4 hours 5 min and 17 seconds....
 

....until I will be in the thearters watching Farenheit 9/11

2 hrs 21 min!!!

is this that controversial film? dont know much about it.

Yup here is what the official website says about it.


OFFICIAL WEBSITE

Michael Moore is a waste of flesh

I like him. I particularly enjoyed "Bowling for Columbine". However, I was a little peeved that he used his "Oscar moment" to serve his own political agenda. I hate it when actors and actresses do that.

I'm gonna stay home and read "MY PET GOAT" instead.

I dont hat ehim, but i have very little respect for him. He is incapable of doing anything without trying to further his own political views. I understand him being opinionated, i am very opinionated myself, but i can't stand people who cram their beliefs down other's throats. He is very much a "agree with me or you are wrong" kind of person, at least what i have seen.

He stands too close to the border of "Liberal Nazism".

I am, however, curious about this. i just don't trust him to provide any subject, especially this one, objectively, relying solely on fact, and not letting his emotions and beliefs get in the way.

i have yet to see that from him.

Should have know it'd been controversial, if MM had anything to do with it. Thing that gets me, de we realy need to be presented with a film about this topic, when, going from the info on the site, most of that was know and made aware to people anyway, since the bad event. This sort of docufilm, imo dont need a cinema release, show it on tv maybe.

Wtf is "Liberal Naziism"? That's quite the oxymoron. Mike Moore, to me, is sort of the political gadfly of today's journalism. The only time I saw him trying to cram his beliefs down others' throats was during the Academy Awards a couple of years ago. His film, "Bowling for Columbine", wasn't based enitrely on emotional appeals. In fact, it was more of his attempt to show the flaws in the arguments of the other side by providing evidence and using proper lines of philosophical reasoning. Granted, he's not entirely objective ... particularly because his subjects are of great importance to him. But how can you be persuasive to a mass audience regarding controversial issues in this age without pleading to emotion? Aren't his subjects emotional, even if he was entirely objective? For example, he could show the 9/11 footage of people plummeting to their deaths from the WTC. It's factual footage, but emotionally charged. People could easily criticize him for that, saying: "He didn't NEED to put that footage in there! He's just trying to make us feel horrified all over again!" Well, the horror of the 9/11 tragedy is inescapable. People will respond emotionally in different ways to the facts (same with the facts and footage presented in "Bowling for Columbine".) It's hard to discuss these subjects without getting people's emotions charged simply because they are emotional subjects.