Reviews (68)

How do idiots get inside business like this?
The media of the vicious attacking bloodhounds at FOX have demonized the American press with a claim to fairness for nearly a decade, and finally we have a solitary predication that may drive the beginning to the end of the tower of damage they've amassed to public viewership for far too long
Yes, there are the radical right wingers who don't want real news because only lies can support their overall claim.
The point is MOST of us want the real honest TRUTH from our news and I think we can change that.

The funniest thing thing about this movie is the majority its 2 hours is archived footage from FOX. The inflamatory hate-speech they spew, interviews they censor, false claims and half truths they report are shown the exact way Murdoch broadcasts them 24/7. And this an indisputable thing FOX can neither defend nor find an excuse.

It's no wonder about FOX's tirade during the eve of the film's release on how biased its rivals are, swearing to it that if the film sells hot off the shelves they will go after their rivaling networks with all the fury they've got *true*

A Fair network wouldn't be so preoccupied it has to attack other networks. That negates its claim to be "news" entirely

A fair news channel could Actually be able to to counter this documentary's argument instead of having to resort to boasting the same claim against its rivals

It reminds me of a bully who beats up all the small kids, and when the day comes he gets roughed by another boy his size, he not ony cries and whines to the principal, he says it was for no reason!

Well at least they're not suing again, as we saw all the good that did. How unsustaining is Fox? I looked up, as actually typed, "Faux News" on google and sure enough the first link to come up is the official FNC website. That's a sign of desperation and having no merit as a news channel

I have to give my blessing to Greenwald. This is impressive work. Note you can't miss his other movie, "Whole truth about the war in Iraq," a stunning visual look at the lies and lies, and more lies used to push the public and lawmakers into this immoral war.

Outfoxed is not associated with John Kerry. It's not funded by the Democratic Party. The Right Wing elites wants you to believe this movie has ties with MSNBC, CNN, NY times, LA times, or the Washington Post. Nothing can be further from the truth. The film was produced by a non-partisan independent thinker and funded by an 'independent media', and it's only they who can claim responsobilty, or more importantly, take the fall over any speculation that comes. FOX's "journalists" have habitually been imperious critics towards those who exchange information and over certain subsidies towards polical engagement. Certainly nothing unethical about the National Republican Party being the biggest benefactor to FOX. Or media tycoon Rupert Murdoch prevailing as the solitary creator and manager to the strategist network

They present facts which are supportive to the Repub-Neocon base, meanwhile discarding news which sounds to them 'ulterior.' They are so assuming to arguments which contradict their absurd reasoning, it would be as if having to unpreach to the choire. Not to mention lie through their teeth if they think they can get away with it; "don't kill the messenger!"

The integrity of jounralism is not to carry out hearsay. It's to review, be accurate, factual, rational

Bias in a film that tells the God honest truth is a critique of society.

Bias incoporated as a news source that claims to fairly report a balanced medium of news, which in reality imparts a agglomeration of dishonesty and fraud, ultimately becomes an Orwellian form of mind control

I believe FOX News is dangerous to society

For an even closer, more in depth look into the media establishment check out the DVD, "Manufacturing Consent - Noam Chomsky and the Media" a perilous, extremely insightful and intellectuall peice of work that will change forever the way you think about news. While Fox is certainly evil and uncomparable to it's colleagues, their is a growing bias to new aged conventionilsm in the news media as it moves toward sensationalism and censorship, and away from reality. Coporate greed is hungry for profits, profits unimaginable to an average person, and the media is in their hands already. This documentary was produced in 1993 and his predictions of what was to come of media ownership by the Elite was farfetched a decade ago, but today it seems his case is understated. Nearly the entirety of our news channels, papers, and other publications are owned right now by 6 corporations. 6! It was 12 before the new millenium and now... it is 6! See this film, it will ASTONISH you.

FNC never had credibiltiy. Will anything change now?
The media of the vicious attacking bloodhounds at FOX have demonized the American press with a claim to fairness for nearly a decade, and finally we have a solitary predication that may drive the beginning to the end of the tower of damage they've amassed for far too long to American viewers.

Yes, there are the radical right wingers who don't want real news because only lies can support their overall claim.

The point is MOST of us want the real honest TRUTH from our news and I think we can change that.

The funniest thing thing about this movie is the majority its 2 hours is archived footage from FOX. The inflamatory hate-speech they spew, interviews they censor, false claims and half truths they report are shown the exact way Murdoch broadcasts them 24/7. And this an indisputable thing FOX can neither defend nor find an excuse.

It's no wonder about FOX's tirade during the eve of the film's release on how biased its rivals are, and swore to it that if the film sells well they will go after the other networks will all they've got

A Fair network wouldn't be so preoccupied it has to attack other networks. That negates its claim to be "news" entirely

A fair news channel could Actually be able to to counter this documentary's argument instead of having to resort to boasting the same claim against its rivals

It reminds me of a bully who beats up all the small kids, and when the day comes he gets roughed by another boy his size, he not ony cries and whines to the principal, he says it was for no reason!

Well at least they're not suing again, as we saw all the good that did. How unsustaining is Fox? I looked up, as actually typed, "Faux News" on google and sure enough the first link to come up is the official FNC website. That's a sign of desperation and having no merit as a news channel

I have to give my blessing to Greenwald. This is impressive work. Note you can't miss his other movie, "Whole truth about the war in Iraq," a stunning visual look at the lies and lies, and more lies used to push the public and lawmakers into this immoral war.

Outfoxed is not associated with John Kerry. It's not funded by the Democratic Party. The Right Wing elites wants you to believe this movie has ties with MSNBC, CNN, NY times, LA times, or the Washington Post. Nothing can be further from the truth. The film was produced by a non-partisan independent thinker and funded by an independent media. Bias in a film that tells the God honest truth is a critique of society.

Bias incoporated as a news source that claims to fairly report a balanced medium of news, which in reality imparts a agglomeration of dishonesty and fraud is a form of mind control

For an even closer, more in depth look into the media establishment check out the DVD, "Manufacturing Consent - Noam Chomsky and the Media" an extremely insightful and intellectuall peice of work that will change forever the way you think about news. SERIOUSLY good film

Conglomerate News Network
Well done documentary, but not entirely true. ALL news networks are biased, and their slogans are all misleading. CNN calls itself the Most Watched News Channel, when FOX NEWS beats it in the ratings fairly often -- often enough to discredit that claim. All the major news networks are owned by conglomerate corporations such as AOL-Time-Warner, therefore, all are biased. Plain and simple. Get a grip, folks, all news media outlets are the same, so stop demonizing Fox News (the way you claim they demonize others) for its conformity.

Entertaining and rather informative
I ordered this movie because I believe that The Fox News Channel is doing a great disservice to America by preaching fair and balanced news. In a society where people are easily misled, documentaries like this are sometimes needed in hopes that some citizens will actually discover the truth.

Yes, this movie is biased, because it is reporting on a biased news station.
One cannot compare the movie to the television station itself because the video accepts itself as one sided. This is their argument: Fox News should admit its true agenda.

The makers of this movie are infuriated. They have every right to be. The conservative trickery is not even covert. It is plain to see, and it is ridiculous.
The filmmakers are presenting a theory and backing it up with evidence. This is something that FNC knows nothing about; facts and evidence. They are an opinion station with flashes of news.

There were a couple great moments in this film, and I think it is worth the 10 bucks they charge for it.
I have minor problems with it though...
#1, The DVD has only 1 scene. That means if you get 30 minutes into it, then have to leave, you have to fast forward all the way to where you were. It's basically like having a VHS tape. Quite annoying.
#2. When will people learn that the only way to shut conservatives up and still get our message across is to paint an equal portrayal of events?? Being biased sure works, but it gives those goofy republicans something to pick at.

Overall, I recommend it for anyone interested in the propaganda of the media in general, and for those who think that the Fox News Channel is actually news.

Please, if you are reading this, realize that the only way to uncover the truth about things is to read about them. The television gives you a sugar coated version for bedtime. Don't believe what you hear just because it is on TV.

