It will be their loss. "Going Upriver" is no more pro-Kerry than "Pumping Iron," the 1977 documentary also directed by George Butler, is pro-Arnold Schwarzenegger. In both movies, Butler presents his subjects and leaves it to us to decide what to make of them. (That said, the serious, studious, duty- and service-minded younger Kerry shown in "Going Upriver" is in stark contrast to the arrogant, duplicitous, dictator-praising, pot-smoking, frolicking-with-bimbos younger Schwarzenegger shown in "Pumping Iron.") More than it is about John Kerry, "Going Upriver" is about the Vietnam War and how things haven't changed much since the Vietnam War, how history repeats itself. While Butler draws no overt comparisons of the quagmire in Vietnam and the current quagmire in Iraq, it's difficult, as a thinking audience member, not to draw the comparisons. In "Going Upriver," for instance, a younger Kerry, on Dick Cavett's television talk show and in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, relates how young American men in Vietnam continued to die not because the war was accomplishing anything, but because President Richard Nixon did not want to be the first U.S. president to go down in history as having lost a war. Saving face was more important to the Nixon regime than were the thousands of American lives -- and the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese lives -- that were being lost in Vietnam . If you think that Vietnam is just ancient history, let's revisit what "President" George W. Bush said just Thursday night, during the first 2004 presidential debate: First of all, what my opponent wants you to forget is that he voted to authorize the use of force. And now says it's the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place. I don't see how you can lead this country to succeed in Iraq if you say wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. What message does that send our troops? What messages does that send our allies? What message does that send the Iraqis? No, the way to win this is to be steadfast and resolved and to follow through on the plan that I just outlined. Note that Bush's argument -- which he thought was so fucking clever that he repeated the phrase "the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place" or a close variation of it throughout the rest of the debate -- is not whether or not the Iraq war is the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place. His argument is that to acknowledge that the Iraq war is the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place would be a public-relations problem for him and his regime. So fuck the truth. Fuck the troops. Fuck the Iraqis, fuck the entire fucking world. This is all about saving face for the Bush regime. Let's all just pretend that the Bush regime's unprovoked, illegal, immoral, imperialistic March 2003 invasion of Iraq was not a colossal fucking mistake, because the United States of America and its leaders are incapable of making mistakes. To answer Bush's rhetorical question of what message it would send to acknowledge that his regime's war in Iraq is the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place, I imagine that many, if not most, of our troops, our allies, the Iraqis and the world would love it if the the Bush regime would actually fucking admit its many, many mistakes. (Hell, even just one mistake!) Because only after a mistake is acknowledged can it be fixed. We Americans need to acknowledge our mistake of having allowed the Bush regime to take over the White House without having been elected, and we can acknowledge that mistake on Nov. 2 by voting the lying, thieving, murderous Bush regime out of Washington. Our troops, our allies, the Iraqis and the rest of the world would be delighted to hear that message from the American people, that we acknowledge our mistake and that with legitimately elected President John Kerry we intend to fix what the Bush regime shamelessly, needlessly, criminally broke. I won't rehash "Going Upriver" because it contains so many gems that to describe them all would ruin the surprise. You need to see it, and if you want to read more about it before you go see it, you can visit its Web site. I will remark that "Going Upriver" thoroughly discredits so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ringleader John O'Neill -- who is a Vietnam veteran but who never served with Kerry -- for what he is: A deer-caught-in-the-headlights right-wing nutjob who was recruited by the Nixon regime to try to discredit Kerry. Just as Butler does not tell us, but rather shows us what a true American hero Kerry is, Butler does not tell us, but shows us what a raging assbite O'Neill is. Television clips and film footage don't lie. I had thought that "Going Upriver" would simply rehash images