LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" took in a whopping $21.8 million in its first three days, becoming the first documentary ever to debut as Hollywood's top weekend film.

If Sunday's estimates hold when final numbers are released Monday, "Fahrenheit 9/11" would set a record in a single weekend as the top-grossing documentary ever outside of concert films and movies made for huge-screen IMAX theaters.

Adding the film's haul at two New York City theaters where it opened Wednesday, two days earlier than the rest of the country, boosted "Fahrenheit 9/11" to $21.96 million.

"Bowling for Columbine," Moore's 2002 Academy Award-winning documentary, previously held the documentary record with $21.6 million.

"Fahrenheit 9/11," Moore's assault on President Bush's actions after the 2001 terrorist attacks, won the top honor at last month's Cannes Film Festival and has attracted attention from both sides in the presidential campaign.

The movie has been embraced by left-wing groups, which mobilized members to see it during the opening weekend. Conservative groups sought to discourage theaters from showing it and asked the Federal Election Commission to examine its ads for potential violations of campaign-finance law regulating when commercials may feature a presidential candidate.

"I want to thank all the right-wing organizations out there who tried to stop the film, either from their harassment campaign that didn't work on the theater owners, or going to the FEC to get our ads removed from television, to all the things that have been said on television," Moore said. "It's only encouraged more people to go and see it."

The Wayans brothers' comedy "White Chicks," about two black FBI agents who go undercover as white debutantes, opened in second place with $19.6 million for the weekend. That pushed the total for "White Chicks" to $27.1 million since opening Wednesday.

The previous weekend's No. 1 movie, "Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story," slipped to third place, taking in $18.5 million and pushing its 10-day total to $67.2 million. Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks' "The Terminal" fell from second to fourth place with $13.9 million, raising its 10-day gross to $41.8 million.

Premiering in fifth place with $13 million was the tearjerker romance "The Notebook," featuring Ryan Gosling, Rachel McAdams, James Garner and Gena Rowlands.

Despite good reviews, the family film "Two Brothers," about tiger siblings separated in youth and reunited as opponents in the ring as grown cats, opened weakly at No. 9 with $6.2 million.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" opened in 868 theaters, a wide release for a documentary but narrow compared to big Hollywood flicks. The film averaged $25,115 a theater, compared to $7,190 in 2,726 cinemas for "White Chicks."

Distributors Lions Gate and IFC Films plan to put "Fahrenheit 9/11" into a couple of hundred more theaters this Wednesday, when competition heats up with the release of "Spider-Man 2," summer's most-anticipated movie.

Lions Gate and IFC came on board after Disney refused to let subsidiary Miramax release "Fahrenheit 9/11" because of its political content. Miramax bosses Harvey and Bob Weinstein bought back the film and went looking for independent distributors.

Great Moments in Film History:

1) Rob Reiner invents the "mockumentary" with THIS IS SPINAL TAP.

2) Michaal Moore invents the "crockumentary" with FAHRENHEIT 9/11.

Did you guys vote on the RC forum Chit Chat thread about the war ?? I put Michael Moore into the category of JackAss.

Micheal Moore would be in the center of two cheeks. If you know what I mean.
Rock

More interesting is that it's labeled a "Documentary" in the first place, with so many parts actually misleading or downright lies. Notice it's the intellectually careless left that has embraced the film: "journalists" and news readers and the politically naive'. Does Michael Moore see the same thing we do when he looks in a mirror? (Fat & Scruffy) So much for being visual. I wonder how much hatred Moore has for those who must have picked on him in high school?? Moore probably has issues..........

Has it become standard practice in American political discourse to go straight for the personal insult, completely bypassing such things like debating issues?

God I miss listening to British-style debates.

José

Don't shoot the messenger here...the S.O.B. never claimed his film was unbiased...so I ask you this: how is it classified as a "documentary" when it's him spouting off his own assinine views?

A man man wiser than I once told me, "If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you've got no b_lls...if you're not a conservative by the time you're 40, you've got no brains."

