Disclaimer: This site does not store any files on its server.

Ver Fahrenheit 11/9

Fahrenheit 11/9 is a movie starring Jim Acosta, Roger Ailes, and Brooke Baldwin. Filmmaker Michael Moore examines the current state of American politics, particularly the Donald Trump presidency and gun violence, while highlighting...

Genres
Documentary
Director
Michael Moore
Starring
Jim Acosta, Roger Ailes, Brooke Baldwin, Ashleigh Banfield

All Systems Operational

Product details

Genres Documentary
Director Michael Moore
Writer Michael Moore
Stars Jim Acosta, Roger Ailes, Brooke Baldwin, Ashleigh Banfield
Country USA
Also Known As 華氏119, 華氏11/9
Runtime 2 h 8 min
Audio Português  English  Deutsch  Italiano  Español  Français  Gaeilge  Svenska  Nederlands
Subtitles Português  日本語  Čeština  Australia  한국어  Filipino  Tiếng Việt  हिन्दी 
Quality 480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Description Filmmaker Michael Moore examines the current state of American politics, particularly the Donald Trump presidency and gun violence, while highlighting the power of grassroots democratic movements.

Top reviews

Monday, 29 Jun 2020 00:25

It's not hard to see why we should all be worried. The world is becoming an increasingly violent place. The United Nations estimates that 880 million people died in the 20th century as a result of war, violence, and conflict, yet the historical records suggest that perhaps one in eight of those dead was someone's child. I think the latest film to come out on the subject is "War of the Worlds" and while I don't consider myself particularly political, I am fascinated by the idea of making a film that is entirely dependent on popular culture for its depiction of events. So what do we see when we go to the movies? We see the worst of mankind, but what are we really seeing? We see a story of war and murder. We see children and teenagers killed in the worst of ways. We see bodies torn to shreds by machines and people who are being roasted alive. We see a whole city get caught in the middle of an army of death. We see how the country is being destroyed. We see a whole lot of shooting and a whole lot of people dying. Most people will know what I mean when I say that "War of the Worlds" is a film that portrays a very accurate picture of what is being done to the world today. I don't consider myself a proponent of violence, but I'm not quite ready to call myself a pacifist. I believe that the world should be a safer place than it is. But when I go to the movies, I don't feel that way. I think people are taking the right path when they go to the movies. I think that violence should not be shown on screen, yet I can't imagine what kind of movie would be made without violence. So here we have a film that is the same as it's own story, but it's presented in a way that makes it seem that way. What the heck is going on in the mind of George Lucas? I don't see how he could have not known that he was making a film that was going to have violence. So he produced a film that was going to have a lot of violence. I don't see how this was acceptable, but I see that his heart was in the right place, and I believe that he did a good thing. But as with any good thing, we have to wonder what our leaders were thinking when they decided to produce something that was so violent. I don't see how anyone could have known that this was going to be a great film when they were making it. What's wrong with violence? It's
Thursday, 11 Jun 2020 18:20

Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 911 was pretty much what I expected. It was fairly intelligent, it wasn't boring or preachy, and it didn't try to be anything else than the bare-bones version of Fahrenheit 9/11. I think the film worked quite well, though it did seem to do a lot of explaining on a lot of things. Moore was doing his best to make his point but I would have liked to have seen more of the people who were at the film (the actors and director, though they're not speaking). Moore spends a lot of time explaining things that aren't really covered anywhere else in the film. For example, he spends a good deal of time talking about the 9/11 Commission. It seems like the only people who know anything about this are the commission members. However, I think that if you're really into the details, this film is pretty fascinating. And if you're not interested in the details, the film is not that great. There are a couple of scenes that I really didn't like. One of them was when Michael Moore is giving a speech to a room full of college students. One guy, who was not a member of the commission, says, "I think the commission should have done more." Moore answers, "Do you think you would have been as critical if you were?" The guy then says, "It's like I said, they got it all wrong." And Moore says, "No, they got it all wrong." And I thought that was just wrong. The other one I thought was wrong was when he was talking to his mother. He said, "The biggest thing is that the Iraq War doesn't mean what it's been painted to mean." I thought that was pretty stupid. Also, it would have been nice if the film had dealt more with the subject of Iraq. If you want to learn more about Iraq, you could really do a lot worse than Fahrenheit 911. Michael Moore is a good filmmaker and he made a good film. But I think it's his politics that make him unique. I also think that if he really wanted to be a critic, he could have written a better film than this one. I'm glad that the film did well at the box office, but I think the real criticism of Fahrenheit 911 has to be directed at the fact that it's a documentary and it doesn't tell you the whole story. Michael Moore isn't able to say how he feels about certain issues because he doesn't have the time to do so. I also think that the film should have been
Saturday, 23 May 2020 22:51