that I'd already scene, but the film shows mostly film and television clips and pictures that I'd never seen before (and made me wonder why I hadn't) and it fleshed out what I already knew about John Kerry. Perhaps the most poignant part of "Going Upriver" is the film footage of Vietnam veterans tossing their medals over a fence in a symbolic act, an act to show that they believed that in Vietnam they fought for nothing, that their comrades were killed and were still being killed for nothing, and thus their medals meant nothing to them. I've read about the medal-tossing, but no written account of it that I've read does it any justice; one has to watch the film footage to gain a real understanding of what happened. Rather than a spiteful, anti-American hatefest, as the Bush-lovin' AmeriNazis would have us believe it was, the medal-tossing was a cathartic expression of deep sorrow over young lives lost for nothing except for the pride of stupid white men and resentment that the federal government run by said stupid white men had lied about the war in Vietnam, just as the Bush regime has been lying about its war in Iraq. (That anyone should criticize the veterans for doing whatever the fuck they please with their own damned medals pisses me off, especially the fact that most of the critics of the medal-throwers would never put their own precious, hypocritical, chickenhawk asses in the way of a bullet.) While I have long known that John Kerry, whom I have seen speak twice here in Northern California and whose hand I shook at one of those events, is a good man who will be a great president, I walked away from "Going Upriver" filled with a whole new appreciation for what Kerry has fought for and for what he still fights, and an unexpected appreciation of how vitally important the Vietnam War remains to this day, a deep understanding that it's not ancient history. If Bush hadn't pussed out of Vietnam, if he had gone like Kerry went (Kerry volunteered to go) and had witnessed what Kerry witnessed, there is no way that he could so blithely suggest during Thursday's presidential debate that saving face for his regime is more important than saving Americans', Iraqis' and others' lives.  "Going Upriver" demonstrates that like the Vietnam War was, the Second Bush War in Iraq is the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place -- and that John Kerry, like he was during the anti-Vietnam War movement, is the right man at the right time at the right place. My grade: A 9:15:26 PM    Comments []

Monday, August 09, 2004

In a still from one of many true-colors-revealing clips shown in "Fahrenheit 9/11," George W. Bush tells what CBS News calls a "diamond-studded $800-a-plate crowd" at an October 2000 fundraiser: "This is an impressive crowd: The haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base." (This is supposed to be funny, and the "have-mores," all or most of whom are white, all laugh.) "F9/11": The second time is as good as the first time Today I saw "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the second time. (I saw it when it was released on June 25 and reviewed it here.) I wanted to see it on the big screen one more time before it is supposed to hit DVD next month, just in time for the presidential election on Nov. 2. An advantage of watching Michael Moore's excellent documentary again is that the first time you watch it you're hit with a lot at once, and the second time you have the opportunity to more thoroughly digest the film. After my second viewing of "Fahrenheit" today, I have come to two inescapable conclusions (based not just on "Fahrenheit," but also upon what I know of the Bush regime's actions of the past four years): 1. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are traitors. They and/or family members and friends, business associates and/or campaign contributors have personally profited from the Bush regime's unprovoked, immoral, illegal and imperialistic March 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, which had absolutely nothing to do with the post-Sept. 11, 2001 "war on terrorism." To add insult to injury, the Bush family for years has had close business ties with the Saudis, and the Bush family and the Saudis have both profited from Gulf War II through their financial interests in the Carlyle Group. Think about it: "President" Bush gets a memo on Aug. 6, 2001, that Osama bin Laden (originally of Saudi Arabia) is determined to strike within the United States -- soon. Bush is on vacation, so he doesn't do shit. Although 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and not one of them was from Iraq, the Bush regime shoves its March 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq down Americans' and down the world's throats. Almost 1,000 American military personnel and thousands of innocent Iraqis have died in order to make Dick Cheney's Halliburton and the Bush family's Carlyle Group -- and the Saudi elite -- even richer. As governor of Texas, George W. Bush was big on the death penalty. While I am generally opposed to the death penalty, I would not at all be opposed to the death penalty for George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the others within the Bush regime who clearly committed treason: Lying to the American people and to the world in order to conduct a bogus war for their and their associates' war profiteering, which resulted in the unnecessary loss of thousands of American and Iraqi lives.  