Just my "assinine view"...or is this my documentary? :freak:

... keep going, folks. This is highly entertaining.:)

Although I haven't seen F 9/11, to be bringing in that much money, I think my faith may be starting to be restored back to the American public. Bowling for Columbine was definately no documentary and it was expressing his views, but he certainly made some bloody good points. Sorry.

Winston Churchill said "if at 20 you're not a liberal, you have no heart, and if at 40 you are not a conservative you have no brains"

I may have a word or two missing but it's pretty much his quote.

Moores film was calssified as a Documentary for the Cannes film festival. Moore's other film, also categorized as such was supposed to be disqualified for being an opinion piece instead of a Documentary. In the real world they are ONLY film makers and have no power rule this country. The REAL power is in DC, not CA.

The REAL power is in DC, not CA.^ Which is sort of the whole point, doncha' think?

"There are a terrible lot of lies going around the world, and the worst of it is half of them are true."

- Sir Winston Churchill

"I am reminded of the professor who, in his declining hours, was asked by his devoted pupils for his final counsel. He replied, 'Verify your quotations.'"

- Sir Winston Churchill

Has anyone actually seen it?

What impressed me about "Bowling" is how many of my conservative chums dissed it without even knowing what it asks: "Why is America so violent?"

What it didn't conclude was guns and the NRA are the problem. (It did make Heston appear a fool.)

I suspect Moore raises more questions than he answers with F9/11. Is that wrong? To accept leadership without questioning it is fascism. Or the military. I haven't signed up for either.

Has it become standard practice in American political discourse to go straight for the personal insult, completely bypassing such things like debating issues?

Yes. Been getting worse for a while. The right have personal ugly attacks and smears down to an art, and the left can't get their act together to even articulate a decent rebuttal.

Read up on Karl Rove.

I'll try to see it this week, and hope that those who wish to rebut it will actually see it and not just accept the "analysis" of Fox "News" Channel. That's the problem, knowing Moore I expect there will be distortions and inaccuracies, but we need someone with credibility to research and reveal them - NOT Fox.

Hopefully, Moore was more careful this time, knowing how important this is. As Roger Ebert said, when Moore gets caught lying it damages his cause - and that damages my cause.

I've no love for Moore - he's a self-aggrandizing blowhard with a penchant for playing fast and loose with the facts: the left's mirror image of Bill O'Reilly! But he is a good filmmaker, and has a talent for framing a provocative, thoughtful argument.

Yes. Been getting worse for a while. The right have personal ugly attacks and smears down to an art, and the left can't get their act together to even articulate a decent rebuttal.

Read up on Karl Rove.
What, the left haven't slung any mud? I thought that's all Kerry was doing. :D

The REAL power is in DC, not CA.
I sure wish the entertainment industry would realize that. Come to think of it, I wish much of the American public would realize it too. Getting 20 million a picture or being able to hit C above high C doesn't make you any smarter than the rest of the populace.

<< he is a good filmmaker, and has a talent for framing a provocative, thoughtful argument >.

he is a poor film maker, and does not do much thought, but much hate for things he doesn't try to understand. I think the guy has some mental problems actually.

Robert Wise is a good film maker!

What, the left haven't slung any mud? I thought that's all Kerry was doing. :D

The left haven't mastered it by any means (No joke there - check into Karl Rove's tactics. Also, I'm about to read "Blinded by the Right", written by one of the right who mastered mudslinging but later discovered his conscience). And Kerry didn't even make his own mud to sling - Bush has provided it for him by the barrel! :p

I watched Bowling again, I've not read any of his books, have know idea who is is or what he's done in the past. Watched the movie as is - what "lies" did he portray?