Pretty lopsided
I saw this at a moveon.org event in California. It's obvious this film is of the preaching-to-the-choir type. It's intent is not to be revelatory in any way since the presentation is so lopsided. An independent thinking person can't take their argument seriously. You never hear an opposing point of view so of course their case is a slam dunk. In addition, you can just watch the channel yourself and see how slanted their news coverage is or isn't. You don't need a movie to tell you how to think.

Because of this lopsidedness, the movie is also pretty boring. There's no debate or controversy inserted. It's basically, Fox has a right-wing agenda, see, Fox has a right-wing agenda, see, Fox has a right-wing agenda, see... ad nauseam. It would have been more compelling and persuasive if they allowed Fox to respond.

Unfortunately, the majority of the clips used to state their case are of pundits, like Oreilly and Hannity, which is a bit specious since these guys are supposed to have an opinion. Whether their analysts tend to be conservative or not is a 'who cares' kind of point. We are already know it's an opinion.

I give it two stars since it can be irksome and rile people up (regardless of your political leanings). It irked me mostly because the whole movie practices nearly everything they accuse Fox of doing - presenting information in an unfair and unbalanced way. ... Read more

Reviews (34)

Watch this and judge for yourself
Throughout the last eighteen months, the Bush administration has been trying to make Americans believe that there were legitimate reasons for going to war in Iraq. Most of the arguments dealt with misleading use of the available intelligence reports and with trying to link Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda, blaming Iraq for September 11. Although most of the people that were involved in the investigation and in the decisions following the tragedy were aware that there was no real evidence as to Iraq's involvement or as to Saddam having nuclear and chemical weapons of mass destruction, an effective "advertising campaign" was put in place with successful results. A good part of the American population was convinced that war was the only option.

In this documentary, the testimony and opinions of several experts in the topic are presented and the conclusion can only be one: the public was unethically misled. The interviewees range from former CIA agents, to UN weapons inspectors. The conclusion is unanimous and the interviewees point out clear examples that prove that Bush, Cheney and Powell knew that they were misleading the American public.

This is a short documentary (a little less than an hour) that presents facts in a clear and efficient way. Everyone should see it and draw his own conclusions about what were the facts that lead to the Iraq war, especially now that Clarke has come out in the open with allegations about this topic.

A must see for conservatives.
I would like to preface my statements by saying that I supported George W. Bush in the 2000 election and I am still a strong supporter of the war on terror. The clear and present danger represented by terrorism is something Americans must never loose sight of. This movie was brought to my attention by a friend of mine at work who's politics are very far to the left. He begged me to see it and judge for myself. I refused thinking it was just one more piece of partisan nonsense offered up by disgruntled Clintonites. He challenged me by saying that the lion's share of people interviewed on the disc were ex D.O.D. and C.I.A. with distinguished service records. I reluctantly agreed to watch.
After my first viewing I was forced to reconsider everything I believed about the war in Iraq. I find it very hard to argue with men who have spent decades in diplomatic and defense positions, some of whom served George W. Bush's father so well in the first Gulf War. As a conservative I feel a real disconnect from this so called "Neo Con" movement. I still haven't decided if I can hold my nose and vote for Kerry in November, but thanks to this eye opening film, I'm sure I won't be voting for the man I voted for in 2000. Everyone should see this movie.

Disturbingly Funny
Every American should see it - Democrats and, especially, Republicans.
Point-by-point explanation of all the lies and deceptions.
It is amazing that people in high office can lie so well with a straight face.
I always knew the Iraq war was the biggest lie ever in the history of the US, but this documentary helps make the case.
The sad part is, most Americans will not see this movie, because they are truly brain-washed.

Bush's Cowardice!
Bush is no leader, just a Texas coward who likes to play dressup on aircraft carriers. Not a bad guy, but he should have stuck to hanging out at the frat house or the country club with his drinking buddies. Sure would have been a favor to the nation.

It is not leadership to take this nation to war on the basis of lies -- then lie about lies -- cover up the biggest mistake a president could ever make -- then say you'd do it all over again. Which part, Mr. Bush? No surrogates please. You keep avoiding or attacking people who might ask the hard questions.

Bush decides. You Comply. Yes, this film is from the same source as the more recent gutting of the neo-fascist Fox Propaganda Network -- the Bushy boy's bully SS of the airwaves. Take a look at "Outfoxed" and you'll realize -- if you have a brain and can think -- that Rupert Murdoch is out to destroy America values and beliefs through lies disguised as news.

What Bush declared was the cause of the war, what he claimed was the proven existence of WMDs, turns out to be a total crock. So is most of the rest of what of what we've been told -- and most of what the right wing is putting into circulation now. The little talking points spread by a White House afraid of truth. It's important for them to muddy the waters. Talk about gay marriage, Chappaquiddick -- anything but that we have a president who took us to war for a reason that was a total crock of horse manure. Buy lots of attack ads.

Oops, we're sorry? Not, Bush did not even have the cojones for taking the responsibility. He passed the buck. It wasjn't me. It was the CIA. He's almost as confused about a misguided war based on lies as he is about where he was when he was supposed to be serving in the Air Guard. Cowardice.

The Right Wing dominated media cheerleaded for what the Fox Fascists called "America's New War" without ever questioning the utter shallowness of what little evidence that was offered -- evidence that turned out to be forged, invented, exaggerated, lied about, tainted. It was everything but the truth. It would have taken the merest gesture to discover the truth -- and the layers of deceit.Bush doesn't take calls from Chalabi and, typical of a coward, writes him off as a friend of Laura's.

This film uncovers a lot of this. Yes, it includes opinion, but the facts are laid out there for any rational, red-blooded American to see how we're being betrayed by the right wing nutjobs rejabbering Rush and Faux. Mr. Bush and his people knew where the WMDs were? That's what they said. That's what Rummy said, again and again. That's what Powell told the UN was established, provable fact, not guesswork. Well, that was just another little mistake on the way to killing thousands upon thousands of people. Rummy said Iraq wouldn't need rebuilding --precision weapons, you know! Way over a hundred billion hard earned American tax dollars the place is a shambles, we've put a new strongman in place and Bush is doing the Baghdad boogie. Just not fast enough to save any American lives.

This country's wealth of good intentions, respect for freedom and tolerance -- what the world once thought the best of us -- is being destroyed so that these cretins can use their wars to guarantee the Bush succession. These people are war criminals and traitors at worst, damned fools at best. This documentary starts you down the path toward understanding.

The real question? Why haven't we impeached and removed George Bush form Office? And why haven't we gone after Neil Bush, Jeb Bush and the others for their influence peddling and sucking up to foreign governments against our national best interest (peculiar for people who on an official level have destroyed every alliance we had).

IF you're going to defend this war, made a vicious attack on this factual film -- and you're just another chickenhawk, draft-dodger, just shut up and go away into your hole. We learned some hard lessons in Vietnam. Bush and his entire crew ducked their service. Bush was AWOL and too privileged to even show up for meetings.

Impeach Bush! Do it now. And if he steals this election as he did the last one, then it's time to start impeaching power-hungry Supreme Court justices such as Rehnquist and Scalia. And Bush!

You don't think, by the way, that Janet Rehnquist got her job as an Inspector General at HHS based on her competence do you. Or Scalia the younger on his legal acument?

The Rehnquist daughter was forced to resign last year for unethical conduct that provoked the most negative GAO report of its type -- and it was requested by a Republican Congress. Why? That's how bad she was.

This administration is as powermade\ and corrupt as any that have ever come along in this country. Bush is a nice amiable guy on some levels. It won't hurt him to retire to Crawford and act like he has something to do.

Bush lies! Americans die!
This is a good film with a lot of soundly argued fact and opinion. It does not do scattershot. It makes logical points and offers substantianting evidence.

No rational human being would launch a senseless invasion based on half-baked, third hand "intelligence" from a CIA that is being pushed to compensate for its numerous failures. We will never know the full truth about the pressure Cheney put on the CIA, but we know many, many responsibile analysts saw a runaway freight train crushing anyone who did not belly up with the party line.

