Re: Bowling... we had a thread on the movie a while back. Since I'd rather not re-type, I'll quote my remarks from then:
"I enjoyed this film, however for the sake of playing Devil's Advocate, I'd like to point out what I didn't like.
As was mentioned already, this film is not really a documentary in that it is much more slanted than a traditonal doc. Moore has been critcized for this. He's also been criticized for editing events so that they appear to be in chronological order when they in fact are not (to add drama to the film). These criticisms don't bother me much, but there is one criticism that does: that Moore will stage events when it suits the needs of his movie. He has been found guilty of doing this in his previous films, and has been accused of doing it in Bowling. I can't say this for certain, but I for one am very suspicious about the scene where he walks around Toronto and finds people's doors unlocked.
Overall, I liked the movie. Some of his arguments I agreed with, others I did not (eg. blaming Dick Clark for that child's death was a reach IMO)... but it makes you think, and that's always the sign of a good movie."
Re: Fahrenheit....
I've not seen this film but I'm looking forward to seeing it. One assertion I've heard that's made in the film I'm particularly interested in concerns the now famous footage of Bush being informed of the attack while reading a story to a group of children. According to Moore, this oocurred not after the first attack but the SECOND. Bush had already knew of the first attack before entering the room, but had decided to (now paraphrasing Moore's words), "go to his photo-op session rather than take charge of the situation." I'm very curious to hear more about this, since I've not heard ANY mention of this on the news from the time of the attacks till now.