Watched the movie as is - what "lies" did he portray?None at all that I'm aware of. I tried to see Fahrenheit 9/11 on Saturday, but every show was sold out. Moore has gone out of his way to clarify that this film is not a documentary in any pure sense, and that it is not an example of fair and balanced journalism - those are his own words. Try getting that kind of admission from Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly or Anne Coulter. I have yet to read one review (and this includes a number of negative reviews, including one by Christopher Hitchins) that challenges one single factual point in the movie. Rather, every negative review attacks Moore himself or his methodology. Yet, many of the right-wing pundits who attack Moore for his methodology practice that exact same methodology themselves - except that they do it through the medium of radio or television "talk shows", or as authors of dishonestly footnoted best-sellers with titles like "SLANDER" and "TREASON". But just because Moore does it with film, he's somehow much worse than all the rest. Sorry folks, it don't wash.

Amen, Zorro.

The only inaccuracies I'm aware of being confirmed in Moore's works is a confession from Moore that he made up a few things and distorted a few (I don't know what exactly) in "Bowling". Aside from that, it's the usual easily-tossed-about accusations. I wasn't favorably impressed with his story about Eisner blindsiding him, either, when he'd known for a year that he'd need another distributor. That kind of thing on his part just adds to the rep being built for him by those who automatically claim he's lying because they are afraid people might consider what he has to say.

Hopefully, he was more careful in F 9/11.

But just because Moore does it with film, he's somehow much worse than all the rest. Sorry folks, it don't wash.Maybe it's more the man's irritating personality than his abilities ? I don't care for him, so I won't toss any pennies his way in any fashion. 911 is too serious a topic to remotely spoof a "documentary" knowing he'll tap into the reliable govt. conspiracy theory folks.

Next thing you know, people will transistion Moore's "facts" into a belief that Bush ordered the whole Trade Tower thing so he could go get Saddam for his dear 'ol Dad.

Why doesn't anybody talk about Clinton and the Dixie Mafia - he did grow up in Hot Springs, Ark. ya know. Interesting history that place has with Oaklawn race track.

Y3A--Robert Wise is a good filmmaker? Maybe up until 1953. After that, (Yikes!) Star Trek:TMP, Audrey Rose, The Hindenburg, The Sound of Music, West Side Story, Until They Sail, etc. You could make a better case for him as a decent film editor: The Devil and Daniel Webster, Citizen Kane, The Hunchback of Notre Dame and (before RKO got a hold of it), The Magnificent Ambersons.

--Hawg

Hey! What's wrong with TMP!! :p

Whether he is or isn't a good filmmaker doesn't matter to me so much. But, profiteering off of other people's misery to push a political agenda is in very poor taste, and does not demonstrate any form of good character on Mr. Moore's part.

If you knew anyone who died in the 9/11 attack, or are otherwise just a person of good character, then you know what I mean.

I saw it. I would recommend seeing it. It is propaganda, no less so than when a "Coalition Spokesperson"* trots up to the podium on the Nightly news.

* US Army General

Whether he is or isn't a good filmmaker doesn't matter to me so much. But, profiteering off of other people's misery to push a political agenda is in very poor taste, and does not demonstrate any form of good character on Mr. Moore's part.

If you knew anyone who died in the 9/11 attack, or are otherwise just a person of good character, then you know what I mean.
You'll feel better knowing that Moore is donating all of his profits from the movie.
Not connected, but He also lost a friend in the WTC.
We donated our Tax rebate checks to the NYC Firemans widows fund. WE felt, as Americans, That we lost people that we knew. Whether this makes us people of good character isn't for anyone else to decide. We are , after all, bleeding Heart liberals, or whatever name I get called today.
I will see what I want to see, do what I want and think for myself. I would suggest that anyone bashing the movie is afraid of the opinion that it expesses and the scary notion that there is some level of truth to it. I can guarantee you the soldiers interviewed in this film are not lying.

I would say that portraying Bush sitting around for several minutes after the 2nd plane hit the WTC without explaining WHY the president was told to sit while more info was gathered as to how and when he would leave the bldg shows a suggestion of inactivity on Bush part when there was NOTHING TO BE DONE AT THAT MOMENT. Do we here the words of the aide who told bush of the second strike??? Nope. Are other bits of info provided that would explain? Nope.