Bush and his people state a casus belli. It has proven to be utterly and unredeemingly false. A war like World War II and Bush like Churchill? Give it a rest. No great president -- or the barely adequate -- reaches like that. D-Day? The German Army was a first rate bunch of bad asses. Saddam's army was virtually toothless --our troops took care of that -- and when it came to the real test, no one made any plans for the occupation army. Troops died for that stupidity and venality. Our American troops and many innocent people died -- serving no purpose but as cannon fodder for yet another Bush campaign based on lies, deceit and a relentless quest for family power and glory.

Our Secretary of State makes official statements at the UN that were not true. Deliberate? Maybe not by Powell, but the buck has to stop somewhere. And, as the great Harry Truman said of his White House, the buck stopped there. LBJ understood that. He stood down. And what Bush has done is so much worse and far more deliberately calculated. Away with him.

You don't blame the CIA for bad intelligence. You fix it -- encourage honest analysis. It needs to be done. But it is hard for the man who ignored warnings about bin Laden to make those changes. Instead, the CIA is just a scapegoat for criminal decision making by an inadequate man who was a draft dodger and the next thing to a deserter, one who has seen to the destruction of the files that show just how rotten he is.

We get a nutty president inventing reasons for the war -- after the fact And, having killed thousands of people he says he'd do it again.

If this country was acting normally, the Republican Party would be looking for a new candidate who could represent the mainsteam -- instead of this war criminal. The Texas nut faction doesn't represent us generally and certainly they don't represent the best of the nation.

Our country has been humiliated by this president. We have exposed just how short our reach of power can be. Our foreign relations have been damaged beyond belief. The "coalition" is crumbling before our eyes as people make their distaste for Bush felt.

This film cuts to the chase and lays out the facts. True believers change their facts to fit their opinions. Pay attention to the facts here and you might be enlightened if you actually got an open mind. We need to find common ground and that can't be done with a president who looks for wedges with which to divide us. A president who lies, then takes us to war on the basis of those lies and does not have the common decency to be embarrassed. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Startling and powerful, Control Room is a documentary about the Arab television network Al-Jazeera's coverage of the U.S.-led Iraqi war, and conflicts that arose in managed perceptions of truth between that news media outlet and the American military. Egyptian-American filmmaker Jehane Noujaim (Startup.com) catches the frantic action at Al-Jazeera headquarters as President Bush stipulates his 48-hour, get-out-of-town warning to Saddam Hussein and sons, soon followed by the network's shocking footage of Iraqi civilians terrorized and killed by invading U.S. troops. Al-Jazeera's determination to show images and report details outside the Pentagon's carefully controlled information flow draws the wrath of American officials, who accuse it of being an al-Qaida propagandist. (The killing of an Al-Jazeera reporter in what appears to be a deliberately targeted air strike is horrifying.) Most fascinating is the way Control Room allows well-meaning, Western-educated, pro-democratic Arabs an opportunity to express views on Iraq as they see it--in an international context, and in a way most Americans never hear about. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Amazon.com

The key players in the radical movement known as the Weather Underground are skillfully brought to life in this Oscar-nominated documentary. The Weathermen were born of sixties protest, but took their scheme to overthrow the U.S. government to especially violent extremes. Never a well-populated movement, the Underground petered out as its leaders aged during the seventies; by decade's end, weary of hiding, most of them had turned themselves over to the authorities. That journey, by which a fire-breathing revolutionary such as Bernadine Dohrn became a (still fiery) gray-haired wife and mother, is an intriguing one. This film, rich in period footage (and some unnecessary sensationalism) captures the era somewhat broadly. But the present-day interviews with the participants, contrasted with their radical selves, provides an exceptionally detailed look inside the organization itself. It's not a nostalgic look back, and the overall mood is sobering rather than celebratory. Lili Taylor provides the narration. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (24)

Insightful look at American 60s radicals
In some ways, the group known as the Weather Underground (originally the Weathermen, an offshoot of Students for a Democratic Society) were more a symbol of 1960s radical idealism than a real revolutionary movement. Although they planted many bombs during a decade-long period, they never did anything that seriously threatened the government or power structure. Their goal, of course, was to spark a mass movement and inspire others to follow their example, but they remained essentially marginalized. The film, The Weather Underground does a good job at letting members of this group explain their motives and, in some cases, misgivings about their foray into revolution. Directors Bill Siegel and Sam Green seem to be sympathetic with the movement, and most of the material is told from the point of view of members. Leaders of the group Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers have retained their radical views and are anything but apologetic about their past actions.

Most members of the group, despite the bombings, were committed to not harming people. This brings up a rather blatant omission in the film -Kathy Boudin, perhaps the group's most notorious member (for her participation in a robbery where a man was killed) is not mentioned at all. This was an unfortunate decision, apparently done to portray the Weathermen as essentially nonviolent. To leave out such a well known chapter in the group's history leaves a gaping hole. Still, the parts that are included are fascinating and give a glimpse into the idealism and naivete of these leftist radicals.

In retrospect, it is (at least from one perspective) a little sad to see how little long term effect the 1960s counterculture had on society. It seems that they were no match for the propaganda machine of the government and mass media. This film, of course, employs propaganda methods of its own, as when brutal footage from the Vietnam war is shown. Propaganda it may be, but it does serve to almost trivialize the violence committed by the Weathermen compared with that perpetrated by the government it was opposing. The other side to this argument is that the fact that these radicals are still alive and that a film like this has been allowed to be made is proof that America is not as oppressive as some would have us believe. Yet, this is only true to some extent; as the film explains, the FBI made a concerted (and mainly illegal) effort to destroy radical movements. There is also evidence that the government murdered members of the Black Panthers.

How you react to The Weather Underground depends on your political and cultural perspective. Regardless of this, this film is a compelling study of a radical group and gives us a glimpse into their world.

Nominated and should have taken the Oscar
Looks like McNamara won again with his anti-war doc. film. The insight and proggressive beliefs that the Weather Underground stayed true to act as a legitamite foundation for the liberated America we live in. If you are enticed by politics but are sick of corruption in America check out this film about a group derived from the SDS that took its war with the government to an extreme that had to be recognized. I never knew they busted Timmothy Leary out of jail and attacked symbols of American injustice without using murder (the tool those in power use to stress their point) don't think you've seen a film like this before, it left me energized with a tendency toward learning about political struggles of today! Who'd think a gen-Xer could look at a film about revolutionairy soldiers of the past and wonder what he could do today to maintain the liberation sparked by students from the 60's. A must have for any leftist, documentary fan, or anyone interested about the origins and movements of the "New Left"

Not Bias
Weather Underground doesn not seemed to be a bias look at the organization. It doesnt say their actions were good, they let the people speak for themselves. An interesting film on US history.

An excellent historical treatment
I am absolutely opposed to violence as a form of protest so the Weather Underground was not a group I agreed with, yet, one could agrue that they did play a role in the Vietnam protest era so this film is a good review of that.

The film is well done. I feel the Todd Gitlin, Mark Rudd and Brian Flannagan were the more realistic people on this DVD. Clearly they had come to see that the Weather Underground's methods were not ultimately the most effective and said so. They also saw the orgies as self indulgent and stupid.

In the end, all would truly admire a man of peaceful protest like the late David Dellinger for his methods as his were better than their methods.

This film should be seen as a great period piece. It should also be seen to affirm that violence wasn't the answer then and it isn't in Iraq now.

This is an educationally significant film that should be seen by all who are interested in the 60's.

