Fahrenheit 9/11 seems to have either enraged or enlightened anyone who watched it, depending on where his or her biases lie. Steve Rhodes wrote in his review that the documentary is only filled of "half-truths" to make everyone see Moore's skewed point of view on Bush's presidency. Fitraks and Wasserman, from free press journal are outraged at how the documentary can be seen as containing these so called "half truths", feeling that facts mentioned throughout the film really are accurate. LaSalle, from the SF Chronicle seems to be the only one who was able to view the film on a more neutral point of view. LaSalle provides the stronger review by staying away from their personal feelings towards Moore, unlike the other two reviews.
Rhodes' attitude towards Michael Moore is clear from the very first sentence of his review. He compares Moore to a person who has grown to represent the epitome of evil, Hitler.
Rhodes' sentiments towards Moore are reflected throughout his whole review, making his review more of an attack on Moore than an attack on the film. When comparing Moore and Hitler, Rhodes says, "Both men shaded reality to suit their political purposes - one for the radical right and the other for the radical left." Not only does Rhodes make is dislike for Moore apparent, but he also shows us that he sides with Bush. "Moore tries his best to make a likeable guy like Bush appear to be a complete idiot." Yet, throughout the film Moore has provided clips which show us that the president can be "a complete idiot" at times whether he be likable or not.
Rhodes appears so desperate to prove Moore wrong that he throws out some facts Moore presented in the documentary. Regarding Moore's statement that many independent investigations concluded...