AT THE CANNES FILM FESTIVAL..

The Hollywood Reporter, a trade publication says the Michael Moore film is the one film that is generating the most excitement and that everyone is talking about. The the BBC news service says the Cannes Film Festival Judges are hinting that Moore will win the top prize at the festival.
The along comes the New York Post who, in a critique of the film, came to the conclusion that it is no big deal. The critic, Lou Lumenick puts it this way: filmmaker Michael Moore falls short of the earth-shattering revelations he promised in his documentary.
President Bush need not lose any sleep over Michael Moore's much-hyped "Fahrenheit 9/11," which turns out to be a wet firecracker.
(snip)

Mostly Moore dusts off a litany of old accusations against the president - whom he portrays as both a buffoon and a world-class conspirator - and lands few solid blows as he takes on targets like the Patriot Act and supposed war profiteering by the politically connected Halliburton Corp.

The sheer scope of the material he's trying to cover in a two-hour documentary - the Sept. 11 attacks rate maybe five minutes - leads to incredibly superficial and misleading treatment at times.

(snip)
********************************************************************

Makes you wonder where this guy got his credentials to be a film critic or even a journalist.

'Nuff said.

DTH

Duh. No shit. It isn't new because it's all the truth which has been reported in so many small, disparate places, so far flung, that only about 1,000 people have put it all together and really understand thanks to crappy news reporting from places like the NY Times.

The White House response to allegations made in the movie was, simply, "this stuff was published in House of Bush House of Saud."

And...? So you're not denying it? How is the appropriate response to this movie, "this stuff has already been published somewhere else"?????

That seems to miss the point.

And isn't it amazing that the tone of the NY Times article REPLICATED PRECISELY the message the white house wanted to send about the movie.

Is the NYTimes engaged in journalism, or in publishing press releases from the White House?

Welll, you can bet that when a couple million Americans see this movie they're going to wonder why, in all that OLD news, there's so much they've never heard before, and hadn't been properly contextualized.

Very true... I hope a LOT of people read that NYT review and then decide to ask the Times why they didn't cover all this 'old news'.

I still do so love Bob Somerby!

The site David Brock started site is great too!

Alot of people will FINALLY get it once it's strung together in front of their eyes.

And THAT is what they fear.

...have you seen The Revolution Will Not be Televised?

you are mistaking what I said. I am not and never have been against Chavez. In fact, I was on bartcop and MWO back in late 2001 and early 2002 predicting that BushInc would try to overthrow him. I can't tell you how many proChavez articles I emailed to news outlets throughout the last two years.

Because they are too lazy to read, the film may be the best way to get the scales to fall from the eyes of the sad clowns of Corporate McPravda. Once these self-righteous ignoramii realize what they have done by their willful inaction, they may come tot he realization that their sinecures will not save their souls. Still a few presstitutes may find the energy to get off their cushy backsides. Lord Knows we can use them in the work to drive the BFEE out of every center of power and from nook and crannie. You know I won't mind if everyone claims credit after we herd them into Leavenworth or New Spandau.

Here's the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/17/movies/17MOOR.html

Fuck you, Rupert!