I work around the DC area, and know more of how stuff works than the average Joe, so I understand, but most outside the DC area are clueless because they DON'T work with the Feds. procedures are already in place.

Our Intel community was hampered by the lefts tampering with the system, for political gains while risking ALL OUR LIVES!

ok, havent seen it yet... perhaps i will, perhaps wait for video...

as to profiteering on 9/11, what about the major political coin bush has made from it? wasnt it the bush campaign that pulled an ad due to objections from the 9/11 survivors and families?

at this stage in the game i just want the bushes outta there. (it bothers me that jeb's out there waiting in the wings) will kerry be better? who knows.. he's skull and bones too... "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

Maybe it's more the man's irritating personality than his abilities ?
YES!!!! Thank you!
I don't watch ANY of those idiots from either side of the fence. I tried watching O'Reilly fort a while, but the man infuriates me - let your guest finish a damn sentence for once you frigging blowhard! The same goes for all of them, left or right. I do not want to watch pompous blowhard attack/ambush journalism. Not for free on TV, and I'm certainly not gonna pay $8.50 to sit thru 2 hours of it.

I'll make an exception for Dennis Miller - even though I don't always agree with him, he's at least funny about it. :D

As for Bush "cashing in on 9-11," I don't know, when you campaign for office, you're supposed to enumerate your accomplishments. Handling that was one of them. I don't imagine a democrat would have avoided using it either.

The "other" film he coulda made.

Christopher Hitchens article:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

Admittedly I've only skimmed it. I'll read it fully lunchtime.

YES!!!! Thank you!
I don't watch ANY of those idiots from either side of the fence. I tried watching O'Reilly fort a while, but the man infuriates me - let your guest finish a damn sentence for once you frigging blowhard! The same goes for all of them, left or right. I do not want to watch pompous blowhard attack/ambush journalism. Not for free on TV, and I'm certainly not gonna pay $8.50 to sit thru 2 hours of it.

I'll make an exception for Dennis Miller - even though I don't always agree with him, he's at least funny about it. :D

As for Bush "cashing in on 9-11," I don't know, when you campaign for office, you're supposed to enumerate your accomplishments. Handling that was one of them. I don't imagine a democrat would have avoided using it either.


Good points!

I agree with the caller to Rush the other day who pointed out how Moore has done really well cashing in on 9/11 himself with this so-called documentary.

Moore is nothing but a propagandist for his own leftist ideas. I don't mind propaganda so much except when it is based on lies and half-truths. Truthful propaganda is more healthy for a society in that, though there may be a slant to the focus of the arguments, at least respect is maintained for the debate audience when facts instead of fiction are discussed.

Has anyone actually seen it?

What impressed me about "Bowling" is how many of my conservative chums dissed it without even knowing what it asks: "Why is America so violent?"

What it didn't conclude was guns and the NRA are the problem. (It did make Heston appear a fool.)

I suspect Moore raises more questions than he answers with F9/11. Is that wrong? To accept leadership without questioning it is fascism. Or the military. I haven't signed up for either.

Very good points!

I think there are a lot of reasons America is so violent and none of them include guns which are, after all, only tools.

Look at other countries with demographic groups similar to ours and you'll find the same violence per ethnic/racial group.

Regarding the politics of F9/11, I'm against our role in Iraq though I think we were perfectly justified in invading Afghanistan as punishment and retaliation.

The idea of pre-emption in Iraq leads to the obvious question whenever we attempt to be the world's police: where does it end?

We invade Iraq but not Pakistan (with nukes and Al-Quaeda members in power in their government)? We invade Iraq because they MAY be making nukes but don't take out North Korea which is hostile and DEFINITELY has nukes?

Okay, we really went over there to set the Iraqis free? Then what about the oppression in China? Our tactic there is to give them most favored nation status in trade.

Okay, China's too big to discuss? Then there are hundreds of smaller oppressed nations all over the world who deserve to be set free but then they don't have oil, do they?