Spoiled Brats
Where do I sign up for the FBI? And if a few rules are broken - shock! - to break these guys up, so be it. And if they use their rich connections to get out of jail time... the system can't be that bad, right? Most rich kids backback through Europe, and these guys went to Cuba and came back to blow up buildings... before going back to booshy comforts. If Hoover had went over the top to nail these guys, I'd have looked the other way. They are very, very, ugly. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The Fog of War, the movie that finally won Errol Morris the best documentary Oscar, is a spellbinder. Morris interviews Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, and finds a uniquely unsettling viewpoint on much of 20th-century American history. Employing a ton of archival material, including LBJ's fascinating taped conversations from the Oval Office, Morris probes the reasons behind the U.S. commitment to the Vietnam War--and finds a depressingly inconsistent policy. McNamara himself emerges as--well, not exactly apologetic, but clearly haunted by the what-ifs of Vietnam. He also mulls the bombing of Japan in World War II and the Cuban Missile Crisis, raising more questions than he answers. The Fog of War has the usual inexorable Morris momentum, aided by an uneasy Philip Glass score. This movie provides a glimpse inside government. It also encourages skepticism about same. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (85)

Brilliant insights
Errol Morris's stunning documentary is about one of the 20th century's most significant players: Robert McNamara, who reprises the highlights of his life and professional career. The movie covers a lot of ground, including McNamara's stint as a Ford Motor Co. executive, his participation as a war planner in World War II, and his crucial involvement as secretary of defense under President John F. Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and under Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson during the Vietnam War. There are some stunning revelations, including his role in the firebombing of Japan, as well as the nuclear face-off between the United States and Cuba. This is another brilliant coup for Morris, the inspired documentarian who has made a career out of conversations with the most fascinating subjects. He tells a story that knocks you right off your feet.

Mr. McNamara reveals all...In His Own Words!
While network & cable news television reveal(s) inside political information to its' viewers, they only tell a fraction of the story, and only reveal what the viewer wants to hear at that. Docudramas/biopics, on the other hand, tell the complete & entire story as is, all without leading the onlooker astray in the process. Former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara's account is no exception, of which, during the course of "The Fog of War"'s one hour, forty-five minute run, enlightens its' viewers with a biographical and pictorial collage of Mr. McNamara's hectic and universal life in government. Also contained within the fascinating, as well as extremely personal pages of Mr. McNamara's diary, this "Soldier of Fortune" really gets down to business, and isn't gun-shy in the slightest when discussing issues relating to the Cuban Missile Crisis (including Fidel Castro's reign of power [as well as his reign of terror against the United States Government and its' proud citizens]) and the Vietnam War. McNamara also manages to sneak in a poignant and mesmerizing real-life story pertaining to his frienship with the Kennedy family, as well as standing toe-to-toe with President Johnson and his administration. Robert discusses said wars from a business standpoint as well, including a "lesson" in the economic laws of supply and demand. Even with an I.Q. ranging in the 99th percentile (I.Q. of 140 or higher), McNamara concedes that even he has his faults, and acknowledges that no one's perfect by any means imaginable. By looking at this insightfully provocative and candid account, even I don't have to be a genius (of which I'm not, trust me!), to see that a man of Robert S. McNamara's talents and intellect, has any noticable flaws, of which there are extremely few, I'm quite sure. But, don't just take my word for it, just weigh all the merits of this particular "...Fog...", and see your way clear for yourself (either at an art-house cinema locale near you, or on video or DVD in the not-too-distant future) real soon!

Another Powerful Errol Morris Film
The Fog of War is basically a well-packaged two hour interview with Robert McNamara, the subject of this feature because of his position of Secretary of Defense under Kennedy and Johnson. It is a captivating glimpse into a man who served in America's most important war of the 20th century (WWII) and helped build its most infamous.

While the subject of this film is clearly McNamara's role in and reflection of Vietnam, filmmaker Errol Morris begins his piece by sculpting the life of the now 85 yr old former wiz-kid. The film traces his role as a strategic analyst for bombing raids against Japan, his short stint as President of Ford Motors and his eventual place alongside Kennedy and Johnson. We also get to see some personal moments about him, such as his claim to be the person who selected Kennedy's gravesite at Arlington. But Morris does not get side-tracked giving us too much irrelevant information; his piece is clear and to the point.

The film attempts to place McNamara in the position of a sage-like wiseman, who near the end of his life can educate the rest of us on the lessons that should be drawn from his successes and failures. Make no mistake, the film clearly attacks the logic behind the Vietnam War (and war in general) and even gives McNamara the chance to pass the buck to Kennedy and Johnson. But I find a refreshing attempt at truthfulness in this film that is usually lacking from most political texts aimed at persuasion.

While I disagree with many of the conclusions the film wants its audience to embrace, I can't deny the skill of the filmmaker who has given the world a piece of history that should be cherished forever. Nothing is more historically relevant than to hear tapes of McNamara's conversations with Kennedy and Johnson, two strong-willed men whose fearless determination is noticeably absent from the leaders of their political party today.

It is impossible for me to review any political documentary in 2004 without comparing it to this era's most famous documentarian, Micheal Moore. Errol Morris's The Fog of War is what I consider a true documentary (a claim I cannot make about Moore's works). His film attempts to display the truth of the situation he sees, rather than the tricky way Moore tries to shape the world to fit his views. Moore could learn a lot by viewing the powerful works of Errol Morris. The two men get to the same conclusion about war, but Morris does have to resort to half-truths and outright lies to prove his point. Compared to true documentaries like this, Moore's works are shown to be what they really are: entertainment.

Worth watching with the noted reservations
The Fog of War has received rave reviews on Amazon.com, but this review will not add to that long list. Fog is the word most appropriate for McNamara's discussion of Viet Nam. After two hours of hit and miss questions and answers, we are left with the conclusion that Viet Nam was a mistake and that McNamara was not responsible for it; that honor goes, according to McNamara, to Lyndon Johnson.

McNamara was a statistician/accountant who understood the numbers, but he was not a leader who could translate his knowledge into forceful action. Instead, it appears as if he supported Lyndon Johnson long after he realized that Viet Nam was going to be a war we could not win. Additionally, the information that he received about Viet Nam was sometimes innacurate and misleading. In hindsight he knows that it is unsafe to trust as fact reports given by subordinates. Without a historical perspective with which to judge the data he received, he arrived at false conclusions which resulted in the deaths of 58,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese.

Not only was McNamara ignorant of history, but he also understood little about ethics. He concludes that it is morally acceptable to do evil in order to arrive at a greater good. Machiavelli, in The Prince, would certainly agree with McNamara, but The Prince should not be a handbook for American foreign policy, even though recently it appears that Machiavelli's recommendations are alive and well in American government today. Torturing and abusing Vietnamese and Iraqi prisoners may provide useful information, but few would argue that the evil of torture is justified by what we learn from it. McNamara would have done well to study Kant's Categorical Imperative. If we approve of torture, or firebombing in the example given by McNamara, we must recommend that all other nations follow our example, at least according to Kant's Imperative.

My guess is that McNamara is a much smarter man than appears to be the case in The Fog of War. Unfortuntely, the director made McNamara appear to be often confused about the facts which were his stock in trade. He is an old man reminiscing about his life in public service and his memory is conveniently selective and self-serving.

Even so, I can recommend this film with the reservations noted for this reason. No viewer will ever think again that our safety and well being as a nation depend on rationality. McNamara prided himself on being a logical man of reason and often he was. That did not stop us, according to his own testimony, of coming an eyeblink away from the apocalyse during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Luck was on our side then. After watching The Fog of War many viewers will ask: When will our luck run out? This is a question well worth asking. Hopefully some will answer that we must replace evil intentions and actions toward other countries with moral behavior that stands as an example for the world to follow. This imperative puts us on the right if not always the winning side.

valuable retrospective of the decisions of war
In his own words Robert Strange McNamara tells of his early life and his career, notably his service as Secretary of Defense under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. Through his narrative, viewers obtain a unique retrospective on critical international events, including the Cuban Missile Crisis, the bombing of Japan and the Vietnam War.

McNamara sticks to the history. His personality is revealed by the way he speaks about events he found moving, but he dodges the tough personal questions, such as those about his family, his responsibility and his sense of guilt.

Clearly a reflective man, the lessons he provides are worthy of consideration by all, not just government leaders. In seeing some of the same mistakes made in current foreign relations as those McNamara recounts, viewers recognize the cycle of history, and human falliability. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The hypocrisy of the U.S. government is powerfully scrutinized in Distorted Morality, a scathing thesis presented by renowned scholar Noam Chomsky. Speaking before an intimate audience at Harvard University on February 6, 2002, Chomsky sets fair and logical parameters to his thesis (namely, we are all hypocrites and, for the purposes of debate, the U.S. government should always be given benefit of the doubt) before outlining, with academic precision and citation of real history (as opposed to biased written history), the reasons why America's post-9/11 war on terror is a logical impossibility.

