Sign In Now ►
or Create A New Account ►
Rank This Matchup or Comment/Reply Below
Wow, Flickchart has in for me. Michael Moore should never ever be referred to as a documentarian. The thing I hate the most about him is the fact that I totally agree with the points of his film. If he presented the facts as they are he could make a compelling piece but instead he feels the need to completely muddy the facts. His films are complete works of fiction about real life people and situations.
I completely agree with matthew004. That said, I'm going with Columbine because it's vaguely more of a documentary than Fahrenheit.
Besides Roger & Me I think Columbine is his best "documentary". But I did feel bad for the Planet of the Apes guy at the end.
I think "Columbine" was more focused, and had better structure. "Fahrenheit" was effective, but it tried to cover an awfully lot of subjects and entirely omitted quite a lot of relevant questions and observations.
Conspiracy R US! LOL
Both films are intellectually dishonest. I used to love Roger and Me, but I've read stuff about even that film that makes me not want to trust it. If you're going to make fiction, make fiction. If you're going to make a documentary, don't try to decieve.
on Apr 17
I can't judge either of these films based on their honesty because I honestly don't know enough about the controversy surrounding them. That said, I'm more inclined to believe Columbine and accept it as a documentary and a social commentary. In terms of comparing them as films, Columbine has better pacing, better editing and is much more effective in conveying its message than Farenheit, which seems to drag on forever. Columbine wins without question.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is really good, but I think Bowling for Columbine is Moore's best film and probably one of the 10 best documentaries I've ever seen.