I have also concluded that those who support the treasonous, murderous BushCheneyCorp will inhabit A Special Place in Hell, right next to The Special Place in Hell for Bush, Cheney, et. al. Exactly how hot the BushCheneyCorp's aiders', abettors' and supporters' Special Place in Hell will be will depend upon the degree of their support for the treasonous, murderous BushCheneyCorp. 2. Michael Moore has helped to do something that the clueless, impotent Democratic Party has been utterly unable and/or unwilling to do during the past four years: Rescue the nation's heart and soul from the darkness of the Bush regime, which took advantage of a national tragedy to perpetrate crimes of its own, resulting in even more death and destruction. How Moore goes on in the face of attacks from even so-called "liberals" who have never lifted a fucking finger to help anyone I have no idea. I would love to have just a fraction of Moore's fortitude. Whether or not the Democratic Party has redeemed itself from its complicity in the horrors of the second Bush regime is way too early to judge. Right now the Democratic Party has a lot of help from the likes of Moore, MoveOn.org, Air America Radio, Howard Dean's supporters, bloggers, et. al., et. al. Fact is, the reason there are so many groups and individuals helping out the Democratic Party for the 2004 presidential election is that we all have seen how impotent the Democratic Party has been since it rolled over and played dead in late 2000 when the Bush regime stole the election in Florida. We knew that left on its own, the Democratic Party would likely fuck up yet another election, so we couldn't -- and didn't -- leave the critically important 2004 presidential election solely to the Democratic Party, which certainly during the past four years hasn't earned our progressives' allegiance.  I don't think that the Democratic Party could win in November if it weren't for the help of the likes of Michael Moore and MoveOn.org and those, like me, who are on loan from the Green Party -- yet, of course, the crusty, incompetent, out-of-touch Democratic Party operatives who should have resigned long ago (which is most Democratic Party operatives) will take all of the credit should the Kerry-Edwards ticket win, as I suspect that it will. The rhetoric of the Democratic National Convention last month sounded great, but until the Democratic Party actually returns to what it used to be, that's all that it is: Rhetoric. And if the Democratic Party is to continue to win elections past this November, it sorely needs to be reformed, and that reform is unlikely to come from within. 9:23:43 PM    Comments []

Thursday, July 08, 2004

Look who's on the cover of the July 12 issue of TIME! If you don't want to buy the issue, you can read the articles on Michael Moore and "Fahrenheit 9/11" here. And here's something fun from Moore's Web site: Letterman's Top 10 List: Top 10 George W. Bush Complaints About "Fahrenheit 9/11" 10. That actor who played the president was totally unconvincing.   9. It oversimplified the way I stole the election. 8. Too many of them fancy college-boy words. 7. If Michael Moore had waited a few months, he could have included the part where I get him deported. 6. Didn't have one of them hilarious monkeys who smoke cigarettes and gives people the finger. 5. Of all Michael Moore's accusations, only 97 percent are true. 4. Not sure -- I passed out after a piece of popcorn lodged in my windpipe. 3. Where the hell was Spider-Man? 2. I couldn't hear most of the movie over Cheney's foul mouth. 1. I thought this was supposed to be about dodgeball! 11:56:07 AM    Comments []

Monday, July 05, 2004