This, according to Chomsky's carefully supported analysis, is because the U.S. government has been, and continues to be, a major supporter of state-supported terrorism, favoring retaliatory or preemptive aggression over mediation in the world court, and avoiding accountability by excluding itself from the globally accepted definition of terrorism. (To underscore his point, Chomsky repeatedly volunteers his sources, inviting scrutiny at every turn.) With an additional hour-long Q&A session (in some ways more compelling, since it offers Chomsky's response to opposing viewpoints), Distorted Morality deserves the widest possible audience. In the short period between Chomsky's Harvard speech and the start of America's war against Iraq in March 2003, Chomsky's thesis has attained the chilling status of prophesy. Inevitably, Chomsky will be labeled anti-American, but at least his morality is crystal clear, immune to the obfuscation of politics and mainstream news. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (33)

Excellent DVD. I learned so much!
I have not read much by Noam Chomsky but this DVD makes me want to. In-depth thought and analysis of our War on Terror in two lectures. The first one delivered shortly after 911 at MIT and the other at Harvard. Most of us have little historical understanding and perspective of world events since 911. This very good DVD title was an eye opener for me. It introduced issues that are so easily (and more comfortably) overlooked. Most importantly, Professor Chomsky addresses the possible reasons why America is disliked by many abroad - a question that most of us would rather ignore. I've learned that history and knowledge are not anti-American. Knowledge has the power to make us better people. Buy this now and really learn something.

Another great work presented from a speech at Harvard.
This DVD is a new release from Chomsky about how it is impossible for the war on terrorism to be happening. It includes a Q and A session that is very interesting and will further advance insight into what is happening behind the news headlines. Nice clean picture, audio mix, good opening sequence, nice menus, chapter search, overall well-done, and --I don't know about other editions-- but mine has English, Chinese (CN), and Chinese (HK) subtitles; but it is- of course- in English.

'Whatever has been happening for the past several months and is going on now, and however you evaluate it, like it, hate it, or whatever, it's pretty clear that there cannot be a war on terror.'- Noam Chomsky, Distorted Morality

Disk set:

Including a 55-minute talk at Harvard.
A lively hour-long Q and A session.
A bibliography and biography.

This is written on the back of the DVD.
"Noam Chomsky is a renowned scholar, the founder of the modern science of linguistics, a philosopher, and social analyst, a media critic, an author of more than 70 books, a winner of numerous prizes and wards; and ranks with Marx, Shakespeare, and the Bible as one of the 10 most quoted sources in the humanities".

"Anyone who is serious about trying to understand world events since September 11th cannot afford to miss this".

Dry, but he sure raises interesting issues
"Distorted Morality" consists of a "talk" Noam Chomsky gave at Harvard a couple of years ago and a series of question and answer sessions that took place at MIT. Chomsky, if you aren't familiar with him, is a linguistics professor at MIT who sidelines as a critic of American foreign policy. He's considered one of the brightest linguistic theorists in the world, a man who formulated a theory about language several decades ago that's still talked about today. It's sad to say, but the general public probably won't remember him for his scholarly work. Chomsky has written dozens of books about the scurrilous behavior of our elected officials and their actions taken against foreign nations, from the Vietnam War to activities in East Timor to the current war on terrorism. He attacks the media for serving as an instrument of American hegemony. One day, Chomsky hopes to replace capitalism with a system of government referred to as anarcho-syndicalism. He also unwaveringly supports the United Nations and the World Court, hoping that the United States will toss its sovereignty aside and merge with those two international bodies. I didn't get all of this detail from "Distorted Morality," but from another, longer DVD about Chomsky's background and intellectual underpinnings called "Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media."

Chomsky's lecture at Harvard-which he calls a "talk" because it sounds more informal-deals with the Bush administration's efforts to combat international terrorism. Beginning with a premise about terrorism taken from an old American military handbook, he attempts to prove that a war on terrorism is an impossibility, an illogical idea completely inconsistent with our nation's prior actions in Central America and the Middle East. The United States consistently supports and works closely with terroristic regimes, argues the professor, which means that we are in fact and in action a terroristic regime. A war on terrorism, therefore, would mean that we must fight ourselves. Chomsky doesn't go so far as to condone the September 11, 2001 nightmare; he accepts that it is a horrific incident worthy of retaliation, but he wants the United States to do so through the umbrella of the United Nations and the World Court. The lecture only runs for an hour or so. The question and answer session at MIT covers a whole host of foreign policy issues-guerilla warfare, 9/11-with some of the answers from Chomsky varying from a few sentences to five minutes or more.

Noam Chomsky is an acquired taste. While I disagree strenuously with him concerning American involvement in the UN and the World Court, I usually agree with many of the issues he raises about our foreign relations. I'm more at home with him when he attacks the concentrated media systems in the United States and calls for a breakup of the big corporations that control what we see and hear. Critics routinely blast Chomsky by labeling him as either pro-communist or a literal communist. Well, he's not, but tossing a label like this one around obscures many of the pertinent issues he raises. America has acted to support tyrants in the past. American companies have exploited third world countries and citizens of those countries (Nike and the United Fruit Company, anyone?). A nation cannot indulge in exploitative practices for decades and expect there won't be reprisals.

Here's a good question that Chomsky would probably love-and one that ties into the lecture he gives on this disc: why, when we expelled the Taliban from Afghanistan and still have troops on the ground over there, are the poppy fields pumping out raw opium as never before? The heroin derived from those fields ends up in the United States, does it not? Why don't we stop it? Perhaps the government wants a certain segment of the American population to use narcotics because it's easier to control a docile citizenry. Too, it allows the federal government to continue to wage yet another one of their great wars, the ever reliable "War on Drugs." I just can't believe our government didn't shut down those poppy fields. Doing so could save thousands, if not tens of thousands, of our citizens from a life of addiction, despair, and death. While you don't hear the media raising issues such as this one, you will here people like Noam Chomsky asking about it. For that, I do respect his insights and ability to increase awareness.

"Distorted Morality" isn't the best available information on Chomsky floating around. In fact, I found the lecture and Q&A on this disc a little dry. I keep planning on checking out a few of his books so I can get a better take on the man. While I find some of his solutions to our problems unacceptable, the questions he asks and the issues he raises continue to challenge what our government is doing and the reasons behind it.

A feeling of relief.....
I first heard of Noam Chomsky when I was a late teenager in the late eighties while living in Oxford, UK and frequenting typical student haunts. A sign of my ignornance was that I did not pick up a book by the man till I was 33, and was shocked by what he said. It was if a weight was lifted. This man has consistently and lucidly critiqued our system. He makes it quite simple, and I will put it simply for you, you are either part of the problem or part of the solution, and as free educated westerners we have an obligation to repay our fellow man for our privelidges. To compare anything Jones says with Chomsky is plainly insulting. To call him a liar or to think he is part of a conspiracy well hey, if its a conspiracy for two or more people to want to change the inequality and hurt in the world, then count me in, except sinister conspiracy is by nature secret and theres not much that is buried so deep as not to be known. The people I'm worried about are those who only just found out!!! What were they doing for all of their life. Watch this movie, thank the man that he has been talking to people for 40 odd years, and know that the acorns he has planted may grow into strong oaks.

Ignorance in America
All of the negative reviews of Noam Chomsky must follow a theme of ignorance equals strength. In the same context, war must equal peace and freedom is slavery. Wake up America, were being sold! ... Read more

Reviews (39)

Intellectual Self-Defence
With the recent media frenzy surrounding Michael Moore's documentary, Fahrenheit 911, it is interesting to observe how the controversy currently swirling around it (Disney backed it financially but won't distribute it) has been documented in the press. It makes a film like Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media all the more relevant more than ten years after its release. Chomsky is a soft-spoken professor at MIT who has become quite a vocal political activist and critic of the American media. He believes that ordinary people can comprehend and act on the issues he raises, but this is not always an easy task because of the thick web of doublespeak that the government creates to blind us from what he calls the "elementary truths" that are right in front of us.

