Talk:Michael Moore Hates America/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

For an August 2004 deletion debate over this page see: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Michael Moore Hates America

"Planned" indeed. Not encyclopedic until it's produced. Trash

I do just love these people. I'm sure calling a movie "Michael Moore Hates America" is exactly the way you would communicate that this movie is "more than just a personal attack". I think I'll produce a movie which is a fair and balenced assessment of the current presidency and call it "George Bush is an election rigging criminal who has screwed over the American people". That should hit the right note. After all, it wouldn't be a personal attack.

I'm also going to support him because "he's a rebel". I mean, he's only got the White House, Fox News and almost every talk show host in the country on his side. Come on, surely the guy deserves a chance to speak his views!

see also: Ad hominem.

DJ Clayworth 18:02, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The title of the movie is just an extension of the point Mike Wilson is trying to make. Using numerous examples, Wilson makes the argument that Moore, through editing and editorializing, presents a skewed version of reality and the opinions of others. From this we get the impression that "Charlton Heston Is Insensitive", "Businessmen Are Dirty Scoundrels", and "Canada is Great." The title MMHA is satire. Watching the movie, a viewer will conclude that it isn't about Michael Moore's views, but rather how he presents the views of others. Only when realizing this can you appreciate the title. scy7he

Review

This documentary is truly incredible. I was very interested in it just by observing the title. I believed that it could have given me an insightful approach to Michael Moore from a different perspective.

I always knew that Michael Moore, for the very fact that he is a man and not a robot, could not be objective. So I thought that maybe this film could have given me an introspective and a critical analysis of MM's works, pointing out bad points and imprecision's.

Evidently I was wrong.

All the people that are interviewed are talking a meaningless 'infimus'-level language, dense of curse and non-existing arguments. The people he interviews that support MM are shown as brain-less/washed zombies with opinions stuck on their head (he probably looked for the two of them in the whole crowd for hours...).

But that is not all. All the points he criticises about MM's film making, like the use of video editing omitting some parts to obtain the purpose of your argument, are widely used throughout he documentary, in a more explicit and lame way the MM ever dreamed of doing in his "Bowling for Columbine".

All the things he points out are minor details in MM's argument. Director Michael Wilson looses the wide picture of basically all MM's thought and exaggerates what's more irrelevant, using low-level techniques copied from MM himself (e.g.the lame cartoon scenes) .

One other small things that is a indicator of the inconsistency of the arguments is the fact that Michael Wilson makes fun of Moore's being obese, where he is just ass obese as him, and when he reaches MM's age, he will probably be even more.

That is truly a waste. I HONESTLY wanted to watch a well documented critics of MM, just to the see "the other side of the party", but it was an utterly futile attempt.

Truly amazing. Amazing how it almost NEVER occurred to me to be watching a movie and to be feeling this visceral sense of hopeless compassion for the poorness of its content and realisation, especially considering the horizon of expectation that you have in mind when watching it. You think: "Well, this is a 200,000 dollar budget film, its very well presented and it's talking about something socially insightful, it should be worth watching.

Wrong.

If you happen to have the chance to watch it, go for it. See how untalented directors try to discredit in futile attempts those who work hard. The title had potential, there were many topics that I personally wanted to be discussed, like the fact hat MM is himself a white Caucasian millionaire, or that he became famous through the help of large companies and so on, but then again everything is completely spoiled by the complete lack of any suggestion of new perspectives and art direction. 1/10 Brrrrrrr......

Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 12:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah but how can you review a film that you clearly have not seen? Busted! If you had seen this film you wouldn't have written the following: " The title had potential, there were many topics that I personally wanted to be discussed, like the fact hat MM is himself a white Caucasian millionaire, or that he became famous through the help of large companies and so on."

In the Documentary, both points were mentioned, which makes your review quite lame and ridiculous. A review of your review, 0/10, and minus points for writing a fake review of a film that you have not seen Pistone. Celtic1

#1 In the Documentary, both points were mentioned, infact, they were mentioned, not explored, there was no deep analysis of any interesting aspect, everything was superficially presented.

#2 which makes your review quite lame and ridiculous. A review of your review, 0/10, well that's your personal opinion, and even though I do not agree I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

#3 a fake review of a film that you have not seen To your information, I have seen the film, that is why I wrote a review, and secondly a review of your comment is 0/10, if you had read my review entirely and not just the parts that you liked to read, you would have seen that I wrote there were many topics that I personally wanted to be discussed, discussed, not mentioned. Have you seen the film?

#4 pistone, it's Pistono, could you at least write my name properly, or you haven't read even that, Celtic1?

#5 I do not intend to open a flame, but almost all the points your wrote were inaccurate.

Federico Pistono 11:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, i had the feeling that the documentary would had been like much along the lines of Fahrenhype, a documentary that does pretty much the same. Ive read throughout pages like Bowling for Truth and found with much displeace that most of the points in wich they attack moore indeed are not lies, but rather Ambigueties of history, such as the "Its a wonderful world" part, wich is reviewed point by point. Its impressive, but when you read parts like "Allende was hardly a defender of democracy" or that he went on in "ilegal activities", you just know the guy who wrote it is taking the right-wing side of the story. Today there is no doubt about track 1 & track 2, but they are not even mentioned in the page, for the page, in 1973, Allende was overthrown by the people, and later he committed suicide (truth is, Allende committed suicide in a time and place, at the time he was in a battle against the militars, who where not only supported by the CIA, but also by the 10 million dollars that the united states sent to support the long protests). Theres just not a single page, movie or book, that would attack moore without using weak tactics, distorsions or making fun at him. Its truly sad, cos i dont think it would be THAT hard to go after him.

While both your personal reviews are well written, they don't belong in wikipedia.-155.246.15.32 17:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The most insane part of that fake review is the suggestion that Micheal Wilson is somehow obese.BathTub (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This article really ought to be listed for deletion again. Non-notable.Hauser 10:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

~

Eliminating discussion of Wilson's appearance on The Daily Show and placing it on Mike Wilson (filmmaker) page. Jkp1187 17:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The person walking by Michael Wilson in the footage on the Daily Show was not actually Michael Moore, but someone who looked somewhat similar. This was intended to be a joke on the show, and not to be taken seriously.

The sub title of the movie

I would like to know why the sub title of this movie was that it tells the truth about a great nation, because it doesn't. after watching it i was wondering where this truth was. was it somwhere between the penn & teller clips, the interveiw with the army guy who had his hands blown off or somewhere in the interveiws with that documentary guy. And for that matter why is it that americans are so confinced that theirs is the greatest nation on earth or in history, what great things is it that they have done maybe it's just me but i don't see them. Yours Grimm MD

> Wikipedia isn't your blog "Grimm MD."

Excuse me I thought this was the discussion page thank you for correcting me, who ever you are. Yours Grimm MD.

~~Grimm, apparently, hasn't read anything pertaining to the use of talk pages, even though, y'know, he's using them. Bad, bad Grimm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.96.159.235 (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)