Michael Moore's 'Capitalism: A Love Story'

cincybearcat

Brisk. wrote:

People have been saying stuff like why is he then make a capitalist venture etc but I believe this could be answered with him being able to make more documentries like this and others, if he makes everything for free then he can't exactly carry on making doc's to create change.

Or, maybe he's just a big fat hypocrite. :shock:

Byrnzie

prfctlefts wrote:

Would you rather have a profitable business of your own or work for someone else who told what time you had to be at work,what time you could go home, when you could take a vacation,and how much they thought you were worth. Or would you rather be your own boss ?

Please explain what this has to do with the corrupt banking system and the fact that 2% of the worlds population own 50% of the wealth. Thanks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6211250.stm

prfctlefts wrote:

And like I said I think he's a hypocrite because the same system that he is bashing is the same system that has allowed him to make his movies more than $170 million and make him a very wealthy man.Why doesn't he go try to make his movies Venezuela,N. Korea,or Cuba.

So anybody living in a rich western country is a hypocrite if they shed some light on the corruption inherent in their countries system? He's Canadian, not Venezuelan, North Korean, or Cuban. Next you'll be telling him to 'Love it, or leave it'.

Random_Wookie

i will watch this movie and hoepfully get a good laught out of it. As micheal moore's ability to make a documentary should be question, before you belive a word that comes out of his mouth. Just buy watching the seen in the preview where the people are coming out of the office and he is standing their saying can you tell me what this means, is just an atempt by him to land a few cheap shots and make the movie more about him. Of course the system is harsh, but what system is better?

Byrnzie

Random_Wookie wrote:

Just buy watching the seen in the preview where the people are coming out of the office and he is standing their saying can you tell me what this means, is just an atempt by him to land a few cheap shots and make the movie more about him.

It's his style of documentary film-making. It's the same gonzo style that he's been employing since 'T.V Nation' and 'The Awful Truth' and that resulted in him being awarded an Oscar for best documentary. And why is injecting humour into a movie suddenly a bad thing? You call it a cheap shot? Why?

Once again, it's just fashionable to knock Michael Moore and everyone steps in line.

Random_Wookie wrote:

Of course the system is harsh, but what system is better?

One that's regulated and transparent?

Brisk.

cincybearcat wrote:

Brisk. wrote:

People have been saying stuff like why is he then make a capitalist venture etc but I believe this could be answered with him being able to make more documentries like this and others, if he makes everything for free then he can't exactly carry on making doc's to create change.

Or, maybe he's just a big fat hypocrite. :shock:

sure, either way but thats just the answer to that question, i dont really have a stance on his movies and i've watched quite a few of them.

Random_Wookie

Byrnzie wrote:

Random_Wookie wrote:

Of course the system is harsh, but what system is better?

One that's regulated and transparent?

but was it not the loaning of money to people who could not pay it back, one of the reasons for crash. We can live in hope that we can get a deceant system in place?

Random_Wookie

Byrnzie wrote:

It's his style of documentary film-making. It's the same gonzo style that he's been employing since 'T.V Nation' and 'The Awful Truth' and that resulted in him being awarded an Oscar for best documentary. And why is injecting humour into a movie suddenly a bad thing? You call it a cheap shot? Why?

Once again, it's just fashionable to knock Michael Moore and everyone steps in line.

I call it a cheap shot as he will use it to try and prove a point that people who work in the industry dont know the basics (in relation to him standing out the front of an office). But all it should be seen is a bunch of office workers running off to get lunch,go home, or something along those lines. As for him reciving an oscar for best documentary in my mind does not mean he can make a documentary. It just means that the pannel of people who decied the oscars think it was worth one, but was it? Granted i found the awful truth funny and enjoyed watching it.

catefrances

Byrnzie wrote:

catefrances wrote:

*shivers*
for unintentionally paraphrasing dubya. thanks for bringing that to my attention steve. :P

No, not you. You didn't paraphrase anybody. You were explaining what someone else was trying to say. You've clearly not had enough coffee this morning Cat. Go get the kettle on.

and change my name to polly????

Byrnzie

Random_Wookie wrote:

As for him reciving an oscar for best documentary in my mind does not mean he can make a documentary.

Righteo. :?

catefrances

Random_Wookie wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

It's his style of documentary film-making. It's the same gonzo style that he's been employing since 'T.V Nation' and 'The Awful Truth' and that resulted in him being awarded an Oscar for best documentary. And why is injecting humour into a movie suddenly a bad thing? You call it a cheap shot? Why?

Once again, it's just fashionable to knock Michael Moore and everyone steps in line.

I call it a cheap shot as he will use it to try and prove a point that people who work in the industry dont know the basics (in relation to him standing out the front of an office). But all it should be seen is a bunch of office workers running off to get lunch,go home, or something along those lines. As for him reciving an oscar for best documentary in my mind does not mean he can make a documentary. It just means that the pannel of people who decied the oscars think it was worth one, but was it? Granted i found the awful truth funny and enjoyed watching it.

i do believe the oscars are peer voted.. therefore it would be assumed that those documentary makers who do this shit for a living thought moore was worth the award. but what would they know, right??

Smellyman

I hate it when people gather facts, go talk directly to the people involved, seek out their explanations and film it.

I wish he would just sit behind a radio microphone and spew unsupported nonsense.

cincybearcat

catefrances wrote:

i do believe the oscars are peer voted.. therefore it would be assumed that those documentary makers who do this shit for a living thought moore was worth the award. but what would they know, right??

