aschaper "Celsius 41.11" succeeded as documentary where Michael Moore's film "F. 9-11" had failed.The work sought opinions, sources, and archive footage to demonstrate conclusively that Bush did not steal the election in Florida, that he did not know about the plan to attack the World Trade Center before it actually occurred, nor did he defraud the United States into entering an unnecessary conflict against Iraq. This film had the advantage of being able to respond to "F. 9-11", refuting the baseless charge that blacks were excluded from the voting rolls in Florida. According to "C. 41.11", for example, five major newspapers could find no evidence of voter irregularities.Moreover, the film presented its information in an orderly manner. Early in the film the narrator challenges six common accusations against President Bush, 9-11, the 2000 Presidential Election, and the second Iraqi war. I really enjoyed this film because it entertained and educated the audience, while Michael Moore's documentary "F. 9-11" merely distracted its viewers with entertaining contradictions."C 41.11" has another edge over films because of its well-reasoned, coherent, and diverse arguments from people like Charles Krauthammer, Fred Thompson, and Michael Medved, all of whom trump the flashy rhetoric of Michael Moore.On another note, one critic lamented the pro-Zionist lean of somethe interviewees (Krauthammer, Medved). In my opinion, that short-sighted reaction demonstrates all the more the need to appreciate subtle and ignored issues in U.S. foreign policy , like the critical role Israel plays in promoting democracy in the Middle East, instead of diminishing the impact of this documentary as a petty advocate of one minority group.For those who did not have a chance to hear the other side, "C. 41.11" provides an excellent opportunity .

jyancura This may be the funniest movie released in 2004. I am hard pressed to find a comparable example of shameless propaganda and selective use of data. Such a shallow presentation of the status quo undermines that political ideology it represents. This film should be archived with such classics as "Reefer Madness" as a narrow minded, vanilla, prefabricated analysis to complex issues. Not how all previous US support the Taliban regime and for Saddam is omitted. In addition, the present generous support for the Karimov regime is absent. I especially liked the sentimental conclusion set to the music of Holst. This film furthers the notion that conservative art is a leading oxymoron of our epoch.

AntiFlag563 This movie had pretty much NOTHING to do with Michael Moore at all. They poorly attempt to associate 9/11 with Saddam in it, Christ give me a break. Bush even said he had nothing to do with it, but ohhh no, let's just play that card anyway. The movie was just trying to bash Kerry in it about Vietnam. Which is interesting because they didn't' talk about what Bush was doing during that time.The movie uses about 4 Michael Moore quotes, which I agree with with. Saying that America is the dumbest nation in the planet, and thanks to the voters on Nov 2, he was proved right.Dumb movie, no plot to it and a bunch of half truths. You know, your usual right wing stuff.

billywill31 If you're willing (gullible enough?) to buy into the Democratic propaganda machine, then you owe it to yourself to view the Republican's propaganda machine.This film looks at Kerry's record, as well as delves into Michael Moore's history and addresses some of the blatant inconsistencies in Fahrenheit 9/11. This film is certainly biased, however they bring up interesting counter-points to Fahrenheit 9/11's arguments.I encourage you to watch both movies and use your intelligence to discern what is fact and what is fiction. I'll leave that up to the viewer to decide, unlike the reviewer before me.