Since we were on the subject of documentaries...

I've been seeing a movie in the different stores and rental places
which depicted September 11th and events. I didn't know anything about
it other that just what I'd seen on the cover. While I wanted to watch
something which would be "unbiased" about that day, I just looked at
the cover as something trying to make political figures into something
they're not. I read a review on this film and found out that I might
want to see it after all. The film is titled "9/11" and is the only
known footage of film which was inside the towers while the events
were happening. After watching it, I can say that I'd recommend it to
others as a "must see".

I won't go into any details about the events in the film, but leave it
to the viewer.

Another film, on the other side that I wouldn't recommend is "Uncle
Saddam". I also watched this one and it's just short of trash. It
gives all the trivia garbage on Saddam Hussein, but never really gives
any reasoning behind it.

Easy Rider DVD is the same ole movie that everyone remembers, but
going into the extras you get an hour segment that has interviews of
how the movie came about. I didn't know that they used real people in
the movie who really did talk to Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper and Jack
Nicolson that way. I wasn't really impressed that much with the movie
itself (more than what I've seen before), but just the fact that it's
digital and not a tape. I was sorta hoping they'd go more into the
motorcycles rather than just talking about doing drugs and fighting.
"Smokin' grass" might've been cool in 1969, but today in the age of
computers, cell phones, laptops, digital cameras and DVDs it's just
plain annoying when you're hoping for details and educational
information about motorcycles and choppers. All I kept thinking for 59
minutes out of the 62 minutes of extras was "what a bunch of dumbass
drug induced losers". Then for about 32 seconds I was saying "this is
your brain on drugs". 1 minute and 48 seconds was dedicated to what
they used to build the bikes and what happened to the bikes after the
movie was made. Nothing about what bike exploded. Nothing about
building or riding the bikes. Just more drugs.

My pick still has to go out to "Uncovered: The Whole Truth About The
Iraq War". Even though "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" was good in the
way it was done and some what of a background on what happened, the
biggest eye-opener was from Uncovered and to see the lies which were
thrust on us all in one segment. Time has a way to wear down intensity
of a moment, so you tend to forget much of it as time goes by. This is
how we have been lied to and allowed it to be passed over as harmless
mistakes or bad information. When you see the entire time condensed to
1 hour, you see that what was passed over is truly just out right and
deliberate lies.

Bowling for Columbine is also a good hit with me. And I'm still
planning on getting me a copy of "Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential
Election" and watch it.

 

I think tonight calls for a marathon.

"I'm Gonna Get You Sucka" followed by "Undercover Brother"

Or maybe the French w/English subtitles movie I've not yet watched,
"Brotherhood of the Wolf"?

 

I thought that "Bowling" was kind of schitzophrenic, in that Moore
convincingly showed that gun ownership shouldn't be considered a cause of
the tragedy in Columbine (because there are other countries with a "gun
culture" that don't have much in the way of whacked-out killers like we have
in the U.S.), yet he goes to embarass Charlton Heston and makes out that the
NRA was one of the causes.

So I'm not sure what Moore's whole point of the movie was.

 

Well, you have to look at what the NRA states in their messages. Look
at what it's members recite when discussing issues with others. Look
at the whole "culture" we are under. It's laced with fear and
suspicious thoughts.

When someone goes to the wrong house for a costume party during
Halloween and knocks on the door of someone who's afraid and convinced
by all these groups that someone is going to come into their home with
the intent to rape and commit other violent acts against his family,
and gets shot to death for knocking on the door, that's what you need
to be looking at. When someone kills their children and reports the
crime as a car-jacking and says a "black man" did it, thus causing the
entire country to become consumed within this massive manhunt to find
this person instead of looking at the one person who did it, you have
to be looking at what causes this.

If you're looking at someone to answer one question from a movie, you
won't find it with this one. You won't find this movie to solve any
social issues or even take on responsibility for any actions. It
simply makes an attempt to have you take a look at ourselves and how
we live to see what we can do to make our own lives better. There are
a quite many truths in the movie which aren't openly apparent if you
don't look at it or are looking for answers.

What I saw Moore did with the Charlton Heston interview was very
effective. He didn't go there to "embarrass" anyone. He didn't pose
his questions to be a trap for him to studder and be caught in a
lie...thus saying "you sir are a liar". What Charlton Heston did was
to embarrass himself by relating the "gun violence" to race and then
to make it worse by becoming better than anyone else by his latter
responses of the interview. If you notice, it was a very short
interview. There wasn't much in the interview which could be debated
on how it made Heston look one way or the other. In order for you to
understand the effectiveness of Heston's interview, you have to
compare his interview and how Dick Clark responded in his little spot
with how a "maniac" like Marilyn Manson responded to questions. It
makes you really wonder. In all reality, Manson had far worse
questions posed to him than Heston did...and Manson didn't get upset
and leave nor did he studder through what he was trying to say. The
two contrasts spoke volumes. And that's why I said the Heston
interview was very effective.

As far as the NRA, Michael Moore has had an on-going thing with the
NRA for quite sometime. They refuse to get on camera or to respond to
anything which isn't scripted. Michael Moore doesn't work off scripts
and therefore he catches them when they can't refer back to notes and
give rehearsed responses. That's the NRA and how they operate. It's
very effective, and it's also the same plan which Karl Rove has
adopted for Bush over the past four years. If you've ever noticed, if
Bush gets an unscripted question asked his response will be
"uuuuhhhhh....I'm not really sure what that means". After that, the
media will be asked to leave. What happens with the NRA, they run into
a building and call the police to have whoever is asking the questions
removed.