A pretty naive thought really.

The only documentary Michael Moore has ever done is 1 long (4-6 part) documentary on himself.

catefrances

cincybearcat wrote:

catefrances wrote:

i do believe the oscars are peer voted.. therefore it would be assumed that those documentary makers who do this shit for a living thought moore was worth the award. but what would they know, right??

A pretty naive thought really.

The only documentary Michael Moore has ever done is 1 long (4-6 part) documentary on himself.

oh for sure totally. :roll:

Byrnzie

cincybearcat wrote:

catefrances wrote:

i do believe the oscars are peer voted.. therefore it would be assumed that those documentary makers who do this shit for a living thought moore was worth the award. but what would they know, right??

A pretty naive thought really.

The only documentary Michael Moore has ever done is 1 long (4-6 part) documentary on himself.

Sure, Bowling Columbine didn't address anything to do with guns. Fahrenheit 9/11 didn't address anything to do with the corruption, greed, and incompetence of the Bush Administration, and Sicko was all lies, despite the head of one of America's medical insurance companies claiming recently that the movie hit the nail on the head.

cincybearcat

Byrnzie wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

catefrances wrote:

i do believe the oscars are peer voted.. therefore it would be assumed that those documentary makers who do this shit for a living thought moore was worth the award. but what would they know, right??

A pretty naive thought really.

The only documentary Michael Moore has ever done is 1 long (4-6 part) documentary on himself.

Sure, Bowling Columbine didn't address anything to do with guns. Fahrenheit 9/11 didn't address anything to do with the corruption, greed, and incompetence of the Bush Administration, and Sicko was all lies, despite the head of one of America's medical insurance companies claiming recently that the movie hit the nail on the head.

I've said it before..see "death in gaza' if you want a great idea of what a true documentary is about...hint...tay behind the camera.

F 9/11 was really stupid. So was Bowling. Never got to see Sicko, so I can't comment, it's certainly a good topic...could be a good movie. My criticism is about his style, I don't like it and I think he likes seeing himself on camera an awful lot more than I do.

Byrnzie

cincybearcat wrote:

F 9/11 was really stupid. So was Bowling.

You should be a film critic.

Can you elaborate and tell us what was stupid about these two films, one of which won an Oscar, and the other a Palme D'or?

Edit: Oh wait, you've already said it...you don't like seeing Michael Moore in front of the camera.

cincybearcat

Byrnzie wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

F 9/11 was really stupid. So was Bowling.

You should be a film critic.

Can you elaborate and tell us what was stupid about these two films, one of which won an Oscar, and the other a Palme D'or?

Edit: Oh wait, you've already said it...you don't like seeing Michael Moore in front of the camera.

I've already done all that ... use the search function.

Seriously though, I get why people like him. I just don't. I love documentaries, and I think a good film maker makes the documentary about the subject and tried not to interject themselves. They film and gather, otherwise it's just an editorial opinion. That is my take.

I and yes, I really didn't enjoy Bowling. I thought he took some things out of context just to try and prove his editorial opinion rather than document the facts. I also didn't really enjoy his info-mertial style. Interesting enough, I agree with him in regards to gun control...so while agreeing with the topic, I still really disliked the film.

As for F 9/11...saw it in the theater with a friend that is fairly polar opposite of me on a lot fo issues. Once again, I found it to be a chopped up editorial opinion and not a documentary. Some good stuff, but a lot of crap. Again, just my opinion.

Hey whatever floats your boat. People like different styles. He like to be part of the subject of his movies. He likes to be a celebrity. And you like that. More power to him and you.

You have to give him credit for being able to make a living at it, it's tough work. And the research is tough work.

Especially if you are only trying to find 1 side of the story the whole time, you have to look twice as long to get enough for a movie.

Byrnzie

cincybearcat wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

F 9/11 was really stupid. So was Bowling.

You should be a film critic.

Can you elaborate and tell us what was stupid about these two films, one of which won an Oscar, and the other a Palme D'or?

Edit: Oh wait, you've already said it...you don't like seeing Michael Moore in front of the camera.

I've already done all that ... use the search function.

Seriously though, I get why people like him. I just don't. I love documentaries, and I think a good film maker makes the documentary about the subject and tried not to interject themselves. They film and gather, otherwise it's just an editorial opinion. That is my take.

I and yes, I really didn't enjoy Bowling. I thought he took some things out of context just to try and prove his editorial opinion rather than document the facts. I also didn't really enjoy his info-mertial style. Interesting enough, I agree with him in regards to gun control...so while agreeing with the topic, I still really disliked the film.

As for F 9/11...saw it in the theater with a friend that is fairly polar opposite of me on a lot fo issues. Once again, I found it to be a chopped up editorial opinion and not a documentary. Some good stuff, but a lot of crap. Again, just my opinion.

Hey whatever floats your boat. People like different styles. He like to be part of the subject of his movies. He likes to be a celebrity. And you like that. More power to him and you.

You have to give him credit for being able to make a living at it, it's tough work. And the research is tough work.

Especially if you are only trying to find 1 side of the story the whole time, you have to look twice as long to get enough for a movie.

Fair enough.

jlew24asu

Micahel Moore owes his success to capitalism. what an assclown

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

Micahel Moore owes his success to capitalism. what an assclown

So are you saying that anyone who lives in a capitalist society has no right to criticize it and expose it's corruption?