>I agree with the caller to Rush the other day who pointed out how Moore has done really well cashing in on 9/11 himself with this so-called documentary.

While Rush hasn't made a special vehicle like MM has done, I'm sure 9/11 and everything which has come after has given him and other political commentators, SAEs, and reporters (on either side) lots of material to keep themselves continuously employed. Let's not kid ourselves that MM is the only one making a buck off of a bad situation, lawyers and auto mechanics do it all the time. You can stretch this analogy out pretty far, if people would stop getting hungry those pesky farmers wouldn't be able to take advantage of us. We all make our money off of other people's needs, desires, mis-fortunes, or sorrows - tastefull or not, same as it ever was.

John O.

Christopher Hitchens article:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

Admittedly I've only skimmed it. I'll read it fully lunchtime.There is also the companion piece on Slate to Hitchen's article by movie reviewer David Edelstein, Proper Propaganda - Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 is unfair and outrageous. You got a problem with that? http://slate.msn.com/id/2102859/ (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102859/), in which I think he takes the movie more broadly (better sense of humor) as a movie than Hitchens is able to. Dear God, Hitchens does go on and on about it.

Michael Moore's *"Fahrenheit 9/11" broke records this weekend, becoming the first documentary to debut as Hollywood's top weekend film — but there are holes in the controversial film's story.

For instance, in one often-showed clip,*Moore claims that President Bush was on vacation 42 percent of the time during his first several months in office — but that estimation*included weekends at Camp David, a common practice for presidents. Without those days figured in, Bush actually spent 13 percent of his time on vacation.

The movie also criticizes Bush for staying inside a Florida classroom full of kids for a full seven minutes after he learned that the country was under attack on Sept. 11, 2001.

However, the vice chairman of the Sept. 11 commission has said that Bush did the right thing. "Bush made the right decision in remaining calm, in not rushing out of the classroom," said Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana.

In "Fahrenheit 9/11"*Moore also claims that the White House approved plans for planes to pick up relatives of Usama Bin Laden right after the attacks. But according to terrorism czar*Richard Clarke, he alone approved the Saudi flights.


In addition, Moore says that the departing Saudis were not properly processed by the FBI when leaving the country. That too is contradicted by the Sept. 11 commission, which said the Saudis were properly interviewed.

Finally, Moore shows prominent members of the Taliban visiting Texas, implying that they were invited by then-Governor Bush. The Taliban delegation, however, was invited to Houston by*UNOCAL, a California energy company.

Moore also*doesn't mention that the visit was made with the permission of the Clinton administration, which twice met with Taliban members — in 1997 and 1998.

Don't shoot the messenger here...the S.O.B. never claimed his film was unbiased...so I ask you this: how is it classified as a "documentary" when it's him spouting off his own assinine views?
That is interesting; I have noticed that it is often being called a documentary in the press, even though Moore himself has said it is an Op/Ed piece, rather than a documentary.
A man man wiser than I once told me, "If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you've got no b_lls...if you're not a conservative by the time you're 40, you've got no brains."
The way I've always heard that quote, it goes something like: "If you aren't a liberal at some point while you're under 30, you have no heart. If you are still a liberal after 30, you have no brain."

Qapla'

SSB

While Rush hasn't made a special vehicle like MM has done, I'm sure 9/11 and everything which has come after has given him and other political commentators, SAEs, and reporters (on either side) lots of material to keep themselves continuously employed.
You could say that, but Limbaugh's show was already in place. The alternative for Limbaugh (or Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Michael Medved or anyone else) would have been to either not talk about things or to take their shows off the air, neither of which is very realistic.

Qapla'

SSB

>You could say that, but Limbaugh's show was already in place.

Right. All I was really getting at is that 9/11 and related material has been "low hanging fruit" for everyone, both right and left. Thus to my thinking, the claim that MM is uniquely tasteless for making money off of it is empty. That said, I'm sure Rush's show would have kept on just fine 9/11 or not, he just wouldn't have had such easy pickings.