However, people are indoctrinated to be apathetic so that they don't want to make the effort that is needed to see what is really going on. And the media doesn't help either. In fact, one might say that they promote this sense of apathy by showing redundant, repetitive sitcoms and reality shows that turn us into mindless couch potatoes. Now, you might be thinking, this sounds like a lot of conspiracy theory garbage, but Chomsky does not look, act or speak like some crazed conspiracy nut. He is an intelligent man who talks to a BBC reporter the same way he would talk to an ordinary person. Chomsky is a clear and concise speaker who backs up everything he says with an ample supply of facts and unfaltering logic. He is a man dedicated to uncovering the deception and atrocities that are committed by governments all over the world and teaching others how to become aware of and act on these acts.

With funding from the National Film Board of Canada, Peter Wintonick and Mark Achbar followed Chomsky around the globe for five years. The result was a two hour and forty-five minute documentary that explored Chomsky's view of the media and his relationship with it. The film acts as a sort of "stepping stone" to Chomsky's books, which are filled with pretty heavy concepts and a lot of information to absorb. The film doesn't water down his ideas, but rather represents them on a visual level so that they are a bit easier to grasp.

In Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky reveals that all major decisions over what happens in our society are controlled by a heavily concentrated network of corporations, conglomerates and investment firms. This network also has considerable influence over positions in the government. Just looking at the big Savings and Loans scandals that plagued the U.S. a few years ago reveals this link. Corporations also own the media and therefore decide what we watch and hear for the most part. They control the resources and as a result show only what is in their best interests. This is achieved by propaganda or the "manufacturing of consent," a term borrowed from political philosopher and journalist, Walter Lippmann. Manufacturing consent is a technique of control over the masses-in other words, propaganda or the creation of necessary illusions to marginalize the general public or reduce them to apathy in some form. The news media participates in this manufacture of consent by simplifying, selecting, and dramatizing events.

Wintonick and Achbar take a look at various forms of alternative media, from the successful independent publishers, South End Press to Alternative Radio that is dedicated to reporting events that the U.S. media conveniently ignores and giving people like Noam Chomsky more exposure. The film has certainly exposed Chomsky's ideas to a wider audience creating a sort of cult following in Canada and in Europe where he is more popular than in his native United States.

The film doesn't talk down to the viewer and brilliantly conveys Chomsky's ideas on a visual level utilizing all forms of media. The directors also dedicate time to show some of Chomsky's detractors like William F. Buckley, Jr. and Tom Wolfe who come across like pretentious bullies while Chomsky appears calm and rational in response to their vicious, snide attacks. They are ironic scenes that add more credibility to Chomsky's views.

Manufacturing Consent is a fascinating look Chomsky and his ideas that are guaranteed to provoke discussion. It also makes one want to check out some of his work and sparks a desire to wake up and realize what is going on in our society. The film is a real eye-opener to the behind the scenes mechanics of our government and the media and how little we realize what they are really up to. The film does not dip into tabloid or conspiracy depths, but presents a logical and intelligent analysis with a good sense of humour that is often missing from such material. Chomsky is a man who sincerely believes that we can identify and react to the problems in our government and media, but realizes that it cannot be done by just one man, it will take a massive grass-roots organization. First, people must be educated and this is hard because it is so easy to do nothing. Realizing that there is a problem is the first step, correcting it is the next.

A great tool for understanding
This film is a fantastic starting point for those interested in exploring the ideas of Noam Chomsky. It should function less as a typical biographical portrait and more as an overview of concepts--an overview which happens to include a bit of historical information about Mr. Chomsky's life. Those concepts, particularly those of the abolition of unwarranted power and authority should lead the viewer to take this film not as an authoritative documentary, but as a jumping block for a new means of analytical thinking. Taken as such and put into practice, I think this film's subject matter could help transform the narcotized western mind into a valuable, alert tool--a tool for healthy skepticism that could lead to a remarkable rethinking of power and domination in any guise, media or otherwise. It's length is not at all a disadvantage. The filmmakers manage to present a comprehensive body of ideas in as short a time as possible while maintaining an enjoyable pace. Well worth the time--insights like these are priceless.

A Great Introduction To Important Alternative Views
Chomsky is a man of fact, reason, and simplicity. This documentary highlights some of the basic ideas of his important books about the domination of the media by indoctrination, the elites who own them, and how this affects the average person's access to information about the world and thus his view of his community and its relationship to outsidce societies.
This is a great film if you're becoming disaffected with our current political situation and looking for a way out of the mess we're in.

Great Important Documentary on Noam Chomsky
Manufacturing Consent is the 1992 documentary directed by
Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick about the perennial dissident lecturer Noam Chomsky. The focus is on how the media deals with both Chomsky and the issues he raises: mainly by ignoring him. Here we get clips of everything from his discussion with William F. Buckley from the 1960s to interviews in Europe to his 10 second clip on McNeil-Lehrer.

Chomsky is shown as an important force that critiques both the destructive policies of power elites as well as the media that keeps the masses ignorant by spoon feeding them non-critical propaganda. The scenes are cleverly done with some humor, showing Chomsky speaking on Times Square screens and such.

And yet this isn't a quintessential Chomsky film as it does narrow the focus to the media, and spends a lot of time on a French Holocaust denier and Chomsky defending his right to speak (though not his views). This is a bit of a side track from his true significance as an Anarchist, Human Rights, and Peace activist. But when we hear his views on Vietnam, East Timor, Central America, and Iraq we start to see the bigger picture. Namely that everything the media tells us is half-truth if not outright false.

His message is important and it comes through in this film. Is he always right? I would say no, but he always sticks to his guns, never wavers, to the point where his views get predictable. But without him the peace movement would be much worse off intellectually (we'd be stuck with the likes of Michael Parenti wining at us). Chomsky is always low key, not in your face, and this film paints a sympathetic portrait while giving him some exposure the U.S. media usually denies him.

More Depth, Please!
Avram Noam Chomsky was born in 1928, the son of Jewish parents who worked as Hebrew language teachers. Young Noam showed promise in the brains department, devouring huge stacks of books and learning languages at an extremely young age. He went to the University of Pennsylvania after high school, where he eventually earned a doctoral degree in 1955 in the field of linguistics. Quickly snapped up by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Chomsky went on to develop a larger theory of language that soon won him worldwide acclaim, leading some people to refer to him as the "Einstein of Linguistics." Still residing at MIT to this day, Chomsky is perhaps better known as one of the preeminent social critics of American foreign policy and the American corporate media systems. The author of literally dozens of books on linguistics and contemporary social problems, Chomsky continues to make his rounds on the lecture circuit in an effort to awaken citizens to the dangers present in the power structures of the United States.

"Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media" represents the efforts of three documentary filmmakers to condense Chomsky's ideas about the media and the structures of American power into a nearly three hour visual presentation. The title of the film, according to Chomsky, comes from a phrase coined by Walter Lippmann, an early twentieth century public intellectual who feared the American public to such an extent that he argued for the implementation of specific methods to control and shape public opinion. This, says Chomsky, leads us to our present predicament, a situation where elites in American society acquire control of media through corporate institutions in order to manage the flow of information to the public. In other words, propaganda supporting elite activities is the name of the game at the New York Times, ABC, NBC, CNN, CBS, The Washington Post, and other primary forces in the news business. Secondary or tertiary news outlets simply take their cues from these trendsetters, often running stories only after the national elite media decide that they are stories.

