[Spareribs]

I love Michael Moore as a film maker and entertainer. He's an excellent writer too and he has lots of great points in all those medias. I love his books BTW.

Do I have to agree with him?? No.

I also like his opposer Bill O'Reilly too. You have to admit, that this kind of stuff is also a part of entertainment and drama. Michael Moore is also an artist too. I think it is possible to admire him as an artist without agreeing with him. He's a great film maker. Roger and Me is a masterpiece.

 

[Sladeophile]

AND he really REALLY likes food, particularly fatty foods!

 

[raaj]

I saw this movie last night as I was bored and had nothing else to see and the only other option was going back to the hotel to sleep.

Now, I am sorry that I saw this movie - or that I wasted the money on this one. To be fair, this movie did not make any bellicose political comments or ham-fisted "Who in God's green earth would attack us?" comments. The movie just focused on a bunch of cops and their families stuck in the ordeal where the cops get pinned under the debris of the collapsed towers while they were trying to rescue trapped people.

But, the movie was extremely long drawn and boring, and crawled towards the obvious ending - of the cops getting rescued and everyone living happily ever after..

Boring movie, not worth the money. I should have donated the ticket money to a homeless guy outside the theater instead of enduring this dreary movie.

 

[TheMarchingMule]

This movie is a basic exploit to our feelings towards losing loved ones under unimaginable circumstances, and the further fact that it was real makes it even more horrible that somebody would try to do such a thing to get money.

Sure, it was inevitable, and I guess it's best that it came out sooner than later to 'refresh' our minds about the tragic event, but imo it's just unethical in the general sense to make a profit off of another person's worst nightmare come true.

 

[vibin247]

I just came back from watching World Trade Center, and I honestly have to say that it's one of his better films. It's odd that it's not really an Oliver Stone film at all, because it doesn't focus on the politics and the conspiracies, but just a story of survival. That was the best, and most humane thing that Stone could have done to treat the tragedy in his film. The story of those two policemen is an amazing story, and I don't see why it shouldn't be told.

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jam_Master_J I thought NBK was very good. Not planning on seeing this movie though.

Same. I thought Natural Born Killers was a VERY good movie - extremely well done.

But Oliver Stone can kiss my ass now - as somebody who actually was four blocks away from the towers when they got hit, I REALLY don't want to remember this if I can avoid it. It is simply incredibly bad taste to capitolize off of such a tragic event.

It's far too early for this. People may argue "Yeah, but WW2 was in movies and television during it and after it!". Yes, but also remember that no television shows depicted the concentration camps, nuclear bombs, and extreme amounts of death from that war, either. We saw disgustingly honest footage of 9/11. It affected millions of people - both American and not. The effect was much stronger from a visual perspective than other events were.

Such things should have been taken into consideration before making a nose-blowing piece of garbage like this.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vibin247 I just came back from watching World Trade Center, and I honestly have to say that it's one of his better films. It's odd that it's not really an Oliver Stone film at all, because it's doesn't focus on the politics and the conspiracies, but just a story of survival. That was the best, and most humane thing that Stone could have done to treat the tragedy in his film. The story of those two policemen is an amazing story, and I don't see why it shouldn't be told.

Wait. You actually saw the film before making a judgment on it? That disqualifies your opinion, as we are not interested in opinions based on facts or what the movie actually depicted.

Also, if you paid money to see it you helped the studio make a profit, so hopefully you snuck into the theater. Otherwise, we will have to brand you as being as unethical as the studio.

 

[redshifter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS Wait. You actually saw the film before making a judgment on it? That disqualifies your opinion, as we are not interested in opinions based on facts or what the movie actually depicted. Also, if you paid money to see it you helped the studio make a profit, so hopefully you snuck into the theater. Otherwise, we will have to brand you as being as unethical as the studio.

QFT (go back a few pages, i say the same thing)

Oliver stone only directs "conspiracy films"? i put a * next to all of his conspiracy films:

World Trade Center (2006)
Alexander (2004)
Any Given Sunday (1999)
U Turn (1997)
Nixon (1995)
Natural Born Killers (1994)
Heaven & Earth (1993)
JFK (1991) *
The Doors (1991)
Born on the Fourth of July (1989)
Talk Radio (1988)
Wall Street (1987)
Platoon (1986)
Salvador (1986)

*okay so that's ONE.

 

[PhilS]

The folks on Ebert & Roeper thought it was an excellent film, one of the best of the year so far, and that one of the actors should receive a best supporting actress nomination. They also said it did not have the feel of a "typical" Oliver Stone film and that if you didn't know otherwise, you would assume that he had no part of it.

 

[AdamP88]

Whether the movie is any good or not, 10% x5 days to charity is effing pathetic. I might even question the value of 100% of the first 5 day's profits, or even 50% of the movie's total profits, long run. In order for me to have any desire whatsoever to see this movie, this is what I would expect:

They get to keep money that will cover the production and advertisement costs in making and promoting this movie. After that, every single cent of their profits goes to charity. Anything less is greedy exploitation.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamP88 Whether the movie is any good or not, 10% x5 days to charity is effing pathetic. I might even question the value of 100% of the first 5 day's profits, or even 50% of the movie's total profits, long run. In order for me to have any desire whatsoever to see this movie, this is what I would expect: They get to keep money that will cover the production and advertisement costs in making and promoting this movie. After that, every single cent of their profits goes to charity. Anything less is greedy exploitation.

Why is it greedy exploitation to make a film that many, many people want to see, as evidenced by the fact that, unless many, many people see it, there will be no profits? Why do they owe you or anyone else some obligation to donate any part of the profits to charity? Where do people come up with this nonsense?

 

[KtoEto]

Edit: nevermind, viator already mentioned Apocalypse Now (1979) in the first page