'F9/11' caught in Spidey's web Michael Moore's scathing anti-Bush-regime documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" was the second top-grossing movie of the holiday weekend, bumped from its No. 1 spot by "Spider-Man 2." Not surprising, as 2002's first "Spider-Man" is one of the top 10 highest-grossing movies of all time. "Spider-Man 2" grossed almost $116 million, "Fahrenheit" grossed $21 million and No. 3 "White Chicks" grossed $12 million over the holiday weekend, The Associated Press reports. "Fahrenheit," which opened nationwide on June 25, has taken in a total of just over $60 million, the AP reports, adding that "Fahrenheit" "could become the first documentary ever to top $100 million." "Doubling its theater count to 1,725, 'Fahrenheit 9/11' held up strongly despite the onslaught of 'Spider-Man 2,' which debuted in 4,152 cinemas," the AP reports. Mainly, I'm just happy that "Fahrenheit" beat "White Chicks" again. (I saw "Spider-Man 2" today. My grade: "B+." They could have cut out 15 or 20 minutes of exposition and nothing would have been lost. I won't be seeing "White Chicks"...) Update (Sunday, July 11, 2004): "Fahrenheit" dropped to No. 4 in its third weekend. Not bad, actually, for a documentary in the age of "reality" television. This weekend's top five movies, according to The Associate Press, were: No. 1: "Spider-Man 2," with a gross of $46 million; No. 2: "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy," $28 million; No. 3: "King Arthur," $15.2 million; No. 4: "Fahrenheit 9/11," $11 million; and No. 5: "The Notebook," $6.53 million. ("White Chicks," in case you were wondering, came in at No. 6, with $6.5 million.) "Fahrenheit" so far has grossed just over $80 million and is on its way to becoming the first documentary to hit the $100 million mark, the AP notes. 10:58:35 PM    Comments []

Monday, June 28, 2004

This looks like just one stupid white male protester, but every one of the trillions of cells that comprise his neo-Nazi body oppose that fucking Commie pig Michael Moore and his satanic, anti-American, terrorist-lovin', freedom-hatin' pack of lies that was the highest-grossing movie of the weekend! And this protest of obvious geniuses is twice as large! (Photos of stupid white men terrified of dwindling white male power "courtesy" of pabaah.com. "PABAAH!" stands for "Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti-American Hollywood!" [Yes, that's a real association of right-wing nutjobs; I couldn't make up something that stupid.])   MASSIVE protests against 'F9/11'! I've been surfing a few of the anti-Michael Moore/anti-"Fahrenheit 9/11" Web sites. I almost feel sorry for the terrified stupid white men who comprise the majority of the anti-Moore/anti-"F9/11" crowd. ("Almost" because they are neo-Nazi asswipes who came from hell to try to eliminate everyone who doesn't look like they look and believe what they believe, and it's hard to feel sorry for neo-Nazi asswipes who came from hell to try to eliminate everyone who doesn't look like they look and believe what they believe.)  Free Republic high-mindedly lets you know that that "We note Mr. Moore's constitutional right to free speech" -- but join us in our effort to silence him anyway! Lovely peeps, the freeps. Move America Forward -- whose name can be confusing, since its goal is to Drag America Backasswards -- "argues": Last week we asked Americans who found in Moore’s movie “Fahrenheit 9/11” an attempt to undermine the war on terror, to let movie theater operators know about their objections. Think about it… If you walked into a Wal Mart store and saw they were selling merchandise that attacked the military, our troops and America’s battle against Islamic terrorism, wouldn’t you complain to the store manager or write a letter and ask that they not sell that product because it was undermining our national effort?   Gee, I'd have a comeback, but you just can't argue with airtight logic like that! They're right: Michael Moore is an enemy combatant who should be shipped off to Guantanamo yesterday. John Kerry, too! Move America Forward, the right-wing nutjob group you hear about the most where attacks on Moore and "F9/11" are concerned, is based here in my hometown of Sacramento, where they're having absolutely no discernible affect on the film's wild success. Funny. (Rush Limbaugh also got his start here in Sacramento, which, believe it or not, is actually moderate to liberal, with an apparent smattering of right-wing nutjobs here and there.) You can read Move America Forward's sick and twisted manifesto here. The group's central lie is that the left wing is against the U.S. troops and the effort to eradicate terrorism. For the record: The left wing opposes the way our troops are dying for no good reason whatsoever, but are dying for the profit and greed of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and their cabal of plutocratic campaign contributors who are making billions of dollars off the unprovoked invasion of, the unnecessary destruction of, and the U.S. taxpayer-funded reconstruction of Iraq. The only people who are benefitting from the Bush regime's venture in Iraq are people who are already filthy rich. Thousands of Iraqis are dead, hundreds of American troops are dead, the U.S. taxpayers have been fucked up the ass, and