Moreover, the media systems filter out dissident opinions through various techniques. One of these methods is "concision," or giving limited airtime or column space to a specific story in order to control the parameters of that story. Chomsky claims concision keeps people like him out of the news because only allowing a person to make comments within a two-minute period does not let new ideas get through. If a person should get on the air and claim that the government bears primary responsibility for the rise of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, for example, the audience would want to know a lot of facts about such an alien idea. According to Chomsky, this rarely happens. Instead, the short time allotted to guests on a news show serve only to reinforce already accepted propagandistic platitudes that ultimately support elite positions. "Concision" keeps new ideas out and stymies debate regarding accepted ideas. There are several more points to Chomsky's theory in the film, along with a test case concerning the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in the 1970s presented in an effort to prove the propaganda model. I am leaving a ton of stuff out here, but since I also believe that the media promotes elite interests, the whole thing ultimately boils down to what type of news system we should have.

The good professor supports alternative/small press media as a balance to the huge corporate news systems, and I agree with this conclusion too. For far too long, big East Coast interests have controlled what the majority of the population eats, thinks, wears, and discusses. There is simply no geographical balance. The recent blackout in New York City had absolutely no bearing on my life out here in the wilds of the Midwest, but there it was on every news channel on television and prominently displayed in my local newspaper. Chomsky argues that alternative media will lead to a greater, freer dialogue about important issues. The professor claims the alternative press might even lead to a complete overthrow of capitalism and its replacement with anarcho-syndicalism, a belief system that posits self-management, direct democracy, and working class solidarity. This political system sounds like communism, doesn't it? Well, I really don't think Chomsky is a communist, but I simply don't trust anarcho-syndicalism. At one point in the documentary, the professor avers that there are no perfect solutions to our problems and that we should all at least try his theory. One presumes that if we don't like it, all we need to do is say so, right? Wrong. Revolutions don't work that way. Replacing one political system with another tends to be quite messy, and telling the new masters that you just don't think you can go along with them always seems to lead to the behavior we saw in Stalinist Russia. Chomsky's promise that his new order will be open to different ideas doesn't satisfy this cynic. I am not ready for a cure that might be worse than the disease.

Overall, "Manufacturing Consent" left me unsatisfied. In an attempt to cover as much ground as possible, the filmmakers never provided as much depth to Chomsky's theories as I would have liked. Obviously, I could buy the book and see for myself exactly what the professor's arguments are, but you would think a nearly three hour documentary could provide a better presentation of this man's beliefs. As for the DVD, the picture and sound are good and there are several lengthy extras consisting of debates Chomsky had with Michel Foucault and William Buckley. Noam Chomsky comes across as an accessible, likeable guy who really cares about social problems, and I agree with most of what he is saying. I just disagree with his vision of a post-capitalist world. ... Read more

Description

In the most provocative film of the year, Academy Award-winner Michael Moore presents a searing examination of the role played by greed and oil in the wake of the tragic events of 9/11. From Academy-Award winning director Michael Moore (Bowling for Columbine). WINNER, Palme D’Or Award at the Cannes Film Festival, BEST PICTURE. DVD features:

* "The Release of Fahrenheit 9/11" featurette
* "Iraq, Pre-War" featurette: The people of Iraq on the eve of invasion
* "Homeland security, Miami style" featurette: Footage of the old men who patrol the Florida coast lookng for terrorists as part of the homeland security plan
* "Outside Abu Ghraib Prison"
* Eyewitness account from Samara, Iraq
* "Lila, D.C.": Lila Lipscomb at the Washington, D.C. premiere
* Arab-American comedians: Their acts and experiences after 9/11
* Extended interview: More with Abdul Henderson
* "Condi 9/11": Condoleezza Rice's 9/11 Commission testimony
* "Bush Rose Garden": George W. Bush's full press briefing after 9/11 Commission appearance ... Read more

Reviews (562)

Fahrenheit burns fast all the way through
I first saw Fahrenheit more out of curiosity than politics. I thought I would find it tediously political. I was wrong. This is actually an outstanding movie that hits its subject hard and with humor. The film raises some very troubling and important questions, but it is best when Michael Moore backs away and lets the film's images and the mother who lost her son in the war speak for themselves. This is emotionally powerful stuff, and at times, the effect is at once both soaring and searing. Believe me, I was glad for the humor as comic relief. I am generally conservative politically, and I must admit I was a little uncomfortable with the unremitting Bushbashing. However, I came away seriously moved, sobered, thoughtful and with an overpowering sense of tragedy in the making, and not many films in the last ten years have done that to me. So, I give this movie all five stars and a standing ovation. It is a great movie and I recommend it regardless of your political leaning, for this is the kind of film a mature democracy should receive well and with gratitude. Now, let us have one just as good for the conservative voices?

Truth Hurts Only When It Should
While Michael Moore may be preaching to the choir, there is no denying the choir is singing "Hallelujah!" "Fahrenheit 9/11" is one of the most powerful films I've ever seen. It's also profound, passionate, persuasive and penetrating. But more than all that, it's courageous! Like him, or hate him, no one can deny this was an incredible act of courage.

He takes on George W. and his administration so convincingly, so thoroughly, Howard Dean must be standing on a street corner somewhere in Vermont screaming "Amen!"

Interestingly enough, the movie wasn't nearly as slanted as I assumed it would be. And he didn't limit his wrath or criticism to Bush alone, or even the Republicans alone. Fingers were pointed and jabbed at both sides of the isle as well as almost all facets of the media. He painted a picture, albeit not a pretty one, step by step, stroke by stroke, meticulously and hypnotically. And by the end it was to this viewer an unqualified masterpiece.

He goes to great length to make it abundantly clear that all Americans should and do support our troops, even if we don't support this war. He effectively illustrates the horror of which they've been thrust into, and the futility of what they're up against. Only one child of the entire Congress of the United States of America is actually over there in Irag fighting. The look on the congressmen's faces of which he was interviewing when he asked if they would be willing to enlist their children in this war to show their support was priceless and telling.

He goes on to fill this canvas with such shocking persuasive anecdotes, interviews and news clips that most of the audience is left in horror, disgust or laughter.

There's no question that Moore is biased, but he's so thorough, so passionate, so sincere that by the end of the movie one can't help but wonder if there's not a whole lot more truth to what he's conveying than anyone was ever willing to admit out loud.

Every American, of every political, cultural and racial persuasion should see this movie for themselves. And from there, let their consciences be their guide. If the standing ovation and applause at the end of the near sold-out show my wife and I attended this morning in Del Mar was any indication, we're in for turbulent summer.

Kudos to Lions Gate for being so instrumental in bringing this vitally important work to the screen. And if anyone should be thinking of boycotting a studio because of this film, the name Disney comes rushing to mind.

Don't believe everything you hear!
This is an extraordinary, powerful, and well thought out movie. It is harsh on the Bush administration and their failures. But more importantly... it is ALL documented. You will hear a ton of BAD things about this movie from the extremely political people out there. Facts are hard to dispute, so a spin campaign is in full force. Michael Moore anticipated this and had complete documentation of his sources available for your own research. Go to http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes / and check the sources to verify the accuracy of this movie before you listen to any of the negative propaganda against it. So I emplore you, DO NOT BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU HEAR... check it out for yourself and be intelligently informed. This movie is a MASTERPIECE!!!

Hype and Propaganda
Fahrenheit 911 is a complete work of trash. It never ceases to amaze me to see the sheep bleating his praises and not realizing he is leading them to slaughter. His film is a total work of editing and misstatements. His usage of a mother who was distraught over the death of her son is crass and tasteless. The fawning of the mullets over this gaudy farse is almost too much to comprehend. Please start thinking with your brains and quit lining the pocket of the master of deception. If you have any common sense, you will watch FahrenHYPE 911 and see some of the same people that Michael Moore skillfully twisted their words with editing to make it appear they were saying the opposite of what was truly being said. Quit acting like sheep people.