When it was first released, Fahrenheit 451 was billed as a serious attempt to explore the future of science fiction and did exactly that. As a matter of fact, I'm not quite sure what to think of it. On the one hand, it's a fascinating look at the nature of censorship. On the other, it's a film which has little to do with anything that the media would deem newsworthy. Certainly, the film is better than it could have been, but there are a number of things that make it somewhat lacking in substance and it's not until you actually sit down to watch it that you really begin to notice them. For example, although the film's primary theme is censorship and the pursuit of truth and justice, much of the footage is used for purposes which were never meant to be propaganda and seem to be either quirky or quirky from a second-hand point of view. Similarly, the soundtrack was not well thought out and became jarring at times. Lastly, the film's focus was not nearly enough. The director seems to have said "We have to be careful about what we're doing, because there are a lot of people who don't want us to make this film" but when it comes down to it, the only message he gets out of it is that censorship and the search for truth is a dangerous business. Thus, this film could have been a good, informative piece, but it's much more than that. On the positive side, the film is visually arresting, the acting is excellent and the film offers a great look at the ideas of censorship, and the only thing that seems to make this film memorable are the cinematography and the score. However, the film fails to convince in more than one area and in the end, the film is not very good. In the end, I'd like to think that the director of Fahrenheit 451 may have been looking for a message, but he came up empty.
Thursday, 21 May 2020 07:57

One of the most polarizing films of our time. Whether you are a staunch Reagan/Bush supporter or a raging liberal, "Fahrenheit 911" will likely divide you. Director Michael Moore, as a liberal, says that he wasn't going to do a film about 9/11, but in the end, his "Fahrenheit 9/11" has become a modern-day documentary. While the film is filled with harsh, often sarcastic remarks about the Bush administration, it is also peppered with touching messages from the people who lived in the cities, and knew what happened on that horrible day. The people who remember the day for many years to come, are silent. Even in the film, the most powerful and most personal story is that of Michael Moore himself. As Moore says, "It's hard to take this guy seriously anymore. I think if we got rid of him, the world would be a better place." To those who believe that Moore is to blame for the controversy he has created, that is only too true. For some, he is the cause of it all. Others, like me, believe he is a beacon of truth. But, the truth is that he's done a fine job of documenting this event, and holding us all to account for our actions. I applaud Moore for this. While the film may be a mess, we have to take what we can from it. It's not perfect, but it's enough to know that we're at least one step closer to democracy. And there is one thing I hope the next Bush will learn from the people who lost loved ones, and that is to trust us. We didn't give our country up to a man who believed that we were stupid and couldn't handle the situation, he gave it up to people who gave it up to us. To the people who lost loved ones in the Sept 11 attacks, I hope you are not giving up now. So, in conclusion, "Fahrenheit 911" is a very well-made documentary. While not perfect, it does its job of shedding light on a serious topic, and is a good film for anyone who wants to know more about the day that changed our world. While the film is filled with harsh, often sarcastic remarks, and many other faults, the film is nonetheless worth watching, and if you are interested in the events of 9/11, I strongly recommend that you see this film.
Wednesday, 13 May 2020 11:32

This documentary is about a group of law students who are investigating the real facts behind the events that occurred on September 11th 2001 in New York. The film is presented in chronological order and the first 20 minutes are presented in the form of an interview between the director and a student about the events. This gives us a perspective of the students as they approach the investigation in an informed, detached and detached fashion. It also gives us a glimpse into what the students are researching and discovering on their own. This gives us a sense of the courage and dedication that the students have and gives us the insight that we can't really relate to the events on the day of the attacks. After this interview, the film shifts gears and presents the events from the perspective of the principal investigators. The students are now joined by a professor who is also an investigator, and the students are in turn interviewed by the professor who is the primary researcher. After this interview, the film switches gears again and presents the students and their research. This allows us to observe the students from an unbiased perspective as they approach their investigations and come to some important conclusions. The film ends on a slightly upbeat note and there is an ending scene where the students are interviewed again by a professor, and the film ends with a voice-over. The film does an excellent job of focusing the audience's attention to what is going on and the research the students are doing. There are a few scenes where the students seem a bit too detached from the events and you get the impression that this documentary was made to show the students how they were feeling. It does a pretty good job at that. It does a good job of making you feel like the students are a little bit alienated from the events on September 11th and it does a good job of showing that they are conducting research on the events on that day. But that's not to say that the film is not biased towards the students. The interviewees are all Americans and one can tell that they have a certain bias towards their country and the United States. This is a good thing because you can understand that the students would be biased and do not come off as being very objective. There are also some themes that the film focuses on, such as how the media distorted the events and how the war on terrorism was used to justify the attacks. Overall, the film is well-done and interesting, but I think that some viewers will be less understanding of the events that happened that day. Overall, this film is a must-see, but there are a couple of points where it could have done a better
Sunday, 10 May 2020 14:49