future generations of Americans have been fucked because not only has the Bush regime created a record-smashing federal budget deficit with its appallingly irresponsible tax cuts for the rich and its multi-billion-dollar fake war in Iraq, but Iraq is now a fucking terrorist factory. Meanwhile, who's laughing all the way to the bank? Bush and his cronies, who couldn't just outright steal from us Americans at gunpoint, so they decided to steal billions of our tax dollars through their phony war. (And note who does and who does not pay taxes.) Finally, the left wing also believes in combatting terrorism, but believes in doing it in an intelligent way, in a way so as to not make the problem even worse. Fucking duh. Newsmax urges us to "STOP MICHAEL MOORE FROM PROFITTING [sic] IN HIS ATTACKS ON AMERICA & OUR MILITARY." (As Ted Rall noted, the future belongs to those who can spell.) "The goal of the film is abundantly clear: to undermine the war on terrorism," proclaims Newsmax. No, the goal of "Fahrenheit 9/11" is to stop dictator, sociopath and war criminal George W. Bush from getting us into World War III by making more unprovoked attacks on sovereign nations, especially sovereign Muslim nations. Motherfucker Bush has no God-damned right to involve the entire world in his sick fundamentalist "Christian" fantasies of Armageddon. Motherfucker Bush wasn't even elected.   Despite all of this, the right-wing nutjobs hold that it's Michael Moore and his new movie that pose the greatest danger to America and to our troops! These are incredibly stupid, insane people. They embrace Bush, the man who would get them all killed without a second thought if it meant more billions for him and his cronies, and they persecute Moore, who'd like to see a stop put to our young soldiers being put in harm's way without a very good reason. And as "Fahrenheit 9/11's" opening weekend take of almost $24 million demonstrates, these right-wing nutjobs are pathetically weak. I've yet to see any media coverage of any significant protest or demonstration of theirs, and indeed, as Moore himself has noted, their attempted boycott of "F9/11" seems to have been better advertising than the film's distributors could have bought.  Reading the neo-Nazis' online rhetoric is a bit chilling, but it's important that we keep an eye on these psychopaths. We outnumber them, but they are ignorant, fearful and they loves their guns, as Moore amply demonstrated in his last film, "Bowling for Columbine," an Oscar-winning documentary about gun nuts and violence. 7:56:02 PM    Comments []

Sunday, June 27, 2004

(AFP photo, left) Hope for the republic: 'Fahrenheit' beats 'White Chicks' "Fahrenheit 9/11" was the weekend's top-grossing movie, reports The Associated Press. "Fahrenheit" grossed $21.8 million in the United States and Canada since it opened on Friday, earning more in its opening weekend than Michael Moore's last film, "Bowling for Columbine," earned during its entire run ($21.6 million), reports Reuters. The AP notes that "Fahrenheit" is "the first documentary ever to debut as Hollywood's top weekend film." The AP quoted Moore as saying: "I want to thank all the right-wing organizations out there who tried to stop the film, either from their harassment campaign that didn't work on the theater owners, or going to the FEC to get our ads removed from television, to all the things that have been said on television. It's only encouraged more people to go and see it." The Wayans brothers' comedy "White Chicks" came in second place for the weekend, earning $19.6 million; while "White Chicks" played at more than 2,700 theaters, "Fahrenheit" opened in only 868 theaters, "a wide release for a documentary but narrow compared to big Hollywood flicks," the AP notes. "Fahrenheit" cost about $6 million to make and less than $10 million to market, reports Reuters. Update (Monday, June 28, 2004): The Associated Press reports that the final weekend box-office take for "F9/11" was $23.9 million, $2.1 million more than had been estimated.  11:04:23 PM    Comments []

Michael Moore's new documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11," which opened nationwide on Friday, has been selling out throughout the nation. "Fahrenheit's" success, I surmise, is due in large part to the fact that the corporately controlled mass media haven't bothered to tell the whole story for the past four years and the people are hungry for the truth. (AFP photos) 'Fahrenheit': Is it a 'documentary'? Is it accurate? "Fahrenheit 9/11" is poised to be this weekend's top-grossing movie, which greatly bothers not only the Bush Nazis but the surprisingly many members of the "left" who can't stand it that Michael Moore and his movie are getting so much attention and they're not. Two talking points about "Fahrenheit" in the coming weeks and months are going to be: Can we really classify "Fahrenheit 9/11" as a documentary, since Moore takes a stance on his subject? How accurate is "Fahrenheit 9/11"? The World's Most Famous Film Critic, Roger Ebert, writes in the Chicago Sun-Times that yes, "Fahrenheit 9/11" qualifies as a documentary. (I remember that some Bush Nazis claimed that Moore should give back his Best Documentary Oscar for "Bowling for Columbine" -- or that it should be revoked -- because "Columbine" is not a documentary, and since they're all experts of the cinema without an ideological interest in the matter whatsoever, who are we to argue with them?) Anyway, Ebert writes of "Fahrenheit": ...Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not. Michael Moore is a liberal activist. He is the first to say so. He is alarmed by the prospect of a second term for George W. Bush, and made "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the purpose of persuading people to vote against him. That is all perfectly clear, and yet in the days before the film opens June 25, there'll be bountiful reports by commentators who are shocked! shocked! that Moore's film is partisan. "He doesn't tell both sides," we'll hear, especially on FOX News, which is so famous for telling both sides. The wise French director Godard once said, "The way to criticize a film is to make another film." That there is not a pro-Bush documentary available right now I am powerless to explain. Surely, however, the Republican National Convention will open with such a documentary, which will position Bush comfortably between Ronald Reagan and God. The Democratic convention will have a wondrous film about John Kerry. Anyone who thinks one of these documentaries is "presenting facts objectively without editorializing" should look at the other one. ...Moore's real test will come on the issue of accuracy. He can say whatever he likes about Bush, as long as his facts are straight. Having seen the film twice, I saw nothing that raised a flag for me, and I haven't heard of any major inaccuracies. When Moore was questioned about his claim that Bush unwisely lingered for six or seven minutes in that Florida classroom after learning of the World Trade Center attacks, Moore was able to reply with a video of Bush doing exactly that. I agree with Moore that the presidency of George W. Bush has been a disaster for America. In writing that, I expect to get the usual complaints that movie critics should keep their political opinions to themselves. But opinions are my stock in trade, and is it not more honest to declare my politics than to conceal them? I agree with Moore, and because I do, I hope "Fahrenheit 9/11" proves to be as accurate as it seems. While Ebert writes that there are some inaccuracies in "Columbine," he does not list any glaring factual errors, any inaccuracies that even touch the foundation of Moore's main points in the film. He writes that he believes that Moore's "ambush" interview with Heston was unfair, but I don't know about that. Heston probably assumed that he was going to get a doting interview or he wouldn't have agreed to to do it, and so it's difficult for me to feel sorry for Heston, who appeared to have agreed to the interview out of self-interest. And no one forced Heston to reveal himself on camera that he's a fucking racist gun nut. However, if Heston has at least mild age-related dementia, as he appeared to in his interview with Moore, one could argue that Moore was unfair in using the interview. But one could also argue that the interview shed important light onto the mind of a high-ranking member of the NRA, which is more important than sensitivity for the insensitive Heston. From my review of "Fahrenheit 9/11" some might believe I don't find accuracy important. I do. Like Ebert, because I agree with Moore I want his stuff to be accurate. However, I have two main problems with the Moore Accuracy Police: The double fucking standard. The Moore Accuracy Police, as their title suggests, seem to give a shit only whether every fucking word and image and nuance in Michael Moore's material is 200 percent accurate. Everyone else, such as "President" Bush and his warmongers and the corporately controlled mass media, get a free fucking pass where the truth is concerned. Huge lies are swallowed whole while irrelevant inaccuracies are hunted down with butterfly nets and pinned to a dissecting tray. (As Jesus said, "You strain out a gnat yet swallow a camel!") Because hey, Michael Moore's prevarications or factual errors are far more potentially devastating to the republic and to the world than, oh, say, "President" Bush's. The throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater mentality. Again, I believe that Michael Moore should take pains to ensure accuracy. It sucks ass, but much more is