Pathetic
It's unfortunate that I must give this at least one star to post this message. How can this film be called a documentary? To the reviewer who said this movie was based on 100% fact-- do you live in a closet? Even Michael Moore, himself, stated that many portions of this film were skewed or all out false (and it has been proven as such). It's very sad to think so many prominent and public figures can't truly gather information or think for themselves and much of the American public puts such blind faith in what they say. Does Michael Moore (and everyone else) forget how the Clinton administration wanted to invade Iraq? They quickly backed down because some people in an Ohio town hall meeting got miffed at the idea. Doesn't anyone consider the genocide going on in Iraq at the hands of Saddam? When was that ever acceptable by the global community. I would think that after what Hitler managed to do to the Jewish community, the Jewish community(& much of Hollywood) would never want to have that happen to someone else. Or do the Kurds not count? It really makes me sad that they are not considered whenever people debate over the Iraqi war. Let's consider another factor- the troops. I find it fascinating that Michael Moore and his supporters believe that the Bush administration is exploiting these 'simple' people and sending them off to be slaughtered. Simple? Many men and women of the military (and their families) are highly educated. Most have some college background and many have degrees. As a wife of an enlisted man (who may be heading over in the spring), I am completely insulted. My husband is well trained in a highly specialized and dangerous job and has managed to squeeze in some college classes as well. I, myself, have a science degree from a top, private college. We are not uneducated people who walk around and blindly believe what a politician says. And I feel pity for those who do. Another note- these men and women in our Armed Services are highly trained and are in the service voluntarily. There are many countries where it is mandatory to serve in the military for a certain amount of time (e.g. Isreal). How great is it that we have so many men and women willing to serve this great country? You can also ask just about any service man or woman what they think about so many Americans protesting this war and they will tell you that they are happy Americans have the freedom to do so. If it wasn't for these men and women, Mr. Moore probably wouldn't have been able to make such a movie, much less make millions from it. To the people protesting in the name of the troops- Unless you or a close loved one is in the military, do us a favor and back off. Don't protest in the name of something (or someone) you know nothing about. ... Read more

Description

JUST RELEASED! How Democrats and Progressives Can Win: Solutions from George Lakoff is a powerful tool for concerned citizens, activists, volunteers - everyone - who wants to communicate effectively. Using television news clips, graphics, and a lively interview with George Lakoff, this 25 minute DVD program will help you understand the critical role of language in today's politics and the ways you can make language work for you. This is a 'How-to' style program with a particular emphasis on this year's presidential election.The use of language to frame all the issues and political debate is what the Republicans figured out over 20 years ago - but what the Democrats have only recently discovered. Lakoff is an expert on language and on this DVD you will learn:

* How conservatives were able to gain so much power

* What "framing" is

* How the term "tax relief" works to frame the debate over taxation

* How to debate a conservative

* Where have all the religious liberals have gone

* Whythere seem to be two Americas

* Howto influence a swing voter

* How to 'frame' President Bush

* Values win elections. Conservatives know theirs. Do you know yours?

George Lakoff is one of the world's best-known linguists. He is Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, and a founding senior fellow at the Rockridge Institute. He is the author of the influential book, Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, 2nd Edition, (2002).

Howard Dean calls Lakoff "one of the most influential political thinkers of the progressive movement." Lakoff's star has been rising--he is currently an advisor to John Kerry and contributed to his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention. ... Read more

Amazon.com

A late bloomer among the rich harvest of political documentaries released in 2004, Bush's Brain is potently revealing yet maddeningly pedestrian in its attack on Karl Rove, the powerful presidential advisor nicknamed "Bush's Brain" for serving in effect as co-president in the George W. Bush administration. Slapped together for the sake of an expedient pre-election release, the film makes a convincing case (while offering no tangible proof) that Rove conducts ruthlessly effective Republican campaigns on the belief that "the ends justify the means." Based on the book by James C. Moore and James Slater (both featured prominently in abundant talking-head interviews), the film lacks the coherent structure that would've made it truly effective, assumes considerable foreknowledge on the part of the viewer, and regrettably includes a tear-jerking, non sequitur digression about the grieving family of a beloved Marine who was killed in Iraq. But the film's shattering allegations and heartbreaking testimonies suggest, in no uncertain terms, that Rove is pulling the Presidential strings, remaining virtually untouchable while winning elections by any means necessary. As a fascinating study of alleged corruption and unchecked ambition, Bush's Brain is anything but balanced, but it's an important film that invites viewers to draw their own conclusions. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (1008)

The Partisan
I'm no fan of Michael Moore, but my roommate talked me into seeing this film a few weeks ago, and I have to admit being fairly impressed with it. "Bowling for Columbine" is, among other things, quite enjoyable. Moore has grown considerably as a filmmaker, and here he shows a keen eye for pacing and indulging his viewers' sense of mystery. For the most part, he also manages to counterbalance the need for moving and amusing the audience with the danger of making light of a very serious matter. If you want to spend two hours thinking about dark, politically-charged subjects in an entertaining manner, this movie will do the trick.

However, Moore remains prone to all of his old, annoying habits. Self-righteous sarcasm? Got it. Manipulative, callous grandstanding? Got it. Playing fast and loose with the facts? Yes -- but it could be worse.

What "Bowling for Columbine" does best is bury most or all of the "single-answer" explanations for American gun violence. Over the course of the film Moore explores many of the typical, and not-so-typical, scapegoats. These include gun makers, race relations, Hollywood depravations, paranoid minutemen, video game violence, the news media, the NRA, our unravelling social safety nets, and Marilyn Manson -- but no one cause ever stands out as central. The movie makes a very strong, though understated, case that the true root of gun violence is the social and economic breakdown of American communities, and that only by developing a more vibrantly interreliant and nurturing society will we be able to turn the tide of that breakdown.

Unfortunately, though every piece of evidence points Moore towards that conclusion, in the end he throws his anti-gun allies a bone and goes after gunmakers and the NRA with both barrels blazing. It's ironic, because while both those villains certainly have blood on their hands, Moore's partisan tactics reveal him to be as enmeshed in our violent culture as those he would demonize. Welcome to America, old buddy. Maybe we can shoot our way out.

Justice to complexity
Michael Moore has produced a brilliant film in "Bowling for Columbine," beginning to examine the question of gun violence in America. What makes me appreciate this film the most is that it does not provide empty platitudes or draw simple conclusions, simultaneously keeping the level of conversation easy to understand and approachable. Seeing Moore's work mature to this level is uplifting and encouraging, and we see it develop even further in his "Fahrenheit 9/11." He asks more questions than he answers, and does justice to the complexity of the topics (within the confines of a documentary film). Whether you agree with him or not, Moore's gift is to get us talking and to ignite the flashpoints that will catalyze this country's continued growth.

Merciless film of Michael Moore!
This film plays hard. Moore has become in the rebel voice and one of the most irreverent personalities in USA . His brave position deserves him many admirers . The dramatic documental turns around a lot of things but he emphasizes the cruelty , the insanity and the corrupt atmosphere in certain minds .
The handle camera goes from the catoon to the awful drama in just a second . The inquiring position lets to many interwiewed without much to say . He makes himself the questions and tries to find the answers . Mostly the answers simply don't exist and other you deduce for yourself . Even I don't agree in all his opinions, this documental is an important reference for the future of the story in USA.

Extreme Disappointment
I admittedly saw Fahrenheit 9/11 before I saw Bowling for Columbine and that may skew my impressions, but this movie is no where near as good as its reputation would have you believe. The central theme of Bowling for Columbine is gun control and ownership, yet Moore's thesis has nothing to do with guns. Rather he states we are a country gripped by fear, and then spends 2 hours talking about nothing but guns. This disconnect between point-to-be-made and evidence ends up giving viewers no idea what Moore's final point really is. And as a result people walk away from this movie picking and choosing what points they like to back up their own personal beliefs without having any clue what Moore was actually trying to tell them.
As a result this is first and foremost a bad documentary. Its certainly educational but poorly thought out and poorly executed. Also Moore's style of gotcha interviews are all unnecessary and seem extremely forced on his part. They attempt to make him look like a moral deacon, but are more corny than compelling. I miss the Moore of TV Nation, where he stuck it to people who deserved it and caused havoc for havoc's sake. Now he's more concerned about himself and acting emotionally affected over other people's plight (key word: acting).
Even though this is a poor documentary, it is still enjoyable to watch and most people will find it educational as to the state of the country. So even though I give it two stars for dishonest and disjointed execution, I still would recommend at least viewing it once.

To the nay-sayers...
I'm not going to proselytize; my fe