This is the first of three films made in collaboration with Michael Moore, the second of which was a documentary. The first, Bowling for Columbine, was a "documentary" about the massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado. In this one, Moore takes on the controversial issue of gun control and what could be done to stop these tragedies. He interviews a range of experts to show why this issue has become an issue of national importance. He quotes Dr. Sanjay Gupta, who has argued that the issue of gun control has become a "political football" for the right wing. He also quotes Dr. Carlisle Olin, a former New York Police Department officer and author of The Blood Sport, who believes that we need to take a position on the issue, because when you do nothing you are part of the problem. He also interviews John Rosenthal, who claims that in the aftermath of Columbine, the only solution to the problem was to make a law that had the effect of banning assault weapons. In the final two-thirds of the film, Moore interviews academics and high-level officials who have weighed in on the issue of gun control and whether or not they agree with Moore. One is Jon Stewart, a late night talk show host who is trying to educate his viewers about the issue. Another is the president of the American Federation of Teachers, Mary Kay Henry. He also interviews Dr. Steven Salaita, a professor at the University of Illinois, who argues that the issues of gun control and mental health are much more complex than any single issue. It's a difficult film to watch and one that some may not be able to stomach. I agree that there is a lot to be discussed here and that there is too much for one film to do. However, I can say with some certainty that if one chooses to watch this film, the viewer will be able to take in a number of opinions about the issue and will then be able to make up his/her own mind. I enjoyed this film very much and I would recommend it to anyone who wants to understand what is going on and what is being done about it. *1/2 (out of four)
Friday, 24 Apr 2020 14:56

This documentary was well done, but the notion that this film is actually a political statement is a bit like saying, "It's good to see that all the world's religions can all be expressed in a couple of sentences." It's difficult to think of something that would constitute a political statement, and so it just goes to show that making statements in a documentary is not an assignment to do. A political statement comes from a firm, informed opinion or conviction. This film really has nothing more to say about Islam, than saying that, "It's good to see that all the world's religions can all be expressed in a couple of sentences." But the audience would be better served if it had tried to express a political position about Islam, or more generally about Islam, because it is much more than that. It is a movement, a culture, an ideology. It is an approach to life, not to an idea or religion. I have heard it said that every religion is at least a little bit different than others, but this film doesn't seem to notice. It doesn't discuss the various ideas, which are not the same. It does, however, address the problem of violence, which is, in a sense, the same as the problem of violence in Islam. The film shows clips of violent actions, which some viewers may find a little bit unsettling. The problem, though, is that a political statement is much more than that. The film is not about Islam, so it must have something about it that makes it unsuitable for the general public. This would have been fine if the director had attempted to tackle the problems of violence and the oppression of women, but unfortunately he did not. So in the end, it is simply a movie about the cinema, not about the religion, and we all know that these kinds of films are often political statements. They are presented with great zeal, in which case they should be seen as such, and as such they can be said to be a political statement, if you are careful to say it is a political statement. I, personally, believe that the film is flawed in this respect, and that the intended political statement is not very clear. In fact, the film, and the commentary on the film, is somewhat confusing. I think the director, Tareq, should have made a more clear statement about the intentions of his film, and I don't believe that this is a good idea. On the other hand, the film is very well made, and the commentary on the film is informative. And I think that the commentary
Friday, 24 Apr 2020 14:03

The entire premise of the movie is nonsensical, and doesn't make much sense. We are given snippets of actual news clips, and a sequence that appears to be a news report of the same, but that we never actually see, and seems to be just a re-hash of previous news clips. What is the point of having a loop in the movie where the news stories are from different parts of the world, and then looping back to a past news report? Why not just show the news reports in the beginning, as they were, and then loop back to the news clips in the middle? The idea that news clips from other countries would make the news in the United States is preposterous. Why should a news clip from, say, Russia, make it into a news report in the United States? Why would an interview with President Putin make it into a news report in the United States? Why would any foreign news clip be included in the news reports? Why wouldn't any foreign news clip be included in the news reports? And why do they keep throwing the news clips into the news report, as though they were the news, when they are only re-hashes of previous news clips? This entire movie is just one long endless re-hash of the same news clips and news reports. If this movie is supposed to be a depiction of what is happening in the world, it is a clear example of propaganda. What the movie is supposed to portray is just a collection of news clips from different countries, looping back to a past news report of that country. If this movie is supposed to be a depiction of the news, it is a clear example of propaganda.


Write a review