expected from the left than from the right where truth and accuracy are concerned. People are used to the right lying through their fucking Nazi teeth. (I need only give one example to prove my assertion: Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about having received a blow job and while George W. Bush still walks around as a free man even though he's a fucking war criminal for having lied about the reasons for taking his nation to war, which has resulted in the deaths of thousands of people.) There are people out there who have the psychological need to believe that if any inaccuracy or unfairness can be found in one of Moore's films, then the entire film is an invalid piece of shit. Of course, millions of Moore-haters poring over every nanosecond of his two-hour films are going to come up with something. I, however, take the whole-picture approach. I think that Moore is doing great work and that his strengths by far outweigh his flaws. I agree wholeheartedly with The New York Times' film reviewer, who wrote that Moore "is a credit to the republic."  But have any glaring inaccuracies been found in "Fahrenheit"? None of which I'm aware. Roger Ebert wrote that he isn't aware of any, either, but don't take our word for it. Here's what The New York Times says on the accuracy of "Fahrenheit 9/11": So how will Mr. Moore's movie stand up under close examination? Is the film's depiction of Mr. Bush as a lazy and duplicitous leader, blinded by his family's financial ties to Arab moneymen and the Saudi Arabian royal family, true to fact? ...After a year spent covering the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, I was recently allowed to attend a Hollywood screening. Based on that single viewing, and after separating out what is clearly presented as Mr. Moore's opinion from what is stated as fact, it seems safe to say that central assertions of fact in "Fahrenheit 9/11" are supported by the public record (indeed, many of them will be familiar to those who have closely followed Mr. Bush's political career). Mr. Moore is on firm ground in arguing that the Bushes, like many prominent Texas families with oil interests, have profited handsomely from their relationships with prominent Saudis, including members of the royal family and of the large and fabulously wealthy bin Laden clan, which has insisted it long ago disowned Osama.... Mr. Moore charges that President Bush and his aides paid too little attention to warnings in the summer of 2001 that Al Qaeda was about to attack, including a detailed Aug. 6, 2001, C.I.A. briefing that warned of terrorism within the country's borders. In its final report next month, the Sept. 11 commission can be expected to offer support to this assertion. Mr. Moore says that instead of focusing on Al Qaeda, the president spent 42 percent of his first eight months in office on vacation; the figure came not from a conspiracy-hungry Web site but from a calculation by The Washington Post. This is a very long article, so see it here (free registration required). "Fahrenheit" jibes with everything that I've read in reputable media sources (The Associated Press, Reuters, The Washington Post, The New York Times, etc.) about the Bush regime for the past four years, but I'll keep my eyes open for any confirmed inaccuracies (that is, inaccuracies that are documented by reputable parties; as for anything that a right-wing Web site or Fox News says, well, I consider the source).  Finally, I'll note that Moore's detractors, I have observed, form three main camps: The elites (or, as "President" Bush calls them in "Fahrenheit," "the haves and the have-mores" -- "my base"), whose reasons for hating Moore and every populist who won't just shut the fuck up are obvious; Those poor and middle-class Americans who are dumbfucks, as evidenced by the fact that the elites have succeeded in persuading said dumbfucks, through such satanic vehicles as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, the National Rifle Association, White House spokesweasel Scott McClellan, Bush asslicker Karen Hughes and the FOX television "news" network, to vote against their own interests (how fucking stupid is that, to vote against your own fucking interests?); and The "liberal" Moore-haters who wish that they had a tiny fraction of his success and who want us to believe that somehow The Cause is strengthened when we eat our own. (Great thinking outside of the box, guys! Very counterintuitive! You're so fucking cool!) These misguided motherfuckers should do what I'll call a Reverse David Brock: go and join the right wing, where they fucking belong. But, love Moore or hate him -- and there seem to be few who are in between -- there seems to be no stopping the "Fahrenheit" juggernaut. And the republic will be better off for it. 11:20:06 AM    Comments []