Just a Gwai Lo fun within prescribed limits [?]

'Nee addresses a famous filmmaker's critics: “Michael Moore is rich because he makes movies and television that people want to see; he writes books that people want to read. He made his money the real way: by slaving away over a hot control board, by sweat and blood on 20lb bright with a laserjet printer.”

Lisa takes on Christopher Hitchens' review of Fahrenheit 9/11: “a more proper assessment of Michael Moore's documentary would be a mildly irritating and wholly juvenile attempt at satire with vast stretches of nauseatingly boring rubbish and moments of purely excruciating irrelevant, invented and/or regurgitated bullshit.”

Anil Dash on Mandy Moore's first film: “The basic premise of the film is a familiar one, in that Moore plays a shy, unassuming young woman who's wildly unpopular at school, yet is still smitten with the good-looking popular bad boy in her class. Over the course of the film, her good Christian influence and unwavering love even in the face of his potential temptation by the cool slutty popular girl wins him over and he professes his love for her in the end.”

Unapologetically, there is an spoiler in the following paragraph.

Damian Thompson: “The American Right used to dismiss Moore's material as unfunny agitprop, unworthy of attention. That is not quite fair. Bowling for Columbine is a brilliantly constructed documentary; it's hard not to cheer when Moore embarrasses the K-Mart chain into banning the sale of live ammunition to teenagers. The books are dismal by comparison, but even they evince the odd chuckle.”

Oh good, somebody that agrees with me that Moore is a great filmmaker but a terrible writer. The point of the article, though, is that Moore is helping President Bush's election chances rather than hurting them, because the former's shrillness is giving the latter's supporters—and critics of Moore—ammunition. It's an effective way to counter criticism: "Your criticizing me only helps me. So it's in your interest to stop."

Watched Bowling for Columbine video.

David Edelstein says that Bowling for Columbine transcends Michael Moore's thuggery.

I only bothered reading the second part, because I'd like to see Michael Moore's film (even though I disagree with him if not politically, then for the shrillness of his beliefs). His latest rant (and it's just that, a rant) about how this movie is the best work he's done and that it will light a flame under the powers that be (prediction: no it won't). Awfully silly of him to ask his fans (who are going to see the movie anyway) to bring their family members and friends and as many people as possible so that the movie gets a good opening before it hits nationwide. So does he now believe that the way to get ahead in the movie biz is to play by its rules? I thought he was against playing by the rules.

Anyway, Edelstein points out that Moore might be on to something about why the violent crime rate is higher in the United States than in other countries, notably “Canada [which] has as many guns per capita"”. The culture of achievement where the losers are the losers forever, and that the only way out is by killing those who have kept them down.

The film, when I see it, will probably be preaching to the choir (I already favour gun control), but I like Moore as a filmmaker. There's more urgency in them than in his writings. Roger & Me, which rightfully made him famous, and TV Nation, the TV show, are what I'll always remember him for.

Ben Fritz: “Regrettably, Moore gets his facts wrong again and again and again, and a simple check of the sources he cites shows that lazy research is often to blame.”

I like Michael Moore, but he's much more effective as a filmmaker than as a book-writer. This review points out the flaws (and they're big flaws) in his current best-seller. He's a necessary counterpoint to biases in the media, but sometimes he comes across (at least in his writing) as a little too shrill.