John O.

That is interesting; I have noticed that it is often being called a documentary in the press, even though Moore himself has said it is an Op/Ed piece, rather than a documentary.
So then why is it in the Documentary category at cannes, and most likely will be for the Oscar? :)

Christopher Hitchens article:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

Admittedly I've only skimmed it. I'll read it fully lunchtime.

There is also the companion piece on Slate to Hitchen's article by movie reviewer David Edelstein, Proper Propaganda - Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 is unfair and outrageous. You got a problem with that? http://slate.msn.com/id/2102859/ (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102859/), in which I think he takes the movie more broadly (better sense of humor) as a movie than Hitchens is able to. Dear God, Hitchens does go on and on about it.


Excellent reads both. Nice balance. Glad I read these before going to see the flick.

What impresses me a lot about conservatives is everything is either right or wrong. There's no middle ground. I wish I could be so self assured.

I like to think I have a brain and a heart. The former not so fixed that it can't be swayed by the latter.

So then why is it in the Documentary category at cannes, and most likely will be for the Oscar? :)
Because there are only so many film categories. As a producer, writer, and editor of documentaries myself (primarily for television), I feel that what I do and what Michael Moore does are two very different things. And that's part of the problem - when the average person thinks of the term "documentary", they picture a pretty color program about the African Savannah or a special on D-Day comprised of old b&w clips and interviews with veterans - in both cases bereft of any "political" content and certainly lacking any political commentary from the writer/producer/director himself, much less commentary which evidences biting humor and sarcasm. It's not really Moore's fault that film academies haven't come up with a new category for what he does. But then, Erroll Morris and Nick Broomfeild and most directors who win awards for theatrically released documentaries don't exactly cleave to the form that many of us would define as a "pure" documentary.

Yes. Been getting worse for a while. The right have personal ugly attacks and smears down to an art, and the left can't get their act together to even articulate a decent rebuttal.

I guess I was more dismayed that in this thread on this board people went right for the personal juggular without discussing issues in a civilized manner. I'm glad to see that subsequent posts have very little of vitriol, a lot more of substance. :thumbsup:

But yes, overall the political discourse in the US is in the toilet, unfortunately.

Read up on Karl Rove.

Karl Rove is the successor to Lee Atwater. I picture Rove telling Atwater someday, "When [you] left I was but a student. Now I am the Master".

José

. . . the claim that MM is uniquely tasteless for making money off of it is empty. That said, I'm sure Rush's show would have kept on just fine 9/11 or not, he just wouldn't have had such easy pickings.

Uh, I think you were responding to me initially and I never claimed that MM was unique. In fact, I was stating just the opposite -- that he's jumped on the bandwagon and done a better job than most. The point to be made is that he's being hypocritical accusing others of being wrong in making money off 9/11.

...he's being hypocritical accusing others of being wrong in making money off 9/11.Has he actually said as much? or are you inferring that from his general smug fat-faced arrogant demeanor? I don't care for the guy much (nor his media opposites like O'Reilly), but I find his work entertaining even if transparently uninformative.

Has he actually said as much? or are you inferring that from his general smug fat-faced arrogant demeanor? I don't care for the guy much (nor his media opposites like O'Reilly), but I find his work entertaining even if transparently uninformative.

Is that not part of his mantra? I thought that was one of his main points -- that the reason for invading Iraq was for Bush to get his cronies and their companies some really big bucks.

Is that not part of his mantra? I thought that was one of his main points -- that the reason for invading Iraq was for Bush to get his cronies and their companies some really big bucks.Don't you think there's a little bit of a difference between someone making a film that you and I can either chose to see or not and visiting a war on another country, ya know, where people get killed and we spend a lot of other people's money???? That comparison for the purposes of determining whether someone's a hypocrite or not is a little thin IMHO.

Apples and Oranges.

I get the impression here that some people think that the attack on the world trade centre was the start. WHY did they do it?! For kicks? Look at your foreign intervention.